more like the "programming pearls" that were published in the 80s and 90s.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 6:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Dave writes: > > “Got into Software world via the patterns community” > > The difference between metaprogramming and patterns, is that metaprogramming > is put to work, and patterns is talk. > > Marcus > > *From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West > <profw...@fastmail.fm> > *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:15 AM > *To: *"friam@redfish.com" <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > QWAN - Quality Without A Name - from Christopher Alexander, most prominently > in his book *The Timeless Way of Building*. Got into Software world via the > patterns community and the Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and Vlissides book, *Design > Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software.* > > Alexander claimed that some architecture exhibited QWAN and that it was > cross-cultural and universally recognized. His last work — the four volume > Nature of Order — replaced QWAN with "Liveness" which arises from fifteen > properties: e.g. centers, boundaries, deep interlock and ambiguity, etc. > > davew > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 4:34 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Who knew this: >> >> Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary >> qwan. Acronym. Quality Without A Name - in computer programming QWAN refers >> to a more metaphysical attribute that expresses elegancy of code. >> >> ? >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 8:52 AM Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >>> Dave - >>> I myself am having an ineffable experience just now, as my drive through >>> the big-rock country has taken on a Mad Max quality (simile borrowed from a >>> friend on his own Hellride back up the coast of CA after retrieving his >>> college son, with counties closing down behind him as he rolls through). >>> FWIW, I was pretty close to your brother's place on this trip but didn't >>> give over to the thought of stopping by and asking if I could help dig an >>> extra bunker or two. Bunker rhymes with hunker. >>> I think your enumeration of "reasons" for "cannot express in words" covers >>> the space well, but as a self-referential example naturally fails for many >>> of the reasons you cite. It is rather concise to reference "knowing ABOUT" >>> vs "knowing", the biggest failing I find amongst our discussions here on >>> FriAM... perhaps convenings of the Mother Church itself do better? >>> I am also reminded of JIddu Krishnamurti's "cousin", also a Krishnamurti >>> who, when asked of Jiddu's knowledge/wisdom/perception reluctantly replied >>> "Jiddu has held the sugar cube in the palm of his hand, but he has not >>> tasted it". >>> Context;SignVsSignifier;Incompleteness;Paradox;EtCetera >>> We have words/phrases LIKE ineffable;QWAN;je ne sais quois "for a reason" >>> though circularly, said reason cannot be described, merely "gestured in the >>> direction of"? >>> Carry On, >>> - Steve >>> PS. The Sheriff shut down Durango just as we slipped into a motel here and >>> will be raiding *their* City Market before we drive toward home... Gas tank >>> is fullish, within range I think, though fueling is not closed, just >>> virtually everything else. I will check for TP there out of curiosity, but >>> we have a dozen rolls at home unless our house-sitter snatched them all for >>> HER hoard. Time to start raking, drying, sorting the cottonwood leaves >>> methinks! Are you sorry you are in Weesp rather than Utah for this >>> incipient "Jackpot"? >>> On 3/17/20 4:16 AM, Prof David West wrote: >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> You are correct: I assert that you can know things of which you cannot >>>> speak; but there is still too much ambiguity in that statement. It would >>>> be more correct to say: some experiences are not expressible in words. I >>>> am making a narrow, but ubiquitous, claim — ubiquitous, because all of us >>>> have a ton of experiences that we cannot express in words. >>>> >>>> Another dimension of precision, "cannot express in words" can mean: 1) we >>>> do not have enough words; 2) we do not have the right words; 3) any >>>> expression in words fails the capture the whole of the experience; 4) >>>> translating the experience to words creates a conflict (e.g. a paradox) in >>>> the words that was not present in the experience; 5) words are mere >>>> symbols (pointers or representations) and never the "thing" itself >>>> (Korzibski); 6) missing context; and/or 7) the grammar of the language >>>> mandates untrue or less than true assertions. Probably a few other ways >>>> that language fails. >>>> >>>> This is not to deny the possibility of a language that could express some >>>> of these experiences. We have myths of such languages; e.g. The language >>>> of the birds that Odin used to communicate with Huggin and Muninn. Maybe >>>> there is some element of fact behind the myths? >>>> >>>> It does not preclude using words in a non-representational way to >>>> communicate. Words can be evocative, recall to present experience, >>>> experiences past. Poetry does this. Nor does it preclude non-verbal, e.g. >>>> painting, as an evocative means of "bring to mind" experiences. (There is >>>> a lot of evidence that evocation can bring to mind experience that the >>>> construct called Nick did not itself experience — evidence that led Jung >>>> to posit the "collective unconscious.") >>>> >>>> It is also quite possible to talk *_about_* experience rather than *_of_* >>>> experience. Mystics to this all the time, but always with the caveat that >>>> what is said *_about_* IT is *_not_* IT. >>>> >>>> A specific example: Huxley talks about "the Is-ness" of flower and the >>>> variability of Time. Heidegger and his followers have written volumes >>>> *_about_* Is-ness and Time. One more: Whitehead and process philosophers >>>> have written volumes *_about_* a dynamic, in constant flux, Reality; that >>>> I have experience * _of_*. >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 11:10 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Yeah, Dave, I screwed it up by mixing up “speaking of” and “knowing”. >>>>> >>>>> I would never expect that you would sign up for a conversation about that >>>>> of which we cannot know. But, others at friam, if I understood them >>>>> correctly, HAVE tried to engage me in such a conversation. >>>>> >>>>> I think you would agree that that of which we cannot speak, we cannot >>>>> speak. [Tautology] >>>>> >>>>> And you also would agree that which we cannot know we cannot know. >>>>> [Another tautology} >>>>> >>>>> And I think it also follows that we cannot speak of what we cannot know, >>>>> since we would have no basis on which to speak of it. >>>>> Well, except possibly to say we do not know it, perhaps. I don’t want to >>>>> die on that hill. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But you insist that the inverse is not true. We can and do know things of >>>>> which we cannot speak. So we might be having a conversation about how to >>>>> move such things into the domain of speechable. Your goal, in that case, >>>>> would be as hunter, sent out into the domain of the unspeakable to >>>>> capture some specimen from that world and drag it back. Think, again, >>>>> Castenada. >>>>> >>>>> Or, we might be having a conversation about how we might transfer >>>>> knowledge in ways other than speech. You giving me a dose of some >>>>> substance that you have already had a dose of would seem to be of this >>>>> second sort. Think Don Juan. >>>>> >>>>> Hastily, >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> PS. Any philosopher that holds that “knowledge” can only applied to true >>>>> belief would not understand this conversation because I think we share >>>>> the idea that there is probably no such thing as true belief in that >>>>> sense and that therefore you and I are always talking about provisional >>>>> knowledge, unless we are talking about an aspiration we might share to >>>>> arrive at that upon which the community of inquiry will converge in the >>>>> very long run. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>>> Clark University >>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM >>>>> *To:* friam@redfish.com >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nick, >>>>> >>>>> The only time that I have said something is "unknowable" is referencing >>>>> complex systems that some variables and some relations among variables in >>>>> a complex system are literally unknowable. The context for such a >>>>> statement is computing / software / and software engineering with a heavy >>>>> timeline element. Pretty sure it has never appeared on this list. >>>>> >>>>> What I do say, and will repeat, there are things you can know that you >>>>> cannot articulate in language. There is Experience of which you cannot >>>>> speak. >>>>> >>>>> I am pretty sure my assertion is 180 degree opposite of what you think I >>>>> may have been saying. Rest assured that I would never assert that there >>>>> are things that are unknowable. >>>>> >>>>> What needs care, and I have tried to do this, is to consistently use the >>>>> same vocabulary — in this case experience. So I say there are experiences >>>>> that cannot be put into words. Some of those experiences are worth >>>>> experiencing. >>>>> >>>>> You said "(Or speak of them which is the same thing.)" Equating "knowing" >>>>> with "speaking" is an error. Using "knowing" and "experiencing" as >>>>> synonyms is not. >>>>> >>>>> davew >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, at 5:39 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Dave, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for this. And it goes very well most of the way, but there is one >>>>>> spot where you persistently misunderstand me, and so I will go directly >>>>>> to that: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot >>>>>> > speak" is non-sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**It is no, everyone has experienced that of which they cannot speak. >>>>>> You can know something and you can know about something. You can know >>>>>> the experience of high or low insulin levels, you can know a lot about >>>>>> insulin and diabetes. You can speak about the latter knowledge, you >>>>>> cannot speak the former. >>>>>> >>>>>> PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THIS NAILED DOWN TODAY. The >>>>>> claim that I am referring to, which I have heard made by my colleague >>>>>> dualists, is not that there are things that I know nothing of, or that >>>>>> you and I know nothing of, or that at any finite grouping of human >>>>>> beings or cognitive systems know nothing of. It is the claim that there >>>>>> are things about which it is impossible to know, period, and that yet, >>>>>> we should try to know them. (Or speak of them, which is the same thing.) >>>>>> (Damn! I was just induced to do it!) That is non-sense. Or a paradox. Or >>>>>> both. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you might (others have) insisted that while the statement is a >>>>>> logical paradox (I would call paradoxes non-sense), the contemplation of >>>>>> paradoxes might lead me to knowledge. I worry this might even be one of >>>>>> the methods you prescribe when you speak of a deep dive. If so, I guess >>>>>> I have a right to ask (at least in Western Practice) what is the theory >>>>>> that tells you that these methods will lead to truth or wisdom, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric may enter the conversation at this point and start to talk about >>>>>> castles in the sky. We can build castles in the sky, and talk about >>>>>> them, and even argue, from text, or logic, about the color of the third >>>>>> turret to the right on the north wall. And we might find a lot of inner >>>>>> peace and sense of coherence by engaging in this sort of “knowledge >>>>>> gathering” with others. But I think, if he does, his claim will be >>>>>> irrelevant. Knowledge about castles in the sky, however deeply codified, >>>>>> is fake knowledge in the sense that it lacks the essential element of >>>>>> claims of knowledge, which is the claim that, in the fullness of time, >>>>>> the arc of inquiry bends to the position that I or you are now >>>>>> asserting. Someday, people will actually walk in its corridors and >>>>>> admire its battlements. Kings and queens will reighn, here. That is what >>>>>> a castle IS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Later in the day, when I have gotten control of my morning covid19 >>>>>> anxiety, I may try to lard your message below, but right now, I hope to >>>>>> straighten out this particular misunderstanding. When I speak of “we” >>>>>> who cannot know, I am NOT referring to you and or me or any other finite >>>>>> population of knowers, but to what can NOT known by all cognitive >>>>>> systems in the far reach of time. I still assert, despite your patient >>>>>> and kind argumentation, that to speak of “our knowing” THAT is nonsense. >>>>>> Actually, to speak of NOT knowing it, is nonsense, also. It’s just >>>>>> logic, right? Mathematics. Tautology, even. Even Frank would agree. >>>>>> RIGHT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Only when we have settled on that logical point does it make sense to go >>>>>> on and talk about how you, and I and Glen and Marcus are going to come >>>>>> to know, that which we do not now know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>>>> Clark University >>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:54 AM >>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com >>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >>>>>> >>>>>> comments embedded. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 5:26 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> > Dave and Glen, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It's great to see your two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk >>>>>> > of taking the discussion back to absurdity, let me try to express, in >>>>>> > laughably simple terms, what I hear you guys agreeing to. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I have been taught a way of thinking about science that is western. >>>>>> > Like all ways of thinking it both sights me and blinds me. Nobody >>>>>> > knows everything; everybody knows what they know. Nobody should >>>>>> > presume to judge what they don't know. I don't know Eastern ways of >>>>>> > thinking. I have no basis on which to claim privilege for my western >>>>>> > ways of thinking about science. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Now, as a person who has always delighted in attending discussions >>>>>> > among people who do not agree, and always fascinated by the >>>>>> > possibility of convergence of opinion, what do I do when Dave (or Kim, >>>>>> > or others) highlight the fact that there are whole ways of thinking >>>>>> > that I just do not know anything about? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > One way would be to shrug. AW heck, you go your way, I will go mine. I >>>>>> > can't do that. Shrugging is just not in my natire. I need to try to >>>>>> > integrate discordant ideas held by people I respect. Now, it is >>>>>> > possible that need is, in itself, Western. And what an eastern >>>>>> > philosophy would tell me is to put aside that need. >>>>>> >>>>>> DW** Eastern ways of thinking would tell you to do a deep dive into that >>>>>> need. You will never, so they would say, truly understand your partial, >>>>>> Western, way of knowing absent the ability to integrate that way of >>>>>> thinking into a holistic mode of thinking.**DW >>>>>> >>>>>> Often >>>>>> > developmental psychologists among my acquaintances have asserted that >>>>>> > my quest for agreement is a kind of invasion of their mental >>>>>> > territory, that each person is entitled to his own individual and >>>>>> > pristine experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> DW** and Eastern ways would state that all "individual" and "pristine >>>>>> experience" is purely an illusion, but there is a Reality behind that >>>>>> illusion (no, not a Cartesian dualism — still maintaining an experience >>>>>> monism here) — a One (shared) behind the ones (individual).**DW >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Let's say you come to me and tell me that you hold in your hand an >>>>>> > instrument of great wisdom, a revolver. And if I will only put it to >>>>>> > my head, and pull the trigger, I will have knowledge and understanding >>>>>> > beyond anything I can now imagine. I would be reluctant to follow >>>>>> > that advice. Is that western? >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**No that is universally human common sense. And, as I am not in the >>>>>> habit of encouraging people to kill themselves, such an offer would >>>>>> never be extended.**DW >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot >>>>>> > speak" is non-sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**It is no, everyone has experienced that of which they cannot speak. >>>>>> You can know something and you can know about something. You can know >>>>>> the experience of high or low insulin levels, you can know a lot about >>>>>> insulin and diabetes. You can speak about the latter knowledge, you >>>>>> cannot speak the former. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am baking bread and just pulled the loaves out of the oven. I know >>>>>> when I have kneaded the dough enough to get the consistence I want in >>>>>> the final product but I cannot speak that knowledge. I can speak of it — >>>>>> employing lots of metaphors — but cannot speak it or communicate it >>>>>> directly**DW >>>>>> >>>>>> To say, as an occasional member of the home >>>>>> > congregation occasionally says, "What if there is a world out there >>>>>> > which is totally beyond all forms of human understanding" is non-sense. >>>>>> > As Wittgenstein says, the beetle divides out. Is an Eastern >>>>>> > philosopher going to reply, "Ah Nick, such a paradox is not non-sense >>>>>> > but the beginning of wisdom." >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**be careful of word games — be true to your experience monism. >>>>>> Suppose, at my next FriAM I say to you, you know Nick there are >>>>>> 'experiences' that are beyond 'understanding'. There are many ways to >>>>>> interpret that sentence. I could be saying something like "You will >>>>>> experience death. Do you understand it? Will you understand it once you >>>>>> experience it? The latter is tough, because in your Western way of >>>>>> thinking, death is the end and it is certain that "you" will no longer >>>>>> be extant to understand anything. ——Interesting question: will "you" >>>>>> actually experience death or is death a non experience because there is >>>>>> no experiencer? —— The Tibetan Book of the Dead is premised on the >>>>>> certainty that "you" will experience death, find it rather terrifying, >>>>>> and could use some expert guidance on how to navigate the experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> In stating that there is experience beyond understanding, I might be >>>>>> merely asserting that there are no words or phrases that adequately >>>>>> represent the totality of the experience and if 'understanding' requires >>>>>> linguistic, symbolic, or algorithmic expression than 'understanding' is >>>>>> impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are other possible "meanings" in the phrase "experience beyond >>>>>> understanding," but for later. **DW >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Or perhaps, the eastern philosopher would say, No, No, Nick, you have >>>>>> > it all wrong. If you seek that sense of convergence, go for it >>>>>> > directly. Don't argue with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them, >>>>>> > play Russian roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words! >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**You will have to play Russian Roulette by yourself, I'll not >>>>>> participate. I will accept the hug and a drink. I'll even share a slice >>>>>> of the warm bread I just made. Delicious even if I am the only one >>>>>> saying so. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am pretty certain the the revolver of which you speak is a euphemism >>>>>> for psychedelics. If so, it is a particularly bad metaphor, one that >>>>>> might express your fears — fears that ALL empirical evidence confirm are >>>>>> unfounded — than it is of the actual use/experience. [Caveat: there are >>>>>> some instances were the psychedelic provides a tipping point for a >>>>>> psychological ill effect, and overdoses can damage the physiology — but >>>>>> "ordinary" use of psylocibin, mescaline, DMT, and LSD cause no harm of >>>>>> any form.]**DW >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are >>>>>> > we talking? >>>>>> >>>>>> DW**The Limit of Discourse is, at minimum, when all possible >>>>>> permutations of the 600,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary, have >>>>>> been exchanged and we still lack agreement/convergence. But, then we >>>>>> would have to consider all the other Natural Languages (maybe even those >>>>>> like the one found in the Voinich Manuscript), all of art and music, and >>>>>> body language. Metaphor adds yet another dimension that would need to be >>>>>> taken into consideration.**DW >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Nick >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Nicholas Thompson >>>>>> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>>>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ? >>>>>> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM >>>>>> > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> >>>>>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The >>>>>> > lost opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective >>>>>> > enterprises. Similar opportunity costs color the efforts of any large >>>>>> > scale enterprise. I can't blame science or scientists for their lost >>>>>> > opportunities because triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of >>>>>> > kinship for you out there. I saw this the other day: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Your Mind is an Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David >>>>>> > Foster Wallace >>>>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I'm tempted to dive into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist, >>>>>> > Hermetics). But my contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from >>>>>> > any contributions I hope others make. I've spent far too little of my >>>>>> > life in those domains. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > [†] Both for the individual trying to decide what to spend their life >>>>>> > researching and the whole (as Wolpert points out >>>>>> > <https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf>). >>>>>> > Most of the prejudice I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though. >>>>>> > Even virulent scientismists seem to be victims of their own, personally >>>>>> > felt, opportunity costs. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 3/14/20 3:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: >>>>>> > > Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > You are certainly correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply >>>>>> > > impatience. But, I am here now, with these questions, and with a >>>>>> > > limited window within which to be patient. Should my great >>>>>> > > grandchildren have my interests, Science might serve them well, but >>>>>> > > is is frustrating right now. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Science is far more reflective that I generally give it credit for. >>>>>> > > Your examples, save one, illustrate that. The one that I object to >>>>>> > > is "assessing scientific literacy" which, based on limited exposure, >>>>>> > > seems to be more of "checking to see if you are bright enough to >>>>>> > > agree with us" than evaluating what it would mean to be >>>>>> > > scientifically literate. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > A closely related, I think, topic is the push by computer science to >>>>>> > > have "computational thinking" embedded in elementary and secondary >>>>>> > > education as "essential." Computational thinking is exactly the >>>>>> > > wrong kind of thinking as most of the critical things we need to >>>>>> > > think about are not algorithmic in nature. The scientific and >>>>>> > > computational part of the climate crisis is the easy part. figuring >>>>>> > > out the complex social-cultural-economic-politcal answers to the >>>>>> > > problem is the hard part and I doubt it is reducible to scientific >>>>>> > > thinking and absolutely positive it is not amenable to computational >>>>>> > > thinking. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Maybe when Hari Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will >>>>>> > > be >>>>>> > > different. :) >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > It may very well be possible to develop a science of philosophy, but >>>>>> > > it will require relinquishing what, again to me, appears to be a >>>>>> > > double standard. Scientists are willing to wax philosophical about >>>>>> > > quantum interpretations but would, 99 times out of a hundred, reject >>>>>> > > out of hand any discussion of the cosmological philosophy in the >>>>>> > > Vaisesika Sutras — despite the fact that that Schrodinger says the >>>>>> > > idea for superposition came from the Upanishads. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > George Everest (the mountain is named after him) introduced Vedic >>>>>> > > teachings on math and logic to George Boole, Augustus de Morgan, and >>>>>> > > Charles Babbage; shaping the evolution of Vector Analysis, Boolean >>>>>> > > Logic, and a whole lot of math behind computer science. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > One could make a very strong argument that most of the Science that >>>>>> > > emerged in England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived >>>>>> > > from Vedic and some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in >>>>>> > > any science today with a dissertation proposal that incorporated >>>>>> > > Akasa. [The Vedas posited five elements as the constituents of the >>>>>> > > universe — Aristotle's four, earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa, >>>>>> > > which is consciousness.] >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Swami Vivekananda once explained Vedic philosophical ideas about the >>>>>> > > relationship between energy and matter to Nicholas Tesla. Tesla >>>>>> > > tried for years to find the equation that Einstein came up with much >>>>>> > > later. Try to get a research grant for something like that. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > A practical question: how would one go about developing a "science" >>>>>> > > of the philosophy of Hermetic Alchemy and its 2500 years of >>>>>> > > philosophical investigation. Information, perhaps deep insights, >>>>>> > > that was tossed out the window simply because some pseudo-alchemists >>>>>> > > tried to con people into thinking that lead could be turned into >>>>>> > > gold. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Of course the proposal for developing such a science would have to >>>>>> > > be at least eligible for grants and gaining tenure, or it is not, in >>>>>> > > a practicial (take note Nick) sense. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > ☣ uǝlƃ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ============================================================ >>>>>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >>>>>> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ============================================================ >>>>>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>>> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
