PROGRESSION

[Matthew]

From Vilém Flusser's communication/media theory:

"To progress may not mean to advance, not to go from one thing to
another, but it may mean to instead return over and over again to a
very few points, in an effort to get involved with them and thus go
into them even deeper. Of course: this meaning of progress has always
been the sign which distinguishes greatness. Mozart comes back over
and over again to the same problem of harmony, Van Gogh to the same
problem of color, Newton to the same problem of force over distances,
Platon to the same problem of form, and as they come back to it over
and over again they progress."

Progress, in other words, would seem to be defined by either distance
or depth. Could it be both? Does one usually predominate?

[cassiayn rand]

I'm not sure what you mean by making a distinction between depth and
distance. Depth implies a distance--at least in the sense that most
people use the word--whereas distance does not imply depth (again, in
the sense that most people use the word). So in regards to the first
question it would seem that progess could be defined by both distance
and depth if progress is defined by depth. But the second question
seems to consequently raise the most important question. What are we
really talking about here? What is meant by this dichotomy depth or
distance?

But even before that question is considered, how robust is this
distinction between 'progress' and 'advance'?
(1) to advance: to go from one thing to another
(2) to progress: to return over and over again to a very few points,

in an effort to get involved with them and thus go into them even
deeper.

What is strange about (2) is that he defines the returning to the
point itself progress and that the effort 'to get involved with
them...' as only the purpose of that returning, but not itself
progress. This is strange because there is a reason that for example
we want to say that Mozart made progress when he 'returned to the
problem of harmony'. And it seems that that reason is because his
efforts to 'get into it even deeper' were a success--that is, he
actually DID go deeper. So the kind of returning he is talking about
doesn't seem to count as progress UNLESS it is successful ('goes
deeper').

I have to do my work, but the point I am trying to make is that this
distinction between progess and advancement is only apparently
robust. All he can really be saying with this is that when 'progress'
is made it is made by starting not at a new point, a new problem, but
at an existing point, an existing problem, and either solving the
problem or moving towards its solution. If you assume that he is
saying progress cannot be made by building off 'the depth' others have
made into a problem, that progress can only be made by starting with
the problem itself (although it can certainly read that way), you can
see where he is going with using the sort 'points' one starts as
criterial for the distinction between progress/advancement. But if he
is saying that, he is obviously wrong. What sort of advancement would
there be in science if everyone returned to only the actual problem
itself, with no regard for the 'points' that have already been formed
(e.g., Newtonian physics)?

I don't know if that is write or if I wrote that correctly. I need to
go back to work and I will try to make it clear what I am saying
later, but I would also like to know what is meant by this:

"Progress, in other words, would seem to be defined by either distance
or depth. Could it be both? Does one usually predominate?"

I don't know what you mean by this distinction.

[cassiayn rand]

ok, i really do need to go back to work, but i thought i would jsut
read this before i did. there are some problems with what i wrote, and
i don't have time right now to go into all of them, but i want to at
least say that the moving from one new point to a nother.. what i
meant by a new point was not a point that does not now exist but a
point like the one occupied by newtonian physics. you start with
points that are not themselves problems but points reached by others
in examining the problem and building off of those points. certainly
there is something to be said about returning to the problem itself,
but it cannot be said that all progress is the result of that sort of
return.

[Matthew]

Good point. The distinction isn't implied in the definitions of the
words. I guess it's, for me, a qualitative difference. To illustrate:
I see the Industrial Revolution as being progressive in a directional
sense. It got somewhere. It achieved a goal. But it created lots of
problems, which demonstrates that the progress wasn't profound.
Environmentally-friendly production models, on the other hand, may not
exhibit the same sort of progress. It is likely to develop much more
slowly, and maybe it won't get anywhere truly new, but the progression
would have depth.

Is this any clearer?

[progressionman]

so, this sentence is progress, moving from one word to the other, and
arriving at an end, never to return and never to go any deeper.

here is depth:
i say
i say
i say

genius (genius, genius...)

[.nathan]

while it would certainly be foolish to ignore the progress made by
others, i would say that a lot is lost in the translation of that
progress. unless you have gone through a process yourself, like
solving a math problem or performing a scientific experiment, there is
a level of understanding that comes with the experience that cannot
otherwise be transferred. i don't think we place enough emphasis on
personal involvement and truly personal understanding in education
(probably because we can't measure it). it's one thing to answer
questions correctly on a test, which i think illustrates the
directional progress matthew is talking about, but firsthand
experience results in something deeper. even replicating experiments
or mathematical problems, when we already know the answer, we aren't
forced to look at the problem from many of the perspectives the
original problem solver had to. it's also likely there are alternate
solutions which will remain undiscovered until a problem is revisited.

[Doug]

I would agree with Nathan that progress, in a depth sort of way, is a
process. It seems to involve uncovering new layers of meaning,
and being able to reinterpret old ideas in the light of new
understanding. Coming back to the original quote, I disagree to say
that only deep progress
the mark of a genius. I think that genius of that sort does produce
brilliant results, to be sure, but that many breakthroughs occur from
knowledge and thinking
that occurs across disciplines, a breadth of knowledge that actually
enables people answer the big questions--the questions that actually
address how people live, what affects them, what matters to them, what
could make a difference in their everyday life. That sort of progress--
applying deep thinking breakthroughs to common problems seems to be
the purview of the broad thinkers, and it would maybe produce the sort
of "distance" progress spoken of earlier.

Matt,
I think that the Industrial Revolution was profound, or rather that it
was built on the back of many "deep progress" ideas--ideas that
required incredible focus. It was still directional, and may not have
solved every problem that it created, but I think that green-
production will have to follow the same path if it is be meaningful.
Depth without direction is just a really large thesis covered with
dust in a library.

[Matthew]

Thinking across disciplines is something that I see as deep thinking.
It's inherently circular, in the sense that it enables progress by
collecting input from all around and then returning to the original
idea, where it suddenly adds clarity or new relevance. Cross-
disciplinary thinking is really only progressive when you return to a
starting point in an effort to gauge how ideas have evolved because of
that interaction with outside influences.

Part of the difference in my perspective is because I look at depth as
product of circular communication (dialogue). It's like a drill that
bores deeper as it turns. Without dialogue--without feedback from
outside sources--communication is linear, as is progress. That's why I
consider the Industrial Revolution to be of a directional progress,
and lacking in depth. It failed to engage in true dialogue with other
environments and systems. It's communication was linear, and by
extension, so was it's progress.

"Depth without direction is just a really large thesis covered with

dust in a library." > You make good point, in the sense that any
attempt at progress should be, of course, active and practical. But I
think dialogue shakes off the dust. Even if we can't always see linear
movement toward a specific goal.