Registered: Mar 2005
"all different and all not very illuminating. There is a notion of equality in all fields, there is a notion of distinction in all fields, there is a notion of existence in all fields, there is a notion of effect or consequence in all fields, etc. This does not mean that one can understand all fields, independent of their actual specific content, as instances of a single philosophical notion."
You are correct..
But... there is one problem here, which is not a problem within what you have said, but a paradox that i see now..
You speak of the fields and the "understanding" of them in relation to their specific content.
That is to say, the field is understood in terms of these properties; the equality, distinction, existence, effect or consequence of these fields are the substance..
And that one cannot understand all fields independent of their properties, their substance; within a vague philosophical notion no "understanding" arises?..
The problem is within the application, the manifestation of that which is the "understanding".
One may very well "understand" all ‘n’ amount of fields within a vague philosophical notion but what does this "understanding" constitute? What does this mean?
It could be a simple intellectual rigidity which allows one to justify their actions, no matter the “field” which comes at them, they wrap that field into their vague notion and this wrapping becomes the “application” or manifestation of that particular form of “understanding”… A capability arises.
This word "understanding" as I see can fall into only two categories, an understanding within intellect, or an understanding within affect.
An understanding within intellect is our ability as human beings to decipher knowledge and make our selves aware of the implications within the relations of conceptual items.
An understanding within affect is independent of human abilities but revolves around a specific "phenomena" it self which is regular in terms of it's coherence, or incoherence for that matter...
That is, a phenomena or process existing and functioning tangibly, whether or not a human intellect can decipher it intellectually.
Some times we humans make a mistake and we mix the two together, we make a vague philosophical or intellectual notion and then we try to form the phenomena that we witness into that notion...
It seems sometimes it is the only way we can “get” to our intellectual understanding is to create (barrow most of the time) a notion and then form phenomena around that notion so as to give a understanding, a “function”. Which happens to be our application of that understanding, an application which in the end results in a capability.
Even math with it’s precise abilities is a version of this “mixing“.
A very reliable version which is fruitful in terms of “capabilities” that we can create when we form the phenomena into the “notion”, capabilities that I think relate well to our overall agenda as human beings, but have nothing really to do with “knowledge or understanding” in the regular sense of the words.
But have to do with capability, power, structure, reliability and what ever we feel we “need”…
Which is why I say, we cannot let the two sides mix too much, or we create what is basically “babble”.
A search for meaning within a plethora of seemingly meaningless data..
Perhaps it is an emotionality of the human who dreams this meaning that is creating a barrier, a sense of justifcation of worth… Meaning...
Meaning then… if that, then we should take care in what we create within our “intellectual” understanding.
Because sometimes we forget that all this “Science” that is being done is not really being done to find meaning, or knowledge…
But to create… yes.. Create application.
Theory and Data are the substance from which you set up the next step to create your application.
And if we can remember that, then we run less of a risk of letting our power be drained into a frivolous purist of vague philosophical notions which we create to justify our emotionality as humans, create a sense of meaning.
And meaning it self, should never be found within science…
For science is not a function of meaning, but of capability.
And the intention of creation leads one to a capability, and it is the form of that intention which is more impacting in terms of definition then any form of intellectually created "meaning".
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.
Last edited by Enexseenge on 09-11-2006 at 08:38 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged