Για τον Αντώνη Σμυρναιο, πολλές απο τις σκεψεις του οποίου εμφωλεύουν εδω
1. Suppose I say
A. The model is a conceptually controlable version of the world in its dangerous and generative features. The model is a panopticon (for all matters important). With respect to the issues it was made to represent, we expect no "hidden doors", no "opportunities missed" (in principle). We expect that the model will be the solid rock on which our lives will be based.
So the other side of the model is the secure, integral psyche of the person who uses the model. The model is solid on the one side and the psyche is solid on the other. No other base is needed. Human looks in the mirror and sees reflected the beautiful well structured mind of the human (this is the ideal) and this is the Primordial Couple. "When in doubt , go for the model"
The myth offers no such guaranties. The myth is part of a conversation with other existents and an expression of trust. The myth recognises the flickery human nature, that at any point, unexpectedly, uncotnrolably, the psyche can undergo a "phase transition". In such conditions help comes from other existents, not from a model.
My opinion is that the experience of being saved under hardship, under turmoil and uncontrolable conditions is the backing oven of the human psyche, which gives out mature persons. If that is true, the price of modern security is immaturity and its accompanying moralism and overmilking of sexuality. Comming back to Latour, I see in [MOR]'s reopening of the calculations about the ultimum Good, the deliberate move towards maturity and out of security. (The immortality of Debt - the Debt that others owe to the powerful- , this version of primordial sin in which new generations are born in Debt- is the opposite move).
So a model is a myth that claims uniqueness. Or rather models are the gods of a people who worship them and in their turn they (the gods/models) guarantee the people's superior position (the guardians of the gods) amongst all other peoples. The religion of the concept plumbers ([REF]).
I like to think the above, having in mind Paul's letter to the Thessaloneans Ch 4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+4). The security of the world meets the clouds, the symbol of hazyness and uncertainty. A combination of female symbols ( a hazyness that can be a male-world's kiss of death, the sign of its decomposition, the loss of security and control, a female element as potentially devious and destructive of the old order) and male symbols (Christ the Logos who resets a new order, a new creation)
B. A model is emotionally neutral. It fits well to an emotionally neutral disposition towards the world. A mοdel expresses structure and structure seems to be emotion-free. Mathematics are often used in a way that intensifies this feeling. The patterns and understandings of mathematics are forced to become the guardians of the jail of all existents
Here the other side of the model is the devided human: the intellect + the rest. The "rest" supports the human intellect that fully understands the model.
Myths are emotinally rich. They touch every aspect of our being, they make us ring as a whole.
My opinion is that the emotion-free view of mathematics is a mirage. Both from historical studies and at least from one approach to the foundations of mathematics (Lawvere as presented by Rodin in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1478.pdf), mathematics are strongly connected to human practice and thus one can expect to the concerns that are attached to it. Mathematics organizes breakthroughs, facilitates communication on issues, it is a discipline of respect among different threads of movement. (there may be a family relation with [ORG] here)
So a model is a myth that pretends self sufficiency. It denies that it needs a community and its jest. The nest of one human's mind is supposed to be enough (if the human is a powerful intellect). The model may be reflected in multiple intellects but in an additive way. It is reflected back, enlarged, incubated and yet fully acceptable. It does not require having to live side by side with the alien and the undigestable.
I like to think the above, having in mind the Liturgy. Α space made of human beings carrying concerns, differing, oriented, burning. A different structuring of the space. Coordination, variety, openness
C. Models have no real history. Models do not exist in real time, in the rich time we experience in our lives. Models zombify time. Again mathematics are called to jail time into the structure of the Real Numbers
Myths also have a special relation with time. But they assume a community that listens to them, that has concerns, that responds to them in a rich way. So they are embeded in time. Though they may be like viruses that enter time in order to transform it
My opinion is that mathematics in anything but a jail ( See for example Banach-Tarski Paradox , with repsect to analytical geometry , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA there are similar results in 1D). Indeed models themselves have a rich history when the accompanying communities (the scientific community, the human community, the community of the technicians) are added in.
So a model is a myth that pretends to freeze time in its truth.
I like to think the above having in mind the image from Revelation where angels and humans are presented adoring God.
2. I am thinking of a triangle, Vygotsky, Voegelin, Latour. I think that Vygotskian ideas of learning would find a better foundation and generative potential in Latour's speculative philosophy ( https://muse.jhu.edu/article/640945/pdf) than in Marxism.
Vygotsky speaks about the genesis of the human in parallel with the collective riches of the community where the human is embedded. So the community is a prerequisite and a determinant of the level of sophistication that the human being can achieve. On the other side the human being is the locus where the green leaves of understanding can push through, the smithing place through which new cultural tools take definite forms, stabilized through practices of reflectivity and artifacts of representation. The direction and degree of differentiation of the human covaries with the community and its embededness. How can a model make shortcuts? (Being it an understanding of evolution theory or of neurobiology or whatever) What is the desire of shortcuts (a variety of [DC] ?) but libido domini?
If models express a liberal view of knowledge (we can redesign the whole world from scratch), Vigotsky expresses in my opinion and equilibrium between liberals and republicans: humans are limited, understanding is limited, tradition has its own importance and worth for respect.
Finally Voegelin comes to my mind through his concern for the differentiation of human soul. Both Vygotsky and Latour seem to say something in this respect. I also like Voegelin's claim of the presence of a metaxy which I do not know how it stands either with Vygotsky or with Latour.
3. What is "the way for the moderns"? I think that the way for the moderns is away from security and towards meaning, deep communication, learning, conflict. It is away form exclusivism, uniqueness, separateness and specialness towards involvment, entaglement, mixing, confrontation. It is the difficult work of peace vs a prescribed peace which is forced on others and is a hidden jail to the enlightened peoples' paradise. This is the way in which I give a meaning I can accept to Latour's call to construct a common world. It is equally hard , demanding and costly for the "others" (it is not an easy way to get benefits).
The probability is very low though that things will go that way. And if it is true that "The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice will find him out.", how much more are we, moderns, in danger!
In my country there are often people who thunder about how much the older generation has betrayed the younger generation, by passing onto them a very serious debt. However I think that they are in a much better position with respect to European and Anglosaxon Youth when it comes to the self justifying and finally self jailing mentality that they inherit from their older generation. Cyborgs composed of children, bored and enamoured with their innocence, on the one side and powerful machinery on the other, is the structure of the leadership of the world we go towards.
1. Suppose I say
- When people talk to me about the long history of life in earth, they are presenting me with a myth (I do not say this in order to say it is a lie. I say it in the sense that some important truth is hidden in this story. It is a story worthy to consider). Many people would be very unhappy about this. "It is not a myth. It is a model. Indeed it is a model that when strongly verified can guide us in imagining the past. It can be the secure base for any other speculation with respect to the past"
- When people talk to me about the 3 spatial and the one temporal dimension of the world (I leave the thing simple), they are presenting me with a myth (Again, I do not say this in order to say it is a lie. I say it in the sense that some important truth is hidden in this story. It is a story worthy to consider) . Once more many people would be very unhappy about this. "It is not a myth. It is a model. Indeed it is a model that when strongly verified can guide us in imagining space and time. It can be the secure base for any other speculation with respect to the matrix where all things abide"
What is the difference between the myth and the model? Why so strong feelings come forth although I do not use the word myth in a derogatory sense? Let me think.
A. The model is a conceptually controlable version of the world in its dangerous and generative features. The model is a panopticon (for all matters important). With respect to the issues it was made to represent, we expect no "hidden doors", no "opportunities missed" (in principle). We expect that the model will be the solid rock on which our lives will be based.
So the other side of the model is the secure, integral psyche of the person who uses the model. The model is solid on the one side and the psyche is solid on the other. No other base is needed. Human looks in the mirror and sees reflected the beautiful well structured mind of the human (this is the ideal) and this is the Primordial Couple. "When in doubt , go for the model"
The myth offers no such guaranties. The myth is part of a conversation with other existents and an expression of trust. The myth recognises the flickery human nature, that at any point, unexpectedly, uncotnrolably, the psyche can undergo a "phase transition". In such conditions help comes from other existents, not from a model.
My opinion is that the experience of being saved under hardship, under turmoil and uncontrolable conditions is the backing oven of the human psyche, which gives out mature persons. If that is true, the price of modern security is immaturity and its accompanying moralism and overmilking of sexuality. Comming back to Latour, I see in [MOR]'s reopening of the calculations about the ultimum Good, the deliberate move towards maturity and out of security. (The immortality of Debt - the Debt that others owe to the powerful- , this version of primordial sin in which new generations are born in Debt- is the opposite move).
So a model is a myth that claims uniqueness. Or rather models are the gods of a people who worship them and in their turn they (the gods/models) guarantee the people's superior position (the guardians of the gods) amongst all other peoples. The religion of the concept plumbers ([REF]).
I like to think the above, having in mind Paul's letter to the Thessaloneans Ch 4 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+4). The security of the world meets the clouds, the symbol of hazyness and uncertainty. A combination of female symbols ( a hazyness that can be a male-world's kiss of death, the sign of its decomposition, the loss of security and control, a female element as potentially devious and destructive of the old order) and male symbols (Christ the Logos who resets a new order, a new creation)
B. A model is emotionally neutral. It fits well to an emotionally neutral disposition towards the world. A mοdel expresses structure and structure seems to be emotion-free. Mathematics are often used in a way that intensifies this feeling. The patterns and understandings of mathematics are forced to become the guardians of the jail of all existents
Here the other side of the model is the devided human: the intellect + the rest. The "rest" supports the human intellect that fully understands the model.
Myths are emotinally rich. They touch every aspect of our being, they make us ring as a whole.
My opinion is that the emotion-free view of mathematics is a mirage. Both from historical studies and at least from one approach to the foundations of mathematics (Lawvere as presented by Rodin in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1478.pdf), mathematics are strongly connected to human practice and thus one can expect to the concerns that are attached to it. Mathematics organizes breakthroughs, facilitates communication on issues, it is a discipline of respect among different threads of movement. (there may be a family relation with [ORG] here)
So a model is a myth that pretends self sufficiency. It denies that it needs a community and its jest. The nest of one human's mind is supposed to be enough (if the human is a powerful intellect). The model may be reflected in multiple intellects but in an additive way. It is reflected back, enlarged, incubated and yet fully acceptable. It does not require having to live side by side with the alien and the undigestable.
I like to think the above, having in mind the Liturgy. Α space made of human beings carrying concerns, differing, oriented, burning. A different structuring of the space. Coordination, variety, openness
C. Models have no real history. Models do not exist in real time, in the rich time we experience in our lives. Models zombify time. Again mathematics are called to jail time into the structure of the Real Numbers
Myths also have a special relation with time. But they assume a community that listens to them, that has concerns, that responds to them in a rich way. So they are embeded in time. Though they may be like viruses that enter time in order to transform it
My opinion is that mathematics in anything but a jail ( See for example Banach-Tarski Paradox , with repsect to analytical geometry , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA there are similar results in 1D). Indeed models themselves have a rich history when the accompanying communities (the scientific community, the human community, the community of the technicians) are added in.
So a model is a myth that pretends to freeze time in its truth.
I like to think the above having in mind the image from Revelation where angels and humans are presented adoring God.
2. I am thinking of a triangle, Vygotsky, Voegelin, Latour. I think that Vygotskian ideas of learning would find a better foundation and generative potential in Latour's speculative philosophy ( https://muse.jhu.edu/article/640945/pdf) than in Marxism.
Vygotsky speaks about the genesis of the human in parallel with the collective riches of the community where the human is embedded. So the community is a prerequisite and a determinant of the level of sophistication that the human being can achieve. On the other side the human being is the locus where the green leaves of understanding can push through, the smithing place through which new cultural tools take definite forms, stabilized through practices of reflectivity and artifacts of representation. The direction and degree of differentiation of the human covaries with the community and its embededness. How can a model make shortcuts? (Being it an understanding of evolution theory or of neurobiology or whatever) What is the desire of shortcuts (a variety of [DC] ?) but libido domini?
If models express a liberal view of knowledge (we can redesign the whole world from scratch), Vigotsky expresses in my opinion and equilibrium between liberals and republicans: humans are limited, understanding is limited, tradition has its own importance and worth for respect.
Finally Voegelin comes to my mind through his concern for the differentiation of human soul. Both Vygotsky and Latour seem to say something in this respect. I also like Voegelin's claim of the presence of a metaxy which I do not know how it stands either with Vygotsky or with Latour.
3. What is "the way for the moderns"? I think that the way for the moderns is away from security and towards meaning, deep communication, learning, conflict. It is away form exclusivism, uniqueness, separateness and specialness towards involvment, entaglement, mixing, confrontation. It is the difficult work of peace vs a prescribed peace which is forced on others and is a hidden jail to the enlightened peoples' paradise. This is the way in which I give a meaning I can accept to Latour's call to construct a common world. It is equally hard , demanding and costly for the "others" (it is not an easy way to get benefits).
The probability is very low though that things will go that way. And if it is true that "The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice will find him out.", how much more are we, moderns, in danger!
In my country there are often people who thunder about how much the older generation has betrayed the younger generation, by passing onto them a very serious debt. However I think that they are in a much better position with respect to European and Anglosaxon Youth when it comes to the self justifying and finally self jailing mentality that they inherit from their older generation. Cyborgs composed of children, bored and enamoured with their innocence, on the one side and powerful machinery on the other, is the structure of the leadership of the world we go towards.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου