> > able to transcend common definition. If it is
> > constrained, one can never see outside of the box.
> If it's not what you mean by "knowledge" or
> "knowing" fine - please
> provide your definition.
I thought I did.
> > This is sequential thinking.
> I find sequential thinking avoids thinking
> everything at once.
I guess the virtue of that depends on what you want to
achieve. Sequential thinking is nice for applying
formalized methods of analysis on something.
Lateral thinking is far better for creative problem
> > One can know all about Tom before Tom is ever
> > What you're describing to me looks like the
> > of sequential thinking.
> > People might generate models to describe their
> > observations and if those models jive with those
> > models of others, we say it's factual because we
> > all agree on what we're talking about. In effect,
> > we've done is find a way to cooperate in thinking.
> > very limited thinking I might add.
> > At one level, our whole world seems to be built
> > common languages which imply thought processes
> > yield consistent reproducible results. By language
> > mean any common mode of interrelating, not
> > the spoken word.
> > You take your def of *knowledge* or *knowing*,
> > simply a best guess agreed upon by a large enough
> > of people to secure that definition in common
> > The spoken and written languages were not
> > by scientists, they evolved with humanity. It is
> > since the advent of scientific thought that we
> > attempted to constrain meanings of things to make
> > easy to analyze.
> > One must realize in the attempt to constrain
> > everyday experience to a finite conceptual space,
> > something will be lost in the translation.
> Of course, ineffable mystical experiences will be
> left out.
A lot will be left out. There are many things
physically observable that defy excluded-middle
analysis, like much of the phenomenon found in quantum
> > If you are constraining your arguments to a
> > space that you all have agreed upon and are happy
> > throwing away what you could not translate, then
> > should be no contention.
> > But if you are taking this constrained conceptual
> > thought space and then trying to impose it on
> > I foresee a problem.
> I don't impose anything on anyone. How could I?
My rant here is about where the boundaries of
interaction of others are drawn. In my protracted
experience with theoretical types, I find those
boundaries tend to encroach upon common contexts of
discourse, not just theoretical contexts.
I'm not accusing you of it per'se, I'm grumbling over
a general behavior which tends to preclude alternate
> > discussion here is forcing understanding through
> > symbolic logic. Doesn't this present the problem
> > the excluded middle concept?
> I think the attempts to express things in logics
> (symbolic and
> otherwise) is simply a precaution against muddled
> thinking. A
> precaution you apparently think it a virtue to
I think it a virtue to find an optimum harmonious
route to the truth, what ever the method.
Logic is a powerful tool for analysis. My beef is with
enforcing clinical defs on the creative thinking
process. If one is engaging in an open forum and
defines the context of discourse with specific
I'm simply saying I don't believe, know, or whatever
word you wanna use, that sequential thinking will lead
to any ground breaking understanding of mind and the
universe. Near as I can tell, the methods I've seen
here, are just more cleaver ways to search a space,
not transcend that space.
My frustration with this group has been to observe
(apparently) no creative ideas in transcending the
darkness which our ignorance of consciousness and the
nature of existence creates.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices