hmm, that set off a string. or "rigorous" = "makes the catch" or "works" or "fails to be self-deceiving" or "somehow manages to be real" or "actually responsive". The mind and imagery are so tremendously persuasive, so very free, fluid and flexible in creating a beautiful seamless universe from discordant evidence, it then also becomes most difficult for mind and information to directly feel the direct physical resistance of anything beyond themselves, as in a dreamworld. It's like how an artist learns to create a texture, by drawing the fluid of his pigments with such responsive, delicate and yielding intuitive effort that he draws the pigment itself to explode in color as a Van Gogh's sensitive touch a starry night, not an evidence of control but of connection. "rigorous" = "being able to feel what's real" ;-)
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:13 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trapped in the house. Was: Seminal > Papers in Complexity > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include > > everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on > > the street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous > conceptions of > > the things around then and use those conceptions to interact the > > world" often have difficulty getting out of their houses because (i) > > they do not (by definition) have a conception of where their > > front-doors are and (ii) even if they do find them they > cannot (again > > by the above definition) work out how to interact with them. > > Buzz! Thanks for playing. [grin] > > Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of "rigorous"? > "Rigor" means strict or rigid. "Rigorous" means rigidly > accurate or precise. > > I would posit that only a proper subset (odd how math keeps > creeping into the conversation) of people one is likely to > meet on the street is actually rigorous in their concepts. > And even fewer are rigorous in their application of their > concepts to the world. > > I've met many many fuzzy-thinking people on the street. I > presume you have too. So, you're wrong. My definition does > NOT include everyone you are likely to meet on the street. > > My definition only includes those people who take their > jobs/roles seriously and make strong attempts to be good at > what they do. > > Let's take skaters as an example. Some of them are so > precise in their tacit understanding of their board, the > surfaces upon which they skate, and their own bodies that > they can perform stunts that would send the rest of us to the > hospital. Then there are others who simply can't be that > rigorous, regardless of how often they try or how intently > they try to focus. > > Now. What does that say about the poor schlubs who can't skate very > well? Are they mathematicians? Well, maybe not. Or maybe they're > just not good at that _type_ of math. I.e. they are not good > at forming rigorous conceptions of skating. But, they might > be excellent at some other form, e.g. writing enforceable > legislation or cooking. There are plenty of people who are > excellent at formulating and manipulating some particular > formalisms but notoriously bad at others. > > Then there are the people who don't seem to think clearly no > matter what domain they enter. But there are other ways to > get your body to do things in a predictable way without > forming and applying rigorously developed conceptions. Much > of what we do as animals is learned in the form of the more > primitive: habit. It is less about forming concepts and > more about receiving positive and negative feedback to govern > trial and error. These people can not only get out of the > house; but, they can drive cars, work steady jobs, even hold > conversations. But, they always fall back on knee-jerk > [re]actions to perverse or novel ideas, because knee-jerk > reactions work so well for them in their other activities. > > Can one tell the difference between a mathematician and a > trial-by-error person? I think so. We often use words like > "professionalism", "competence", and "facile" to get at this boundary. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGgtLgZeB+vOTnLkoRAhfGAKCo/ZmpuzrViLa4o8Ja1ipV6xLfrgCg2v7m > BsWB7molwLcDmNNRFLmJQ18= > =2c/W > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
