hens cackling at Giants
Georges Metanomski
A poet wrote:
"when a stormy vision is blowing its winds
the giants are spreading their sweeping wings
and soar up ad astra from low swampy fens
midst the cackle of scandalized hens"
Well, nothing could be truer. They get their stuff in
the nutshell, these poets. Yet, poetry is poetry and
science is science. Where a poet admires the esthetic
quality of the cackle, the principle it shares with
the popular music, viz. "the louder, the better", an
ornithologist will inquire about the deep reasons and
motivation behind the cackle, will endeavor to find
out why the hens flock together to cackle at this
soaring Giant, rather than at the other.
Science starts by inventories: Mendeleyev table
preceded the Atom Model of Bohr.
So let's start by establishing an inventory of Giants
most loudly cackled at, before investigating the
underlying reasons and motivations.
Three spring to the mind: Descartes, Darwin and
Einstein. Yet, this inventory may seem too coarse,
too restricted. That's why, before proceeding to the
proper scientific inquiry, I would be grateful for
suggestions of other, loudly cackled at Giants.
Thanks in advance,
Georges.
======================================================
____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
einseele
domain when doing epistemology.
Somehow is always taken as a comment, a note, and then science is
privileged as if knowledge were more related to science than to
poetry.
Much on the contrary, IMO, poetry prevails strongly when we talk about
knowledge as it deals with the worst tools available, words.
But, differently from science, poetry does not hide this obvious
limitation words represent.
That is the reason Einstein said (and continues to do it) "God does
not play dice with the universe"
He was (and still is) a Giant, no doubt, but pay attention to the
line, he had to use poetry to explain... what?. This is not just about
determination, this is as well about God, about Universe, about him,
and about beauty as well. Come on, say it in other words, will not be
easy. Poetry is not.
And yes, poets ...<"They get their stuff in the nutshell..."
See your own post, you wanted to point a simple list: Descartes,
Darwin and Einstein. but you tried to say it nicely, there is a sort
of pretension there. Allow me to be as harsh as you use to be. May be
you know about science, but you know nothing about poetry, yor vision
is naive, a "kitchen poetry" and coarse indeed. BTW, Giants are uggly,
(although I understand your poetic intention)
Georges Metanomski
--- einseele <Eins...@gmail.com> wrote:
====================================================
I certainly don't know anything about poetry, but
then, some people say, that there is nothing to KNOW
about it, just to write. Be it as it may, you don't
seem to know how to read it: I did not intend just
to make a list, but rather to evoke with the poet
the cackling flocks of hens.
I asked for suggestions of other cackled at Giants.
You don't suggest anything, so your answer is NTP.
As to "God playing dice", it's premature. We are
still trying to make an inventory.
We are not yet at Ornithology. We shall have there
enough time to study hens cackling about Cogito and
about God playing Dices to the hypersuperdimensional
String music of the omniprehensive
hypersuperconsciousness.
Georges
====================================================
____________________________________________________________________________________Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
Jan Braeken
Think.
Cheers !
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens einseele
Verzonden: zondag 13 mei 2007 16:44
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 5098] Re: hens cackling at Giants
Tonguessy
On 13 Mag, 16:44, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> poetry prevails strongly when we talk about
> knowledge as it deals with the worst tools available, words.
> But, differently from science, poetry does not hide this obvious
> limitation words represent.
Words are available to anyone in modern societies. So is poetry, which
greatly differs from a mathematical description just because of this.
Symbols are related to functions. Older symbols/functions are better
implemented in societies and grant better, smoother results.
Of course this is another NTP comment, deserving to be chased from
this thread. He and only he knows what's pertinent and what's not, and
we must gently obey.
Regards
Tonguessy
Georges Metanomski
"when a stormy vision is blowing its winds
the giants are spreading their sweeping wings
and soar up ad astra from low swampy fens
midst the cackle of scandalized hens"
And we have picked up three Giants particularly
cackled at for our future ornithological study
of hens' habits: Descartes, Darwin and Einstein.
It did not find grace in the eyes of Einseele, who
said with disgust that "Giants are uggly". He should
have posted to Newton, who wrote: "If I have seen
further it is by standing upon the shoulders of
giants" (Galileo, Descartes, Kepler). Some people
rather like it and that's where our poet found his
inspiration.
Another friend noticed that hens don't only cackle
the odium of Giants, but also the glory of inflated
dwarfs, proposing Russell and his followers, mainly
Goedel in this quality.
Any more suggestions?
If not, we shall pass to the Ornithology.
Georges.
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Georges Metanomski
"when a stormy vision is blowing its winds
the giants are spreading their sweeping wings
and soar up ad astra from low swampy fens
midst the cackle of scandalized hens"
And we have started by picking up three Giants
particularly cackled at, for our future ornithological
study of hens' habits: Descartes, Darwin and Einstein.
A friend noticed that hens don't only cackle the odium
of Giants, but also the glory of inflated dwarfs, and
suggested Russell and his followers, mainly Goedel in
this quality.
Another friend objected that we neglect the Giant of
Giants, Copernicus and suggested him in rather
poetical way:
"Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have
exerted
a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine
of Copernicus. The world had scarcely become known as
round and complete in itself when it was asked to
waive
the tremendous privilege of being the center of the
universe. Never, perhaps, was a greater demand made on
mankind - for by this admission so many things
vanished
in mist and smoke! What became of our Eden, our world
of innocence, piety and poetry; the testimony of the
senses; the conviction of a poetic - religious faith?
No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all
this go and offered every possible resistance to a
doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded
a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far
unknown, indeed not even dreamed of."
So we stay for the moment with Giants: Copernicus,
Descartes, Darwin, Einstein,
and with inflated dwarfs: Russell, Wittgenstein,
Quine,
Church, Tarski, etc., etc., headed by Goedel.
Any more suggestions?
If not, we shall pass to the Ornithology.
Georges.
____________________________________________________________________________________You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
Georges Metanomski
In the present message we consider the flocks of
cackling hens, their underlying reasons and usual
social forms. In other terms:
1.why do hens flock together to cackle the odium of
somebody in particular?
2.why do hens flock together to cackle the glory of
somebody in particular?
3.How do their flocks manifest themselves socially?
Hens' View is clearly Naive (see Appendix), so they
obviously cackle
-against anything scandalously rational and
-for anything, preferably prominent, endorsing the
soothing naivety.
Yet, being naive, not to say stupid, they are usually
unable to notice by themselves any remarkable thought,
nor to distinguish foes from friends. Their flocking
has to be triggered and consolidated by some external
agent.
Political and religious interest springs to the mind
with the stakes of Inquisition handling Heliocentrism
and the neo-inquisition lobbies battling Evolution.
Another shade of consolidating factor may be called
"Marat's Syndrome". Marat had scientific ambitions
and,
prior to the Revolution, presented his ideas to
Lavoisier, who rejected them rightly as vacuous.
Triumphing Terror revenged the deception of its great
man by declaring "The Republic does not need
scientists" and beheading Lavoisier. Although Marat's
Syndrome is not always murderous, we shall designate
by it the embittered attitude of scientists who saw
their theories wrecked and lacked the greatness to
raise from the ruins to new heights.
Inquisitions account for Copernicus and Darvin, but
neither Descartes nor Einstein can be considered as
victims of political or religious persecution. And,
strangely enough, the anti-cartesian jihad is a recent
event lasting only a few decades. We face here a new
phenomenon resembling the nuclear chain reaction
triggered by a critical mass: crowds of hens joined
by Internet consolidate into cackling flocks by
persistent repetition of naive, yet fashionable
inanities.
Any suggestions of other mechanisms behind the
flocking of hens?
If not, we shall progress to our ornithological study
in the order of cackling at Copernicus, Descartes,
Darwin and Einstein, finishing with the triumphal
symphony to the glory of inflated dwarfs of naive
"Logic" and Set Theory.
Georges.
======================================================
Appendix, a few quotations from the OUTLINE OF THE
SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
(http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0a_outline.html)
NOTE: neologies and ambiguous terms clarified in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/APPENDIX/fa_glossary.html
are marked "[G]".
An unfortunate homonymy collects under the term
"Philosophy"
two strictly disjoined domains and conflicting
attitudes:
1.Dogmatism, which is nothing else than Naive View
(NV)[G],
also called Naive Realism or Naive Common Sense. NV
presumes
a directly cognizable "Reality", consisting of
"material"
"Objects" occupying space and having properties such
as size,
shape, smell, taste and colour exactly as we perceive
them.
NV is Dogmatic: it reposes in unshakable faith in
"reality"
and in its "objects" being directly cognizable a
priori.
NV is Noumenal: it takes its "objects" as Noumena
"having"
Properties (or Attributes), as autonomous "containers"
of
Attributes, absolute, existing as such (Dinge an
sich),
independently from them, also in their total absence.
Reciprocally, Dogmatism and Noumenalism are synonyms
of NV
often dressed-up in formidable highbrow verbiage.
2.Rationality, which, unlike Dogmatism reposing in
faith,
reposes in doubt. It considers naive "reality" as
uncertain
appearance, endeavors to interpret it and subjects the
interpretations to empiric verification.
It considers its Entities[G] or Phenomena as
structures of
Attributes (or Aspects[G]) and nothing else: a single
Attribute is already a full-fledged Entity and Entity
void
of Attributes is a nonsense.
Delivered from the phantasm of underlying absolute
Ding an
sich, Entity reduced to structure of Attributes
becomes
clearly relative, thus apparently circular. However,
this
apparent circularity elongated along the time
dimension
becomes Reflection Spiral enriching with each tour the
Cognition with new perceptions and inferences and
progressing
by successive approximation through a vague swamp
towards
unreachable absolute certainty.
Rationality can be bought only at the cost of
relativity and
fuzziness. It starts by overcoming naive Dogmatism.
Naive Common Sense guided original Humans in their
struggle
for survival. It was assisted by natural languages
which
came forth and developed to express NV and to support
human
groups in their struggle against the hostile
"Reality".
The principal linguistic construct supporting the NV
is the
Predicative Assignment Expression "[E] & [A]", where
"E"
stands for "Entity", "A" - for "Attribute" and "&",
the
symbolic Assign Operator, replaces the copula "is/has"
(e.g.
"my-car"[E] is "green"[A] or "my-car"[E] has
"greenness"[A]).
Symbolic Operator "&" takes in object languages the
value of
respective copulas or, like in Semitic languages, is
implied.
It protects us also from the usual noumenalistic
jumble
elevating illegal verbal inflections of the copula
"be" to
the Olympian heights of ontological "Beings".
The Assignment Expression "[E] & [A]" is glaringly a
naive,
noumenal, "container/contained" structure.
======================================================
____________________________________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
zinnic
> NOTE: neologies and ambiguous terms clarified inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/APPENDIX/fa_glossary.html
> ____________________________________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato?
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+fo..
Hens of the world your Saviour has spoken. A cock has crowed that
the sun will arise, For confirmation read his authentic and
impressive cockadoodledoos, but for the plain truth look to the east
pre-dawn. Then be patient whilst the dick (sorry. the cock) explains
to us how stupid every one else is compared to him ( the cock) who
crows the obvious.
Zinnic