[PD] CVs

[Andy Farnell]

Picking this great thread up again, hope
that's okay; 

I have a feeling that logical consistency didn't bother
the ancients quite so much Bryan. My guess is that's
more of a rational, Enlightenment hangup. 

If Socrates played language games with "truth" it was a
playful poking mankind with sharp sticks, not an anxiety
about nature itself. All those pre-Socratics (Anaximander, 
Thales etc) were on a very confident footing about the world, 
basically; as for Wittgenstein much nearer our own time, "the
world is whatever is the case" (where the case may vary from
time to time). The concern back then was more about human
values and representations, after such terrible wars the basis
of everything fell into question.

What Plato tried to address in thought, like Godel in logic 
was that we are "incomplete", if there is universality, a
one, a good, and there is an I to observe it, but still be 
of the one, it must invoke a third concept, an existential
relation. And that's where the tear begins. Here in the 21st 
Century the wound still bleeds. Extending Korzybski's map and 
territory, the system is not the society, the sample is not the 
sound... etc

a.
 








mystical ways, qualities of the one.. axes or poles,
like light and dark, but 

On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:09:02 +0200
Bryan Jurish <jurish at uni-potsdam.de> wrote:

> On 2011-05-26 14:58, Andy Farnell wrote:
> > Alan Watts, and to some extent Pierre Grimes analysing
> > Plato, gave me some good thoughts on this. 
> > 
> > If we weren't neural networks, prone to classification,
> > the question might be, are there different kinds of
> > intelligence? Or is what we do, (throwing boundaries 
> > around things and concepts), intelligence by definition
> > only?
> 
> I'm not at all sure what `intelligence' is, but I don't think that
> matters too much.  The really tricky terms (at least for me) are things
> like "logical consistency", and of course the ubiquitous "truth" and
> "reference" (I suppose intelligence plays into it if you think that only
> intelligent beings can appreciate such things).  Since we're trading
> snappy quotes, here's one:
> 
> "... there is the question which is hardest of all and most perplexing,
> whether unity and being, as the Pythagoreans and Plato said, are not
> attributes of something else but the substance of existing things, or
> this is not the case, but the substratum is something else"
>  - Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book III
> 
> marmosets,
> 	Bryan
> 
> -- 
> ***************************************************
> 
> Bryan Jurish
> Deutsches Textarchiv
> Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
> 
> Jägerstr. 22/23
> 10117 Berlin
> 
> Tel.:      +49 (0)30 20370 539
> E-Mail:    jurish at bbaw.de
> 
> ***************************************************


-- 
Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>