Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?
What kind of person are you who reveals them self in the words chosen, or the picture highlighted? Humor, as a deeper response for those who look beyond the confines of words, and laugh? We just intuitively get it?
What use that language?
Tragedies, where allowed "the other to speak," and let loose all the mournings of words lost, are covered by our heart's responses? "Released." The soul without it's burdens, carries on. Not really.
Describes the "fictional" in face of the real, while "highlighting the injustices" performing characters, as individual/politicians saved? Another place, and time?
Francis Bacon, De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum, 1623.
The knowledge of Cyphering, hath drawne on with it a knowledge relative unto it, which is the knowledge of Discyphering, or of Discreting Cyphers, though a man were utterly ignorant of the Alphabet of the Cypher, and the Capitulations of secrecy past between the Parties. Certainly it is an Art which requires great paines and a good witt and is (as the other was) consecrate to the Counsels of Princes: yet notwithstanding by diligent prevision it may be made unprofitable, though, as things are, it be of great use. For if good and faithfull Cyphers were invented & practised, many of them would delude and forestall all the Cunning of the Decypherer, which yet are very apt and easie to be read or written: but the rawnesse and unskilfulnesse of Secretaries, and Clarks in the Courts of Princes, is such, that many times the greatest matters are Committed to futile and weake Cyphers.
But it may be, that in the enumeration, and, as it were, taxation of Arts, some may thinke that we goe about to make a great Muster-rowle of Sciences, that the multiplication of them may be more admired; when their number perchance may be displayed, but their forces in so short a Treatise can hardly be tried. But for our parts wee doe faithfully pursue our purpose, and in making this Globe of Sciences, we would not omitt the lesser and remoter Ilands. Neither have we (in our opinion) touched these Arts perfunctorily, though cursorily; but with a piercing stile extracted the marrow and pith of them out of a masse of matter. The judgement hereof we referre to those who are most able to judge of these Arts. For seeing it is the fashion of many who would be thought to know much, that every where making ostentation of words and outward termes of Arts, they become a wonder to the ignorant, but a derision to those that are Masters of those Arts: we hope that our Labours shall have a contrarie successe, which is, that they may arrest the judgment of every one who is best vers'd in every particular Art; and be undervalued by the rest . As for those Arts which may seeme to bee of inferior ranke and order, if any man thinke wee attribute too much unto them; Let him looke about him and hee shall see that there bee many of speciall note and great account in their owne Countrie, who when they come to the chiefe City or feat of the Estate, are but of mean ranke and scarcely regarded: so it is no marvaile if these sleighter Arts, placed by the Principall and supreme Sciences, seeme pettie things; yet to those that have chosen to spend their labours and studies in them, they seeme great and excellent matters. And thus much of the Organ of Speech. -- Francis Bacon, The Advancement and Proficience of Learning, p 257-71, Book VI, 1640.
Sciences current work in Cryptography? A Vast difference then what is reveal in the Shakespearean language? Maybe, it is here, where I see the questions of Susskind's thought experiment about the elephant in two places?
We've learnt in the natural sciences that the key to understanding can often be found if we lift certain dividing lines in our minds. Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground according to the same laws that govern the Moon's orbit of the Earth. And with this he made the old differentiation between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete. Darwin showed that there is no dividing line between man and animal. And Einstein lifted the line dividing space and time. But in our heads, we still draw a dividing line between "reality" and "knowledge about reality", in other words between reality and information. And you cannot draw this line. There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing between reality and information. All this thinking and talking about reality is about information, which is why one should not make a distinction in the formulation of laws of nature. Quantum theory, correctly interpreted, is information theory.
So we find the methods to determine the beginning(Tabula Rusa) and what had always existed in a ideological discourse about which was before "form?"
Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.
Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.
So shall one then debate about what existed in the beginning of this universe, if we are presented with the thought that we are already born with knowledge and ideas? That we should start from such a blank slate? So then for you, nothing existed before? Or has something philosophically and profoundly, always existed?
This means you can never discard what you set in motion, only that what you started has consequences, and moves into the next life? So we try and do it right in this one. We accept the burden/choice for growth, and learn.
But this is a personal choice. We do not in face of "what lies in the dormant state" disregard empiricism. You see Plato and Aristotle together, don't you?
So we come to what is of value after we have learn about Cerenkov radiation and what did not exist before, now exists? Time travel? How is this possible in the scenario of LHC? Have we accepted faster then light entities in our assessment of what goes beyond the speed of light? Then I have to show how this is so?
No comments:
Post a Comment