williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/31/84)
I thought I would start this off without the greater than
signs. This helps avoid the `` endless quote syndrome ''. We seem
to have beaten this thing into the ground, anyways. If you wish
to quote me ( which I consider a form of flattery ), Jim, please
do not include this paragraph. I will say, however, that I do
prefer being responded to paragraph by paragraph, I consider it
an attempt at accuracy and it shows a certain respect by not
quoting me out of context. Enough side tracking.
I presented a philosophy that doesn't so much attempt to
explain the differences between reality and perspective, as much
as I was trying to establish a philosophical means of measuring
this difference. A flexable protocol is nessesary if we are to
talk intelligently. Our life systems are inherently sequential
and we are faced with the problem of expressing an analogue
universe using symbols. This is a matter of resolution. We need
to maintain a level of accuracy when descibing reality. What I
propose is this:
Understanding the nature of opposite extremes is
fundamental in the discussion of philosophy. In a great number of
philosophical books, these extremes seem to be defined in such a
way that common words take on unusable meanings in ordinary life.
Sentences begin to lose their realistic validity. This is an
extreme that I wish to identify.
In the presence of a pure logician, what I am discussing
may appear to be pure exaggeration. Defining words to have very
exact precise meanings is the foundation of logic and other forms
of systematic language. This, however, is a serious problem in
reality, because none of these words will match a real condition.
If, however, these words were to define certain boudaries
of a particular symbol, then one only has to choose a word with
the closest meaning. Sentences would then connect these symbols
with words that would define boundaries for the binding strength.
For example:
I know the sky is blue.
I think the sky is blue.
I don't know what color the sky is.
I don't think the sky is blue.
I know the sky isn't blue.
There are two symbols, sky and blue, that I wish to
establish an association with. What I showed was the various
strengths of interconnection between them. At the top, strong
connection is expressed, at the bottom, weak connection is
expressed. There is a homogenous middle where nothing is stated
except for the speaker's ignorance.
It will absolutely, positively, be there overnight.
It will positively be there overnight.
It will be there overnight.
It should be there overnight.
It may be there overnight.
It will be there soon.
It may be there soon.
It will get there.
It might get there.
It will be lost.
This is a demonstration of the various ways of
quantisizing how long it will take to ship a package. You may
already recognize it from Federal Express. ( no ad intended )
This introduces the concept of wishful thinking, and in
particular, good and bad. To say that something is either good or
bad is inherently emotional. The concept of resolution may be at
first unappealing to you for it's lack of precise definitions. It
does not attempt to define points as much as it defines space.
A virgin mind is a homogeneous symbol. As this mind is developed,
it resolves reality to increasingly detailed features. This is in
opposition to entropy. What I am saying is that the words we have
chosen to represent extremes may also be used to describe the
uncertain reality as long as we are willing to take some time to
establish this context. If there is contrast, then there is a
difference that can be studied in order to reach greater
resolution. One of the important protocols to establish is that
we recognize the way in which communication works, and the
limitations of this particular media. A negative reaction on your
part implies to me that there is a complex difference between our
styles of thought and the protocols we choose to communicate
with. I then decide whether or not I wish to spend the time to
resolve this problem with you. I certainly am not forced to
discuss this with you, and will not if I feel that we might have
to resort to less graceful measures. This is partially a
judgement of your personality, and a judgement of mine.
In light of the topic of resolution, you could of course
refuse it's existence, thereby refusing to resolve this with me,
and fullfill your own prophesy. But in my mind, the matter would
be resolved. I would understand that there is no way I can force
you to accept this.
I am in a universe that is open only to influence, and
not direct, absolute control. As I achieve greater levels of
resolution, I am better able to percieve this, and better able to
influence it to my best advantage.
I am interested in what you know,( <- there's that word
again ) and am willing to exchange ideas and help to establish a
high resolution protocol. The precise definitions established by
isolated philosophers is an extreme I wish to identify. It
requires a degree of specialization that is becoming more and
more dangerously overspecialized. It is important to remember the
value of metaphor, and to adjust the protocol in order to keep a
solid foundation with the common language. This will require some
effort and verbosity, but the end result is more descriptive.
It seems like a natural step to take, identifying the extremes,
and then agreeing on something somewhere in the middle. After
that is done, reality can be brought into closer perspective.
Resolution is then the way of transcendental articulation.
I am looking forward to your response.
----{ john williams }----
(DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS
(UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
(ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA