Friam

knowing

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

Prof David West

knowing

A common thread — or imagined connection — in my recent reading concerns the "unknowable." Examples include Cantor's Absolute, God, Infinity/Infinitesimal, the Soul, Gnosticism; and somewhat related notions like being a polymath or "genius." The latter comes from readings about Steve Jobs.

The genius/polymath connection is a state of mind where you can "see" holistically but non consciously, a gestalt and from that 'point of view' able to make correct/optimal/appropriate decisions based on incomplete and conflicting information.

The other 'unknowables' are also 'wholes' that can be grasped/comprehended/known only as a whole. You cannot arrive at such an understanding via the typical rational/scientific/logical positivist approach to learning and knowing. Knowledge of such things comes only via "mysticism" e.g. enlightenment.

The assertions about how you might come to know such wholes are not exclusively from mystics. Cantor, for example, seemed to believe (others know him far better than I and might correct me here) that you could "know" the Absolute, you just could not 'come to know' by accreting and integrating parts into the whole - i.e. "rationally."

A lot has been written about procedures to train yourself to be open to and accepting of moments of holistic, mystical, insight/enlightenment. Other, semi-practical, descriptions of 'pre-conditions' to be satisfied if one is to be a Job's type 'genius' or what the business press calls a modern polymath — i.e. conversant in multiple disciplines / areas of knowledge with variable deep knowledge among several; all with a semi or non-conscious integrative layer.

It is also possible to find ideas philosophies of education that attempt to focus on how to acquire / impart this kind of polymathic/integrative/holistic mindset (state of mind).

All this leads to some related questions: 1) would there be sufficient practical value from having a large cadre of "modern polymaths" / inciteful "geniuses" such that a significant portion of our educational system would be devoted to the enculturation (not education) of that cadre; 2) should a role in governance of any type at any level be restricted to members of that cadre (variation of Plato's philosopher kings); and, could people be guided/enculturated to have the ability to "know" "unknowable" things like Cantor's Absolute?

Idle raving on a Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be writing a book chapter on software development. Excuse all the quotes and parends — vocabulary is difficult for me in this realm.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: knowing

What you're talking about seems to be the exercise of composition and decomposition. While it's true that analysis (the cutting up) and synthesis (the clumping together) are necessary but insufficient in themselves, none of us actually ever do just one of them. I guess what the more analytically inclined mystics like Cantor come to is simply that 2nd order perspective, that the *practice* of both analysis and synthesis are necessary to any "large" insight. (We know Tarski, Gödel, and von Neumann understood this, too.)

So, to your questions: 1) No, because we all do this already. Any distinction between polymath and ordinary prole[⛧] is an artificial one. We, each one of us, are already gods. What people like Jobs (or Musk or Kardashian or whoever) accrete over time is the exogenous *attribution* of guru status. Why does it accrete? My guess is our co-evolutionary culture rewards particular traits. The Guru of Navel Gazing simply doesn't accrete so much attention. >8^D So, you're basically asking would there be practical value to enculturating a cadre of Gwyneth Paltrows? Yes, the practical value is to get rich. And we already do that ... unfortunately.

I have a similar answer to (2). If "should" is a moral imperative, then no. We ought NOT encourage cults of celebrity ... gurus who sexually abuse their followers or make their workers sleep on cots near their workstations or hire expensive union-busting lawyers to avoid treating employees like humans [⛤]. But if "should" is (as I use it) "expected to obtain", then of course we expect celebrities and gurus to accrete status and exploit the world for their gain, because we've done so throughout history and continue to do so today.

[⛧] I'm trying to decide if I want to stop using "plebe" and start using "prole" ... so many lovely words.
[⛤] https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/03/05/week-long-boycott-of-amazon-planned-over-union-busting-attempts-in-alabama/

On 3/9/21 12:13 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> A common thread — or imagined connection — in my recent reading concerns the "unknowable." Examples include Cantor's Absolute, God, Infinity/Infinitesimal, the Soul, Gnosticism; and somewhat related notions like being a polymath or "genius." The latter comes from readings about Steve Jobs.
>
> The genius/polymath connection is a state of mind where you can "see" holistically but non consciously, a gestalt and from that 'point of view' able to make correct/optimal/appropriate decisions based on incomplete and conflicting information.
>
> The other 'unknowables' are also 'wholes' that can be grasped/comprehended/known only as a whole. You cannot arrive at such an understanding via the typical rational/scientific/logical positivist approach to learning and knowing. Knowledge of such things comes only via "mysticism" e.g. enlightenment.
>
> The assertions about how you might come to know such wholes are not exclusively from mystics. Cantor, for example, seemed to believe (others know him far better than I and might correct me here) that you could "know" the Absolute, you just could not 'come to know' by accreting and integrating parts into the whole - i.e. "rationally."
>
> A lot has been written about procedures to train yourself to be open to and accepting of moments of holistic, mystical, insight/enlightenment. Other, semi-practical, descriptions of 'pre-conditions' to be satisfied if one is to be a Job's type 'genius' or what the business press calls a modern polymath — i.e. conversant in multiple disciplines / areas of knowledge with variable deep knowledge among several; all with a semi or non-conscious integrative layer.
>
> It is also possible to find ideas philosophies of education that attempt to focus on how to acquire / impart this kind of polymathic/integrative/holistic mindset (state of mind).
>
> All this leads to some related questions: 1) would there be sufficient practical value from having a large cadre of "modern polymaths" / inciteful "geniuses" such that a significant portion of our educational system would be devoted to the enculturation (not education) of that cadre; 2) should a role in governance of any type at any level be restricted to members of that cadre (variation of Plato's philosopher kings); and, could people be guided/enculturated to have the ability to "know" "unknowable" things like Cantor's Absolute?
>
> Idle raving on a Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be writing a book chapter on software development. Excuse all the quotes and parends — vocabulary is difficult for me in this realm.
>
> davew

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: knowing

Glen -

Good response to Dave's points, I'm not likely to add anything but noise
by trying to add anything.

> [⛧] I'm trying to decide if I want to stop using "plebe" and start using "prole" ... so many lovely words.

I vote for prole(etarian) on the basis that it references the
class-struggles of modern times better, even though along with plebe
(plebeian) it has it's roots in Roman "Democracy". I also think that
the derived "precariat" gives it power-by-association insomuch that the
connotation of "plebians" is that the "patrician" class seems to have
accepted some responsibility for the various class roles in a similar
way to the "patron/peon" relation that typifies feudalism. A "prole"
would seem to be more truly fodder for "the machine" and is in
opposition to the "bourgeoisie" as much or more than the "nobility" or
"aristocracy".

Of course, we have both words because they are both useful, I just think
most of your examples fit "prole" more tightly than "plebe".

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: knowing

Excellent point! But I thought there was some [post?] Marxist conception where the upper classes took some responsibility for the proles. [sigh] The problem with using "prole" is whoever reads/hears it might think I'm claiming to know more about class than I do. I should probably stick to words like "grunt" (Ground Roving Unit Network Terminator - https://churchofrobotron.com/).

Tangentially, this was a great read:

Book Review: Fussell On Class
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-fussell-on-class

On 3/9/21 1:57 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> I vote for prole(etarian) on the basis that it references the
> class-struggles of modern times better, even though along with plebe
> (plebeian) it has it's roots in Roman "Democracy". I also think that
> the derived "precariat" gives it power-by-association insomuch that the
> connotation of "plebians" is that the "patrician" class seems to have
> accepted some responsibility for the various class roles in a similar
> way to the "patron/peon" relation that typifies feudalism. A "prole"
> would seem to be more truly fodder for "the machine" and is in
> opposition to the "bourgeoisie" as much or more than the "nobility" or
> "aristocracy".
>
> Of course, we have both words because they are both useful, I just think
> most of your examples fit "prole" more tightly than "plebe".

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: knowing

In reply to this post by gepr

Thanks for your comments. I understand and agree with part, but not all.

Agreememt: the division of analysis/decomposition and synthesis/composition. One of my favorite sci-fi books was Rite of Passage by Alexi Panshin. The two protagonists aspired to defined roles in their context: one was "ordinologist" the other "synthesist." The first was the person with the skills to organize and structure knowledge - like books and artifacts within a room. The latter was the person who could wander from room to room and know that "X" would make a huge contribution if moved to this other room, or these things from separate rooms should be clustered in this new room (and the ordinologist drop by to organize them of course).

Divergence: I believe we have an educational system, especially at the University level, that does an adequate job of producing ordinologists (scholars) but is woefully inadequate when it comes to producing synthesists. And, of course, I believe there would be value in producing some.

Orthogonal: status accretion. The first thing I thought of when reading your post was a favorite Plato quote:

"[First,] perceiving and bringing together under one Idea the scattered particulars, so that one makes clear the thing which he wishes to do... [Second,] the separation of the Idea into classes, by dividing it where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of as a bad carver... I love these processes of division and bringing together, and if I think any other man is able to see things that can naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I will follow as if he were as a god."

This seems to have some flavor of your status concern. But, is it not the case that there is a spectrum of individual difference in both aptitude and ability in this taking apart and putting together? And if we could move individual from one end of that spectrum towards the other, would that not be a good thing?

Of course the artificial status you speak of is very real and undeserved: there is no evidence that Jobs or Musk are farther along the spectrum than anyone else so why are they treated as if that was so? [There is clear evidence that the Kardashians are farther along the steatopygic spectrum than most and if that is a claim to fame/status, then it is deserved.]

Missed (I think) Point: Is there any value in being able to comprehend/understand an ineffable thing, like Cantor's Absolute? Is that value, if any, exclusively enjoyed by the individual? Or, is there some possible group/social value? if the latter, would it be desirable if more people in the group could achieve that understanding/comprehension?

BTW, with regard Plato. I know I am better than he was, so I do not mind at all that he would deem me a god.

davew

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, at 2:37 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> What you're talking about seems to be the exercise of composition and

> decomposition. While it's true that analysis (the cutting up) and

> synthesis (the clumping together) are necessary but insufficient in

> themselves, none of us actually ever do just one of them. I guess what

> the more analytically inclined mystics like Cantor come to is simply

> that 2nd order perspective, that the *practice* of both analysis and

> synthesis are necessary to any "large" insight. (We know Tarski, Gödel,

> and von Neumann understood this, too.)

> So, to your questions: 1) No, because we all do this already. Any

> distinction between polymath and ordinary prole[⛧] is an artificial

> one. We, each one of us, are already gods. What people like Jobs (or

> Musk or Kardashian or whoever) accrete over time is the exogenous

> *attribution* of guru status. Why does it accrete? My guess is our

> co-evolutionary culture rewards particular traits. The Guru of Navel

> Gazing simply doesn't accrete so much attention. >8^D So, you're

> basically asking would there be practical value to enculturating a

> cadre of Gwyneth Paltrows? Yes, the practical value is to get rich. And

> we already do that ... unfortunately.

> I have a similar answer to (2). If "should" is a moral imperative, then

> no. We ought NOT encourage cults of celebrity ... gurus who sexually

> abuse their followers or make their workers sleep on cots near their

> workstations or hire expensive union-busting lawyers to avoid treating

> employees like humans [⛤]. But if "should" is (as I use it) "expected

> to obtain", then of course we expect celebrities and gurus to accrete

> status and exploit the world for their gain, because we've done so

> throughout history and continue to do so today.

> [⛧] I'm trying to decide if I want to stop using "plebe" and start

> using "prole" ... so many lovely words.

> [⛤]

> https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/03/05/week-long-boycott-of-amazon-planned-over-union-busting-attempts-in-alabama/

> On 3/9/21 12:13 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> > A common thread — or imagined connection — in my recent reading concerns the "unknowable." Examples include Cantor's Absolute, God, Infinity/Infinitesimal, the Soul, Gnosticism; and somewhat related notions like being a polymath or "genius." The latter comes from readings about Steve Jobs.

> >

> > The genius/polymath connection is a state of mind where you can "see" holistically but non consciously, a gestalt and from that 'point of view' able to make correct/optimal/appropriate decisions based on incomplete and conflicting information.

> >

> > The other 'unknowables' are also 'wholes' that can be grasped/comprehended/known only as a whole. You cannot arrive at such an understanding via the typical rational/scientific/logical positivist approach to learning and knowing. Knowledge of such things comes only via "mysticism" e.g. enlightenment.

> >

> > The assertions about how you might come to know such wholes are not exclusively from mystics. Cantor, for example, seemed to believe (others know him far better than I and might correct me here) that you could "know" the Absolute, you just could not 'come to know' by accreting and integrating parts into the whole - i.e. "rationally."

> >

> > A lot has been written about procedures to train yourself to be open to and accepting of moments of holistic, mystical, insight/enlightenment. Other, semi-practical, descriptions of 'pre-conditions' to be satisfied if one is to be a Job's type 'genius' or what the business press calls a modern polymath — i.e. conversant in multiple disciplines / areas of knowledge with variable deep knowledge among several; all with a semi or non-conscious integrative layer.

> >

> > It is also possible to find ideas philosophies of education that attempt to focus on how to acquire / impart this kind of polymathic/integrative/holistic mindset (state of mind).

> >

> > All this leads to some related questions: 1) would there be sufficient practical value from having a large cadre of "modern polymaths" / inciteful "geniuses" such that a significant portion of our educational system would be devoted to the enculturation (not education) of that cadre; 2) should a role in governance of any type at any level be restricted to members of that cadre (variation of Plato's philosopher kings); and, could people be guided/enculturated to have the ability to "know" "unknowable" things like Cantor's Absolute?

> >

> > Idle raving on a Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be writing a book chapter on software development. Excuse all the quotes and parends — vocabulary is difficult for me in this realm.

> >

> > davew

> --

> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: knowing

Very nice! You've convinced me on the *University* point. I sloppily glossed over your qualifier that you were talking about the *educational system*. Sorry for that. Yes, I think we could do a much better job of teaching about higher order thinking ... thinking about thinking.

But I think we do have a crisp disagreement that you well-state with:

On 3/9/21 2:40 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> But, is it not the case that there is a spectrum of individual difference in both aptitude and ability in this taking apart and putting together? And if we could move individual from one end of that spectrum towards the other, would that not be a good thing?

I confess I don't *know* if there is a spectrum, or not. I doubt it. I think we are all equally capable of lower and higher order thought like analysis, synthesis, and their interwoven use. I'd argue even my cat is just as capable of that as I am or you are. (Plato's dead. So he can't think at all.) Where the spectra lie is not in that higher order, or facility with it, but in the application domains within which it's used. E.g. when I heard my uncle talk of his experience as an underwater welder for the Navy, he exhibited what seemed like a similar facility to mine. It's just that I can't weld ... much less under water ... and he can't program, do any higher math, doesn't read philosophy or any religious texts but the Bible.

Given my doubt and alternative spectra, I can reformulate what you're asking to be "If we could move individuals from one domain to another, expose them to as many domains as possible, wouldn't that be a good thing?" And my answer to that is yes, absolutely. If my uncle had had a liberal arts education, he would not merely be a fantastic welder, he might've ended up a street philosopher, tossing out wisdom with the same ability he tossed out boiled crawfish.

Re: the ineffable:

> Missed (I think) Point: Is there any value in being able to comprehend/understand an ineffable thing, like Cantor's Absolute? Is that value, if any, exclusively enjoyed by the individual? Or, is there some possible group/social value? if the latter, would it be desirable if more people in the group could achieve that understanding/comprehension?

I think we disagree, here, fundamentally but not practically. I don't believe you *can* comprehend/understand something that's ineffable. What we can understand is the stuff lying around on the ground. The purported comprehension of something that can't be expressed is an illusion. We can only understand what is expressible. No expression, no understanding.

However, this kicks the can down the road a bit. Perhaps, in the *limit*, through parallax, many expressions approach a limit point (which may or may not "exist"). Then it takes just a bit of a Leap of Faith to jump from the many approximating expressions onto the (fake) limit. Here, you can get arbitrarily close to understanding that limit. But you never actually will understand it. This is what my uncle did with his welding. And it's what anyone does who SWEATS working on some task, in some domain. No sweat, no understanding.

So, to answer your question re this pragmatic reformulation, yes, *groups* can sweat with tasks, ask any long-lived bandmates. And would it be valuable if people would get off the couch and sweat more? Yes, absolutely. 8^D

On 3/9/21 2:40 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. I understand and agree with part, but not all.
>
> Agreememt: the division of analysis/decomposition and synthesis/composition. One of my favorite sci-fi books was Rite of Passage by Alexi Panshin. The two protagonists aspired to defined roles in their context: one was "ordinologist" the other "synthesist." The first was the person with the skills to organize and structure knowledge - like books and artifacts within a room. The latter was the person who could wander from room to room and know that "X" would make a huge contribution if moved to this other room, or these things from separate rooms should be clustered in this new room (and the ordinologist drop by to organize them of course).
>
> Divergence: I believe we have an educational system, especially at the University level, that does an adequate job of producing ordinologists (scholars) but is woefully inadequate when it comes to producing synthesists. And, of course, I believe there would be value in producing some.
>
> Orthogonal: status accretion. The first thing I thought of when reading your post was a favorite Plato quote:
>
> /"[First,] perceiving and bringing together under one Idea the scattered particulars, so that one makes clear the thing which he wishes to do... [Second,] the separation of the Idea into classes, by dividing it where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of as a bad carver... I love these processes of division and bringing together, and if I think any other man is able to see things that can naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I will follow as if he were as a god."/
>
> This seems to have some flavor of your status concern. But, is it not the case that there is a spectrum of individual difference in both aptitude and ability in this taking apart and putting together? And if we could move individual from one end of that spectrum towards the other, would that not be a good thing?
>
> Of course the artificial status you speak of is very real and undeserved: there is no evidence that Jobs or Musk are farther along the spectrum than anyone else so why are they treated as if that was so? [There is clear evidence that the Kardashians are farther along the steatopygic spectrum than most and if that is a claim to fame/status, then it is deserved.]
>
> Missed (I think) Point: Is there any value in being able to comprehend/understand an ineffable thing, like Cantor's Absolute? Is that value, if any, exclusively enjoyed by the individual? Or, is there some possible group/social value? if the latter, would it be desirable if more people in the group could achieve that understanding/comprehension?
>
> BTW, with regard Plato. I know I am better than he was, so I do not mind at all that he would deem me a god.
>
> davew

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen