| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I am a teacher of sorts. As a teacher, throughout the years, you pick up on ideas and techniques related to the basic study of “understanding.” Language pupils often evidence growth better and deeper not when learning a new word, but when learning the concept of the word, which is perhaps a dominant factor in Nietzsche’s school of thought: The essence of the word is the object to which the word refers, and the word is just a representation, a poor one at that, of the object. This is true to any other educational paths: Philosophy is more about understanding concepts than it is about understanding ideas. As my philosophy master says, “ideas are fragile, be careful not to break them,” to which I add, “and concepts are solid, make sure you learn them.”
Even the most natural and grounded of activities, such as farming and cultivation, require a thorough understanding of concepts, much more than steps and recipes. As Bertrand Russel said, paraphrased, on the subject, farmers may be happier than intellectuals, not because of the simplicity of the mind, but because of their interest in something specific, just as well as intellectuals may be happier than farmers due to having more interests. However, I believe farmers may be happier than the intellectual regardless of intellect itself. It is more than somewhat satisfying to understand a series of integrated concepts so thoroughly that they could be dreamt of and performed during dreams. When teaching people any art and/or skill, it seems important to keep concepts in plain sight. We should not wish our pupils to learn multiple ideas by heart, but dedicate time for them to understand one concept. This is where education should steer all forth and at full-steam in the XXI century. We hear that schools must teach students to ask questions, yet we should be hearing that schools teach students how to ask questions. Teaching the concept of a question must be the first step. At this point, we should perhaps strive to conceptualize everything we see and feel. Not simply contextualize, but conceptualize, in terms of fully thinking of the concept of the issue more than on the issue itself. Perhaps this is a path to happiness. Perhaps it is simply a path toward conceptualization. All that matters is that it is a path most clarifying and endearing. Let us walk it. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/27/15 09:32 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 20 hours, 59 minutes |
| ||||||
|
That was some refreshingly circular nonsense,
you have raised the bllshit bar in this forum.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 20 hours, 59 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Ideas and concepts are synonyms, the arbitrary differeces you and your Philosophy teacher have assigned them are an ideocyncratic interpretation that I see no evidence of.
| |||||||
|
Humble Student Registered: 11/30/11 Posts: 26,088 Loc: Deep in the syst |
| ||||||
Quote: Yeah, but they don't do they. Not in any useful sense. This was my experience of the educational system, to a tee: The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else. --H.L. Mencken -------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
First of all, if you are looking for evidences in philosophy that are not based on other philophical thoughts, there is something wrong with the method. Philosophy is not made of concrete evidences, but of observation of concrete facts and their interpretation, as well as thoughts on how life, world, self, etc., should be.
Second, I see that, aside of the last comment, two who read this came out with absolutely no concrete idea of what is being said. Have you ever taught professionally? This is a very basic text, although, mind you, I make the distinguishing traits. My philosophy master (not professor, I've had many professors, all exceptional, but only one master) only explained that "ideas are fragile." I see concept as a foundation, and idea as the final product, but you don't need to see it this way, this is the beauty of philosophy. But this is just semantics and metaphors. Concretely, my point is: If you want to teach something, teach by example. Example is the symptom of a concept acquired and made natural to one's functioning. Also, you're better off explaining concepts than formulas, either it is for language teaching, one of my areas of expertise, or cultivation of, say, mushrooms. Recipes and formulas are great, don't get me wrong. But they don't ensure that students will learn anything aside of the exact only recipe. However, if the concept of, say, a still air box is taught instead of "how to make a still air box," the rate of success is higher for those who are trying to make one. In any case, one reply was enough for me to advance the thought. Yeah, it's BS. So what? PS: Joke, tell me about it. This is one my deepets grievances with education, in general, and public education, specifically. Kisses, hugs, and KEEP CALM AND READ PART II Part II – The Concept of a Concept The redundancy seems crystalline. Understanding a concept requires understanding of what a concept is, and, indeed, to understand, it is necessary to understand the concept of understanding. However, dilemmas are for those who seek them, and so are redundancies. There are concepts kin to our nature, even when we do not understand the concept of nature. We are scaffold-sculptured to understand, for example. Therefore, the second part of the first sentence of the text dies as a fragile idea. Striving to understand “understanding” is equally an oxymoron as understanding the need to eat, breathe, defecate, etc. Inasmuch, trying to understand “understanding” could be the opposite of grasping its concept. There is a thought in Judaic-European Hasidut where there are three levels of intellect. The third refers to understanding, the second to comprehending and, for our intents the first step is “wisdom.” The system functions as an upside-down funnel. The top tip is extremely narrow and allows only a single drop of a concept to pour inside and through it. This drop, in a sense, is the concept. Without it, there is no comprehension, hereby considered as the developing substrate of an idea, ricocheting inside our brains until it becomes more and more transparent. When it clears to that central filter, it comes down as understanding, or, for our purposes, the idea becomes so transparent that it could be seen from most visible angles, if not all. This means that, in any case, there is no understanding altogether without conceptualization. If we think not of a concept, it does not even exist. It is only when we conceive a thought that the final, elaborated product of that thought comes as a glimpse at first to then evolve into an idea. If we see conceptualization as the first step to exploiting a developing thought, inversion, culture, etc., it becomes clear that nothing we understand and think as common with others comes without a concept. It does not mean it is the right concept, but it is one out of all of its kind. As an example, we turn again to teaching languages. Students often try to memorize words, conjugations, agreement, gender, voice and everything that relates to the basic recipe of a Grammar Book added with a Dictionary. Since there is enough data around, our inner blanks are filled with more confetti than content. However, even the confetti forms the basis of a strong and shelled concept. Bigotry, for example, as a concept (preconceived only from the point of view of those who have conceived it extensively), stands as shelled a footing as simple concepts, such as: “We need to eat to live.” On the other hand, when other materials are used on the foundation, the better they are, the more coherent the conception of the idea. In this respect, “we need to eat” extends to “what to eat,” “how to eat,” and so forth. Upon improving the matter composing the structure of the thought, it develops into deeper and deeper ideas: “What should we not eat,” “how should we not eat,” “what is food,” and up to the conception of the impossible, such as “can we eat in a more humane manner,” or, “how can I change my feeding habits to be most adequate toward the earth?” Concepts are not simple assumptions. Assuming something is to conceive without thinking. It is no vainer than preconception, notwithstanding what others conceive. They must arise from assumptions, indeed, since those could be our parable spawn to the seeds that will grow into produce. However, this is only half the drop in our funnel paradox. The other half in evolving the assumption into a concept is to know how to distinguish between concepts and non-starters. The question is not asked at this stage. It is almost a naturally occurring process. It requires a fertile brain, in a way, but no more fertile than sand to cacti. We evolve assumptions into the possibility that they may become concepts, or we discard them to avoid preconception. Alas, there are several caveats to conceiving ideas. There are treasures of the mind and scum of the mindless. However, if shortness needs to exist for the sake of nullifying dogmas and creating positivist formulas, we may summarize concepts as the first mental image and/or formulation of an idea. Our cycle follows the structure: Assumptions -> Concepts -> Thoughts -> Well-formed Ideas Assumptions lead to concepts, which lead to thoughts, which lead to ideas. Now, we shall examine the entire structure, considering each of their strongest and weakest features. Seeking this definition requires the analogy to the Judaic philosophy. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/28/15 06:51 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Ever hear of the one by Plato, "you can't carve up the world by its joints"?
Flexion is not arbitrary, but something given to such considerations and priorities of what makes an idea useful, and perhaps demonstrably so in virtue, or not. I'd say there is no overall in this. Only maybe the words of Tom Waits :-) Teacher's like a puppet when you're under his spell... The heart is heaven and the mind is hell... Edited by Kurt (08/28/15 01:59 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I am not sure I understand what you wrote, but I do understand that you say flexion is not arbitrary. I believe reflexion is not arbitrary (hence the semantics of prefix "re"). But external stimuli as well as internal create assumptions that may or may not become concepts. If they do, it means they solidify. If they don't, it means there is always hope for flexibility and development/growth.
Love Tom Waits, by the way, but I wouldn't know who is the puppeteer controlling the teacher in this metaphor. This is only relevant (what I am writing, at all) to try to understand a method of teaching and learning that is actually simply put: "It is better to conceive than to memorize. It is easier to understand (perhaps only possible so) if one conceives." The fragility of ideas comes exactly from flimsy structures of concepts, ill filtered and solidified. If a person's concept is too solid, even the clearest of ideas crumbles, puddles and slimes down the drain. This is why an idea, on its own, stands as an assumption. The well-formed idea originates from conceptualizing and thinking, thus understanding as much as possible regarding a given subject. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Why do you suppose you default to pedagogy? Consider that this is not just a tap a knee with a hammer question.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I have some pedagogical experience, but if I were to elaborate an answer I'd point to several moments in my life where teaching and learning were important traits in my development.
-------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/28/15 03:04 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
That is deeper than a formal connection I take it.
Maybe you can take the notion, or maybe not. I don't mean that is teaching but you'd have to follow to make any sense of what I am saying for example. There is that. But what is the real condition? I think it is no coincidence that Chiron was the "wounded healer" and the great teacher of the Greeks, as the myth goes... Have you ever read the one by Nietzsche "how to philosophize with a hammer? Quote: What about the assumption being a way of seeking destruction of ambling ideas, an implied "whole", as itself being the suggestive manner of thought which rings out? What if the art of it is to take a chunk clean off of the mold? What about clearing a way for the craftsman - literally, that lowly caste which Plato and Aristotle turned on, the one who works with tactile intimation with the physical world? Techne, they called it. The craftsman may likely know that the physiology of an idea, like the uniquely evolved human organism, is not just governed by the formal capacity of the brain, the higher governing function, but that hinge, the distinctive opposition, I mean the hands, fingers and opposable thumbs, which are themselves a hinge in which forms in the world are shaped. Even in our minds we use our hands I think. The world likewise is not just categorically founded in form and content (Or matter), as abstract categories, but their manner of already being involved with one another... and what I have found, in experience anyway, is that this is not necessarily constructive, when you bring it all to bear. Who is to say we should be constructive about ideas at all? To step out of the view of connected reflexion which is always necessary, what does the hammer become? Teachers are ones who do seem to stand outside, but in a different way. They seek to form the world by forming the former. Constructive thought often seems to be the basic assumption of pedagogues who stand closest to the art, or anyways, the goal of course is somehow not the point where the whole situation falls apart of course. Teachers are the closest to represent that relation to techne in general way, and yet in a way which they lose that connection to the art, because of the removal, the formalism, or the hastey undercutting. Techne is very uniquely in the middle, not the higher place or lower seat. It wasn't the highest concept of form to Plato (dis-involved knowledge was) but he returned to techne again and again to make the distinction of removed underatanding. Follow the subtlety of this turning of thought in Aristotle, and it seems like it was not intended to suggest a relation of higher or removed, (beyond or above) in exactly the way we might think, even though his thought is coined "metaphysical". I think the art is a turning on the middle value, the caste of artisans. Quote: The teacher is very close to bearing this relation, but in his case, I think I follow Nietzsche's deconstructions. The inherent susceptibility of the idea, the very necessary idea that ideas should be constructive, interests me, and I am interested in how as soon as you step out of that reasonable assumption, you use the hammer differently. Anyway that would be my own notion to share. Here is another from Nietzsche on that suspect assumption (also from Twilight of the Idols) Quote: Pardon the haphazardness and ramblings or any typos. I'm on a phone here, and a little over-busy. Edited by Kurt (08/28/15 08:23 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Well I think Art is true..as long as you do something..and take it from start to end..it is a complete thing..and maybe or maybe not can be seen as art..
Where the displacia comes into play is the notion of seeing art in the minds eye..or inside the mind..and though it may be perfect..and you can share it with your psychic friends..it will never be an assemblance of something real in the Material world.. Where the difference lies..is that we maybe conceive of beautiful images..and they may be perfect or you may have revelations on drugs or just sober..but to actually describe them on paper or on the internet may be impossible..the reason for this is what the Gnostics call an Abortion..the whole consideration of matter itself..is known as the abortion for the very reason that you have to be born and learn to walk..then speak..and then do whatever is your particular calling..but it will never come imediately..only after a great amount of time and effort..and in this is the outside world like a wasteland..which doesnt resemble the soul..or Mind at All..but is a big wasteful vacuum...It sucks that even if im a Leonardo Davinci in my mind..it will likely be impossible for me to ever create something like that in (Real life) or outside my own body with my own hands and my own thoughts from thinking to paper..and my own flesh and blood.. It IS a great travesty...and that is one of the main reasons why we are so unhappy..we can never uphold the standards are the men of the famous Renaissance! And even if we try for years..most people will never be able to produce..or write about the very experiences..and images they have in their own mind! But i say this in the most extremely nihilistic manor..it is often the most fortitudinous things that give us the most grief or term oil..but I say this not in jest but in pragmatics.. We should always strive to do our best..in our lives..to attempt to live up to these great standards..is the Great Work itself..so All i am trying to say..is that to do anything at all IS worthy..and that my freinds is the first step..and maybe one day..you will have something worthy..of our Public culture..a Book or a piece of Art....
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
At a tangent..it can be a reason to celebrate just know that you are on any level at all..in mind I can say I am a Grandmaster..or maybe even a Legend or a Prophet..but in words..and images..I can not be known as anything Great..Unless say one of my posts gets Published by a Magazine..or News Paper..or is honestly Apreciated by the masses of the people on this forum..or on any forum..I think art is Beautiful..and i think that if we are honest to ourselves..we may have the technology one day..to make these fabrications of our very most inner thoughts..and the sensations of our being..to which we can fabricate a story..like in Chokmah on the Kabbalah..or maybe just return to the honest display of life(Chesed)..but we will only ever know the Outlines(Netzach)..and that to do good art..is probably the same as saying that i will be true today..and extend myself from my soul..and mind/consciousness..out into the real world..and there in we find Cubism..
and that would be an honest commitment..to just see things through..from start to end!! This could work in any sector of your daily life..Just taking a piece of the Pi..is Great..but imagine having a Whole Pie.. That would be life itself!! Live it to its fullest Colors!!
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
There is an analogy I like. Assumptions could be like bacteria, or even viruses. They may be friendly to one's anatomy, or cause it to fall ill. They may be used to prevent future contaminations. This is similar to the stream of thought I derive my idea, the Jewish Hasidut. While the physical world is compared to a castle, it is compared to a castle in flames. Without the castle, there would be no rich foundation upon which to build. Without the flames, there would be nothing to refurbish.
Where the physical world colonizes its own gaps and pores, shaping itself in multiple copies of the similar prisms. I was thinking the other day about the anatomy of Penis Envy, for example, and how the genitalia, which represent our very existence, is shaped so similarly to other forms in nature. In my text, what I say is nearly identical, since craftspeople, farmers, masons, carpenters, etc., do have the "end thought" as the first "glimpse," but that is only possible based upon their conceptions of the world and of themselves. Today I saw a child bounce a basketball with such grace and awareness of his body and the physical laws governing the environment practically broke that "governing." The physical expanding into the metaphysical. A colonization of sorts? Most colonies form on top of other colonies or groups, which, in itself, could be either pure evil, good, or simply nature as nature is. I agree about teachers. Not that teachers, themselves, ae necessarily at fault, but it is the "grinding machine" spitting out lecturers that creates a need not to teach the basis of thought, but the evolved thought on its own (a great example is how mathematics are taught). More on that later. Update: "Who is to say we should be constructive about ideas at all? To step out of the view of connected reflexion which is always necessary, what does the hammer become?" No one. I believe thinking in a matter of should as opposed to could is already a pre-construction, thus a preconception, or a concept infected with an assumtpion. "Teachers are ones who do seem to stand outside, but in a different way. They seek to form the world by forming the former. Constructive thought often seems to be the basic assumption of pedagogues who stand closest to the art, or anyways, the goal of course is somehow not the point where the whole situation falls apart of course." This is only when teachers have some kind of autonomy, which is not the case in our educational system as is not the case in most. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/29/15 03:41 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 20 hours, 59 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Royque 1980 are you putting quotation marks around random sentences as you type them for the first time?
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
No but I didn't know how to insert too many quotes in one post without double posting. All of those marks refer to Kurt's words. Why would I put quotation marks in what I write? Doesn't make any sense unless you think I'm more retarded than I factually am, dude!
You assume a lot but don't seem to care to elaborate your unfiltered assumptions. First, I want to debate all aspects, including those brought up by Kurt and Brendan. I think, Brendan, you may be concentrating more on the existentialist factor of "art as a concept," but I am looking to elaborate an abstract idea regarding the "concept as an art." Also, Kurt, there are several parts I did not understand from your replies, so I apologize (you wrote well, I am studying yout words at a closer look) for not delivering the responses you wished to read. Check out the ideas I took from this "debate" attributed to you inspiring me are aligned to how you presented them in terms of my limited ability to understand it. Do you have practical experience in the academic, philosophical scenario? Part II.b. Assumptions To assume is to presume, inevitably. Once an assumption falls through the inverted funnel, it must be filtered before it crashes unto the fertile media of ideas. We may think of the inverted funnel as a cap for a scalped head, leaving a brain exposed as an engine. If the assumption falls right through the storage, it is filed as if it had been through the entire process of metabolizing a thought. However, if properly filtered with other information to assist and support the assumption, deeming it worthy of going through the funnel, or deeming it disposable, concepts are first generated, before dropping into the brain chamber. This process seems to occur naturally in three ways: a. When foundations are 'strong,' an assumption may not require filtering. b. When foundations are 'weak,' the filter does not seem to function well. c. When foundations are 'consistent' and 'solid,' the filter functions as it is supposed to function. It is according to the foundations in our filters - which do not need be of any specific strains and races and cultures and genders - that assumptions are naturally assessed as valid or fruitless according to endless standards. If one thinks, for example, that a holy book speaks only the absolute and final truth, and if those thoughts are based on the preconception that there are no metaphors or exceptions to the rule of the words of the sacred compilation, the filter may disregard any assumptions that do not conform to that reality, as it may quickly allow passage to any assumption that speaks to the heart of the preconception and, with time, solidify into the structure of another concept. Thus, in the event that the spawn falls through the cracks of our filters, it is rare that it can develop into thoughts and, later, into well-formed ideas. It is similar to any spawn exposed to infections and other parodies of trickster Mother Nature, which would not produce the seed, but only mold, or bacteria, or diseases of the mind. Strong assumptions without due process may become assets of paranoia or psychosis. Weak assumptions are probably naturally discarded as excrement from the human body. Filters require proper feeding, by any means, to operate in as regular a fashion as possible. They require feeding that comes through sound bases and other strong concepts, which simply do not solidify and lack consistency, or feeding that comes from matter that creates those chemical bonds necessary for solidification and consistency. It all depends on food for thought, in itself a perfect example of food for thought. Assumptions are like bacteria, viruses, which may be processed as antibiotics or kill, contaminate and destroy. Falling unfiltered, they contaminate concepts, which contaminate thoughts and contaminate ideas. In this sense, the metaphor of the pure drop of assumption changes from free-falling to floating down and unhinged. As it does, it spreads spores of contaminates, bacteria and viruses. Those may still be processed as antibiotics, or, to our analogy, as remedies for the ill that these assumptions cause. One such example is when a person undergoes through the metamorphosis of an individual’s psyche as a former racist or misogynist to a defender of racial and gender equality. Unfiltered assumptions become produce of fruitful thoughts, (from any perspective of value attribution), when individuals in question have the capacity to “self-heal” and conceal new thoughts and, fatally, ideas. This means that, as these imperfect molecules cross the inverted funnel, they may contaminate an organism that has great defense mechanisms, such as fully biologically efficient antibodies. In any case, we are all sufferers of contaminations, and not only vulnerable to new ones. Ideas change, and we should be thankful for that, since it is their development that allows intellectual mobility, or the incorporation of concepts in such a manner that they become not only abstract thoughts, but “hands conceptualized in the brain of a craftsperson” as he/she incorporates their craft in such a manner that it ceases to be only metaphysical, bridged with the most concrete of realities (*Kurt’s contribution). Next, we shall speak of concept as part of the material that comprises ideas, before speaking of the “art of conceptualization,” as a whole. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/30/15 09:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Hey Roy, based on your post in response I thought you were following. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought your post was focused and interesting. Hope you are not losing your bananas here, though. I think Falcon just missed that you were quoting me.
Anyway, here is my response to your previous post. Do you believe there is inherent value to concept? I tend to find an emphasis at least in a critique of the technicality of concepts. Things seem to go down hill from there... By the way, I am not an academic just your ordinary hill wandering nihilist, or whatever you want to call it. The criticism would be basically the same in all considerations, and it could be more or less fairly given. You can recognize the essential arbitrariness of conceptuality. I am not just saying that because there is any face value reason to point it out, but I think anyone could at any point say so nonetheless. The meaning behind conceptual analysis, at least I understand is essentially in taking taking something apart. The concept of analysis etymologically bears the meaning of "unloosening" in the Greek analuein. This is something that is sometimes (ie. historically) misunderstood, when analysis is also within certain means, just essentially presenting something as it is, in how it is. That is analysis and so is the other. How could it be both? Well it seems to me anything can be analyzed, from trees to tables to laptops that sit on them, to language that is written through this and sent out. Analysis as "unloosening" was most fittingly intended to apply primarily to certain craft items, like tables or chairs, or other useful things. This intimation is already made: Specifically, anything that has been given form in some sense is in principle, not being found as what it is in itself, as physis or nature. Such a thing that has been formed has been imposed on either in conception, or in the case of the craftsman that carries formation out in reality. By "unloosening", ie. analysis classically, we are able to unconceal how a thing is. There is a direction in this. The chair might paradigmatically be unloosened until it "stands firm" in itself in substantia, in matter, say, the point where it is just wood. Now it is born in itself once again, unimposed on, and mainly it is in our minds that we think this. It is something we present. We can do this unloosening in our mind or talking, or literally. This is paradigmatic instance of human reasoning born to mind. I'd certainly say you can take this or leave it. There is literalism as what is passed down. For instance, much as the "matter" bears an essential etymological connection to timber (kind of funny) perhaps there is a hint in this essential turning point of craft, or at least in this essential analogy of the Greeks. It is one to look to. I think it is possible to see both the emphasized importance of the technical concept and the essential arbitrariness and emptiness of it at the same time. I would argue that in bearing emphasis on craft, (and human means and ends, as art) as Aristotle did, it is possible to see that conceptual analysis is essentially revealing the emptiness of forms, rather than the substantiality. The direction of analysis can become a pursuit, namely the probing and attempt to get at the "underlying thing", breaking down and building up, in forms, or it can suggest how the concept is founded to turn on its own form as empty. I believe that is the essence of any concept. If we thought decisively about the means and ends of our conceptual involvements, I think such a notion could at least be seen. Take it for what you will. I'd say we tend to piggy back on concepts though, the situation we are given over to. The unloosening is surely there and not by accident, in that without unloosening all things would already be present in themselves. But that is conceptuality if you ask me, it is a misunderstanding of these involvements in most cases, when people give it inherent value. Or in terms of the analogy, perhaps it is important to show how the material substance wood, is like the tree in that both stand in themselves, as present in nature, in themselves, and yet just as well the chair or table exists in itself too, no less, if we are clear in these concepts. I don't believe I have any argument with you, I just don't think there is any virtue in presenting concepts in life. I decided not to do the academic thing and have traveled and farmed for a living. There is a reason things are analyzed, and born to concept, it is just not a wholly compelling reason ultimately. The only virtue of a concept is to bear these conceptual forms (such as the chair) to mind as they are, insofar as they seem to obtruded. The only reason to bear a the concept of a concept is to return it to its context wherein it is possible to recognize the emptiness of concepts. Of course concepts can be filled too, but I think there is plenty of natural guidence in this direction. Conceptuality does not seem to me to be a virtue. It is techne, or art in that sense, and the means to bear.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Also this thread seems to be getting competitive. I am not sure if what I am saying fits, so take it for what it is worth.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
As a former cultivator (not really farming, but seeding, planting and harvesting flowers and cacti - non-mescaline producing), I can attest I have seen no better philosophers as farmers.
Quote: Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/30/15 09:41 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote:Quote: I think if you look, there actually is face value in the concept insofar as it is based on an idea of what the craft is. For example, when a musician says the band is making a "concept" album, there is in that way inevitably an appeal to the craft just as much as the particular concept. That is not just one thing and the other, and definitely I tend to think it can't actually be abstracted, in a simple way. When the artist in the magazine interview says that he is making a conceptual piece, that is the closest it comes to becoming explicit, but what is that worth? What I see in that is an inherent criticism of this joint relation in concept (both the notion and how it relates to the craft) when it comes to bear. I think there is a way that in thinking of it, the technical process recedes when you are working with something. For example, when the craftsman's hammer comes to its proper use, it stands more in what it is as it withdraws, Heidegger would say. Also when Nietzsche talks about using a hammer with a different result, that seems to me to be using the hammer in the ordinary way that a hammer thing is, only with an equally implied, different result. To come to your particular idea, I would say the difference in ideas and concepts, does not seem to me to be defined intrinsically, or in a way that is possible to abstract exactly. The hardening or consolidation of an idea as "concept" "conceptuality" "conceptualism", or structure in general is seen in one way, from the outside, and that is something suspect. I think the fragility of ideas is appropriate, and the ease in which they are overlooked or undermined, is maybe a bit unjust but that is what makes art, in the world, not consolidation. With art... I think it is best to accept the conditional ways that ideas or notions strike you. I think falcon's original criticism is on point. If you think that through self reference, ideas can somehow stand more firmly, maybe you are missing his criticism. I am interested in the way the hammer becomes something else or how it recedes, mainly in these involved art situations. I think the closest I was to being on the same page was here: Quote: Is the kid is thinking about principles, or even the art of how to dribble a basketball for example, when dribbling the basketball? I would not deny there is something beyond the art, or artist's existence, yet also it is the point where the art also withdraws or recedes. What people always say of art in that sense seems to be true. Maybe what more can be said, is that the art is somehow (like the craftsman in a social world) in the middle of this. But clearly in these relations are all in reference to the art, or human existence in some kind of joint way. I see the withdrawing has prescedence. I am not for any conceptuality standing out, or existing. For example, tell the kid (or yourself) what he is doing, when he dribbles the basketball and where does that get anyone. I think there is a kind of mediated institutional role of teachers. The focus on technique, and concept, misses what the art is, but I don't doubt they have value. Look to the Greeks I always would say, both in philosophy and the stories they told. For example Chiron taught all the great Greek heroes in the myth, and was wounded but could not heal himself. There is also the craftsman God, Hephaestus. I'd say it isn't by any coincidence he was lame or even ugly. He was married to Aphrodite, the god of love and beauty (as Zeus's arrangement for her). These symbols stand out to me. This discussion seems to be of shaping the shapers, in various involutions and infiltrations. The question Plato always asked the sophists, is what are you doing, that becomes an art of teaching/conceptualization. What is the turn from classical form, or idea to conceptualization and pedagogy that you yourself are trying to make? Edited by Kurt (08/30/15 04:17 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I'll look closer at your thesis too btw. I am having a difficult time understanding the esoteric departure, in Judaic Hasidut.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
You may find this interesting, by the way. Of origins, and circular reasonings... All that stuff that is promptly regarded as fallacious by sounder minds, but alas I have somehow fallen into the Heidegger spiral lately.
The Origin of The work of Art PS there might be better translations. Edited by Kurt (08/30/15 03:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
When I mean concepts have no face value, I am speaking of the attributuon of qualities. A concept is not necessarily "good" or "bad." As it comes to art itself, I am not dwelling in its essence. My only point is to elaborate on the importance of concepts in education. When a concept is taught, practice becomes clearer. There is no value attribution only in this sense. As to what you say, yes, there are values in concepts.
By the way, I do not think art can be explained. It may be conceptualized, but not explained. It is something you feel in many levels, but don't necessarily need to understand, or you need to understand an essence that is nearly impossible to define. Pleasure speaking with you. I will read your links with time. I still must look closer into your writings to better understand you, although it seems the more I do, the more they seem to allow for my POV as well. This is a heavy thread eve to me ![]() ------------------- Part II.d. Thoughts Once the first drop slides as the lithe into the funnel, as opposed to pummeling right through it, it falls in our metaphorical chamber of thoughts. As concepts are infinite, so are thought patterns, but we can speak of a few concept prints, namely: pragmatism, wishful thinking and magical thoughts. Nature and nurture provide us with the ingredients to rationally as well as spontaneously process assumptions and raw concepts. According to general guidelines, probably as numerous as personalities and manners, human faculties process intellectual cycles. These do not entail that the brain only functions in a homogenous way. They do, however, presuppose a dominant modus operandi. We shall focus on the three categories aforementioned. Pragmatism Pragmatic thought measures systematic ground rules, follows trends and allows for past results to dictate the only anticipated possible expectations of an outcome. Since it is guided by what are sensed as facts by the sage-box of beholders, it forces the first liquid speck to follow a system. The methodical dynamics of this type of thought generates what we could call realism. Realism was once summarized as positivism with experience enough to know that plans b., c. and ad infinitum are more frequent than plan A. Therefore, pragmatic thought will shape pragmatic ideas. However, what will those pragmatic ideas reflect, and how they shall be delineated is an incognito. The composition of the assumption-concept spawn will model and adapt the genetics of the thought, as those are structured toward making order out of chaos, or explaining chaos – which one is more difficult, I do not dare to answer. The only certainty of pragmatism is the dominant bedrock dictating that the world should be identified as it is, and not as we wish it to be. It is not a flawless process. In fact, reality is knotty. Not only we are often surprised by given contradictions to our expectations, but there are large substantial bodies of evidence related to how one’s inner view of one’s self influences and casts the external world. Therefore, pragmatism is as much abstract in face value as are magical thought and wishful thinking. However, when our thoughts manage to conform to more than one pattern, as pragmatism tends to generate the opposite conformism, we may use pragmatic thought to limn paradigms as much as other types of intellect progress. By understanding, for example, that there is relativity in many aspects of life, whether we, as a species, wish it so or otherwise, pragmatic thought could be but one of endless mixed frameworks. This is where the other two types of intellectual digestion come to allude to the diversity of materials inside the inverted filter. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/31/15 11:43 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I would not take the kind of reflection on art in Heidegger to be an assertive position in a general.
If you want an argument, I'd say it's a criticism of the sophism of suggesting it is possible to teach an art of "conceptualization". What is that "art" of; can it be of pedagogy itself? This is the classic question Socrates always asked. The platonic "form", which of course has been critiqued on many grounds, may present itself as appropriate to art. In art an idea form gets no better treatment though. The form must recede into an allowence of the presence of things in themselves, namely in this case, art. For example, when the artist talks about the form of perfection, like to shoot an arrow straight, the susceptibility to critique in speaking of that idea of "form" is appropriate. If he achieves a form, he is not thinking or talking about it. The consideration, of course, is significant to the bearing of art, but simplicity remains the ideal quality as opposed to technicality. In any case, as long as the artist speaks of form he cannot have mastered it, because he is still setting himself something beyond to achieve in that way, which deconstructs itself. To my mind "concept", as the consolidation of form or idea, is misunderstanding this. In general, in any piece of art, I don't think conceptuality belongs in it at all. I was leaning less toward criticizing what a "conceptual art" would be, in overwroughtness before, but suggested looking to the examples of teachers and craftsmen, in how they cannot stand for the art, (Like Chiron or Hephaestus) because their weakness of constitution, cannot stand in itself as the artful thing. I would not argue that there is any particular essence to art, other than what comes into being when the artist's form recedes, allowing the "work" to truly stand in itself. That is less an argument I would take up, (I think teachers and conceptualism is fine) and more just wishing to for this idea to be clear. Edited by Kurt (08/31/15 01:04 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Let me just try to summarize what I gathered at first reading and if you could, point me out in the right direction (did I get you?):
1. You are asserting that, even if we do not emphasize the "art" of the title of the text, "art" is very much a factor in it. I have to admit this is an intricate question, and I must ponder on it. 2. You give plenty on which to ponder. I agree with one of your statements, paraphrasing, that form, when conceived, cannot be part with the nature of the artist. 3. In this sense, you also mention that it would be only sophism to understand concepts. I agree with you, but only partially, albeit, ideas do change. 4. Art itself, as mentioned in item 1, cannot be conceptualized, therefore concept and art might very well be two entirely different ideas. This is a question that might entirely change the title to something as: "The Efficiency of Conceptualization in Practical Education." Am I more or less understanding you? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (08/31/15 12:58 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
To tell you the truth, I am having a little trouble understanding how you are speaking. I'll generally respond in what I grok, and with the intent to be lucid. (Unfortunately I am still typing with my thumbs on a phone).
First, I can see how there could be conceptualization in art, and in the same way I think I would tend to be critical of that. One thing I have been saying is that to me an artist's "concept" stands out as the point where something may seem contrived and may be deconstructed. I am not saying we are looking at any particular work of art to demonstrate this though. I was mentioning before how an artist may make a conceptual album, and that may come to bear by the artist's attempt to insinuate how his work should be appreciated, in some way. I am not denying there is a possibility that this working out. A concept, for instance, may be something a particular niche of culture really appreciates and something other people just don't get. That happens all the time unconsciously as well as consciously. Aside from that there is a question of how, and ultimately, a question of why, in the effecient means of some craft or other, there would be such thing as an "art of conceptualization". You seem to take that to be something in itself. I would say, in this gap, before you object to a criticism of conceptualism in art - I mean in the essence of the work itself - where I come from is acknowledging that whether the idea precedes the work of art or the art precedes the idea is a moot. If you get this, you get why I verge directly to the essence of art, as such (which can itself be an open question). So I'd just say, if you or someone wants to make a conceptual piece, then that is the way you will do it, and I will appreciate that... When I was in college I was pretty well into experimental and avant garde music, for instance John Zorn and the Tzadik label. I felt this was a kind of freedom, both in jazz and traditional jewish music (I always liked the clarinet sound in Klezmer). Incidentally, at the time I was actually studying music, and attempting that formally from "the ground up" (as my typical american education or whatnot). I didn't realize then that I hadn't lived much, and I didn't understand where grounds for art might be in existence. I ended up switching degrees. Anyways not to digress; I would say this is not just an investigative question, but the essential interrogation. For example, I think "why" an art expresses something, as it does in general, might well speak to an artist's experience of the world. Whatever that is, may be called "subjective". I think this is well, aside from any suggestion that by connotation, "subjective" should describe anything in aspect other than an imaginative spark. The interrogative question could also be asked of conceptualization. Incidentally, you seem to have generally described concept as consolidating the "fragility" of ideas in a general way. From my place I am not going to be able to or wish to argue with this. I'd just say conceptualism can certainly be critiqued in art, or it may be considered a loose end of "artistry" (as in contrived means and ends) which can be pulled on, but of course, I can't say this deconstruction should inform how art should be made. I would only acknowledge that in art, clearly anything goes of course. Maybe that is your point in your openness to conceptualism... I do think the essential question could be put though... Why or in what virtue, there is any "art of conceptualization" is a question that could be asked. Why something should be rather than not be, (something which the mere investigative question can never consider) is a question that at any point could be relavent to the artist, so I would put it that way, to the essence of the work, (which of course, I believe can be interrogated.) When you speak to conceptualization, and vest in that,I think it's likely that you are looking to something somewhat different. Will you find it worthwhile to possibly raise essential questions of art? Edited by Kurt (08/31/15 05:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I haven't finished posting all I am writing and it may be unnecessary. But I am aware my writing can be confusing. I do apologize.
I think the word "art" has been missused. I never intended to write about art, its nature or concepts. In this sense, I understand now that I used the word carelessly. This is besides the point. In the most practical terms, in education: Learn a skill (Grammar, mathematics, carpentry) and you will be able to master that skill. Learn the concept of the skill (the well-formed idea of the skill) and you will be able to master that skill and anything related to it, as well as improvise and test your improvising techniques. The body of the argument only alludes to how learning a skill as a recipe - as they do with math, for instance, in formulas without any explanation of the concept of the formula, - can bring you to limited learning and many assumptions as opposed to well-formed ideas. So, for our purposes, in a nutshell: Concept - The foundation of a well-formed idea - the detailed blueprint of the formula, showing its origins and reasons. Well-formed ideas: Skills so intrinsic to one's nature that they could be performed during sleeping. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Well I started a response as well, but I think maybe the point would be simply put. Respectfully, what you are talking about as an art that is not an art, is what many people are going to call sophistry, guiding pedagogically for its own sake.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Art has no relevance here, Kurt. Please at least understand that. There is no art that is not an art. There is one subject: Concepts and their importance in education. That is all. It is all very simple in this sense, in its objective. Forget the word "art", it has no bearings here.
-------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I beg to disagree, Roy. If what you are saying were clear, I would understand how you believe that concepts could be important in virtue of "education", and somehow nothing more. Of course, the classic position of sophistry, is to claim to be able to teach something, and not have any craft in mind.
That aside, I also find your suggested pragmatism to be at least curious, Maybe coming to this would be a more productive conversation. As I understand, modern pragmatism emphasizes concepts precisely in order to critique the overgeneralization of their value. For instance, conceptual analysis had become dominant school of thinking, and a rigid institution in the early 20th century, and the pragmatist W.O. Quine's famously critiqued this. He critiqued analyticity, put to question this smoothly working institution of technical concepts. Of course a critique of modern notion of analysis is not based on the notion of analysis which to the Greeks was intimated with craft, (ie. unloosening), and we are overlooking that. Modern analysis is properly the notion of what is "contained in a concept", as Kant defined it. On these grounds analyticity had become a consolidation and a basis of institutionalism in general. In short, a generalizable aegis of guidance in conceptuality, is exactly what is questionable, according to a pragmatist like Quine. This could definitely be looked to in depth. So in addition to the essential question of art, there is also the question of the principle grounds of pragmatism you are suggesting as an alternative basis for conceptualization. With analyticity largely in question for neopragmatists, what is "contained in a concept" is not more suggestive in any general view, but just the opposite, I'd reckon.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Perhaps you are right, and I am no expressing myself in the right way, but I cannot for the life of me understand what you are stating. - We are talking about the craft of teaching. A craft is not necessarily art. This is where I missused the word art. Quote: I do not believe Quine critiqued anything related to what I wrote in terms of what a concept is or should be. This is where it becomes clear that perhaps your take on my words is somehow biased to perceive what you want. That would work especially if I am not making myself clear. But, to clarify, analytical concept and teaching concepts of specific crafts (such as teaching, in general, and teaching math, in particular) are almost two worlds apart. To grasp a concept, as I imagine it in praxis is very different from analyzing concepts for the sake of the analysis. This grasping is intended for practical purposes and means. Analyzing the nature of concepts in general may also be a bad idea, but I must check into it and for this, I am grateful for your opinions. Quote: Funny thing is, I am not suggesting that pragmatism is an alternative basis for conceptualization. I am detailing, in a very vague way, three general frameworks of human thought: Pragmatism, Wishful Thinking, and Magical Thoughts. Many of those ideas extracted from psychological concepts, as I may or may not unveil, since I am starting to think this may have generated all there is to it at this point. What is more suggestive? What is the opposite? What is neopragmatism for you, or in general? You must understand that I barely keep up with your loops. But I am thankful for the food for thought. Maybe explaining concepts is not a fertile line of thought. Explaining in the sense of deconstructing what concepts are for the craft of teaching (specifics and general), is a way of creating "the concept a concept." I see your point in respect to sophism, but at this point nothing has been argued, but that learning concepts help practice and skill advancement. Is this is the point with which you disagree, state as simple as possible, please. --------------- Wishful Thinking A wish is an expectation of something that may or may not make factual sense – and factual in the sense of being either based on past realities or new information. Wishes, much like beliefs, induce minds to expectancies that might, in a pristine fashion, not bear foot or arm. Nonetheless, they also motivate minds to create adequate environments where other thoughts and their concretization can fruit as independent forces of nature. Ideals, although subject to the same subjectivity, are known as a necessity, and are only possible when one allows wishful thinking to become part with the intellectual seeding and harvest. Ideals may morph into ideologies. Ideologies are perhaps the most solid and consistent of structures, shielded with their intolerance of other ideas and an uncanny stubbornness. The quasi-concept conceptualizes faster since the wish colonizes the molecules of pragmatism. The shell it creates is perhaps the opposite of being the safest, albeit, as a quasi-concept, its foundation is seen as if it was. It becomes a self-healing organism since it does not allow “contaminations” to easily penetrate its thick carcass. Not without gaps and defects, but optimal enough to allow thoughts to develop into strong – but fragile – ideas. Wishful thinking, however, opens doors for “eureka” moments, that first part of the creation of a well-formed idea dropping into the inverted funnel. It is when what one wishes to be, becomes, in a shape or another. This was the case for recently deceased, Dr. Albert Hoffman, who discovered LSD while searching for a pain killer. Wishful thinking also allows for desires to be taken to the longest possible extent. The latter may extend into nothingness, or create something new, notwithstanding the original wish. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (09/01/15 08:56 PM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
To put it in the simplest terms would have to be contrary:
What I am saying is teaching is not craft in itself. It is not a craft by anything more than an accident of teaching an essential craft. I think that is the concise statement. You seem to sincerely value progressive liberal education; I will give you that much. Broadly, to touch on something we agree on, I think pragmatism should be a focus for Americans. It is pretty much our essential contribution to the world, philosophically speaking. I think it is important to consider trends in thinking, from a historical perspective, and I think that honestly that suggests exactly what is going on, in philosophical position. I think people today, particularly in america, can be compulsively analytical, or technical, or conceptual, and unfortunately rather than being pragmatists, they value this for its own sake. They are in that way easily partial to the American industrial complex (for example in the activity of assembly line technological production and consumption). This is due in part to the trend of analyticity in the 20th century, and pragmatism can be seen as a tendency against that. Classical pragmatism began in the late 19th Century as a uniquely American thing. In the early 20th century, there was a lot of alarm in world politics, and in the anglo-american world in general, felt urged to get everyone thinking on the same level, "allied" in a single frame of reference, and so analytic philosophy (the Thought of Frege, Russell Wittgenstein, and the Logical Positivists...) came to focus. It was there to consolidate a position, opposed to german idealism, and phenomenology (Kant, Husserl, and Heidegger). But the point is, pragmatism was eclipsed by this socio-cultural movement of analytic philosophy, that was undoubtedly in part based on polarized world affairs. The analytic turn, was a turn toward "language" or namely conceptuality. That philosophical tradition became extremely conservative, and was only brought to question, and basically overturned, thanks to the eventual resurgence of pragmatism, the "neopragmatism" that came to fore in the 1950s after the second world war. I'd mark that beginning with Quine. That critique and exhaustion of abstracted conceptual base of analyticity, was as he said, not a particularly contrary argument, but raising the question of how conceptual analyses could be practically useful, namely in context, which was more holistic. By the way, neither holism nor pragmatism would seem to be simple propositions, to be found contrary and compared to analyticity exactly. Holism, is the suggestibility in practices, that propositions are not found in isolation, but with at least one auxillary proposition, for instance, or a context of embodied practices. I think you'd really have to get into buisness with the technical argument (Kant's lexicon) to say more. But generally, pragmatism was eclipsed by analyticity, and then resurged, and came back with a heavy critique, in general. I have no point in that. I think the point would be what I said in simple terms. This is more or less "footnotes", so take it as you will. I think pragmatism generally should get more attention, especially outside of academia, where culture dictates thought a little more. That is not a bad thing at all, but early 20th century "analytic" philosophy, is something that hangs a little too much in the air. Anyway take it as you will. Only the first part is strictly argumentative.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Well, I understand you better. I also agree when it comes to pragmatism. Why do you say teaching is not a craft, when it is a delicate and difficult profession? Craft here would only mean "finished products of a craft?"
By the way, I want to be clear that I am not simply pulling this line of questioning out of thin air. Actually, this is one of the articles that inspired me from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Quote: http://plato.stanford.edu/entrie -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (09/02/15 04:08 AM)
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Well, I think you could say that either teaching or concept (both) is a craft that stands in reference to what is being taught. I'd say it should clearly be important to avoid the wrong kind of derivation in that.
The greeks recognized there is no such thing as being a teacher, or having wisdom to dispense in generality. They called that wisdom sophistry. On top of that there was "love" of wisdom, philia, and hence the philosopher. I am not saying that this should somehow be suggestive, but at least the criticism of sophistry is. Technicality for its own sake (whether in epistemology or art or life in general) seems to me to be making the weaker argument win. That is why any suggestion of techne, should be found in the essential form. That would be my argument anyway. I have one other point, an attempt to be constructive, which I would hope to draw in connection, and I'll give you the last word. If the essential value of techne is clarified as important, and nailed into place, it would be possible to talk about how teaching, and even a craft of teaching, and concepts, could be hitting that same nail on the head. The craft of teaching would arise in a pragmatic context, which could imply holism, (as Quine suggested). how propositions about teaching would be found in the referential totality of the essential craft or (so to say) auxillary propositions. Basically it would seem more reasonable to say something about teaching, or the value of conceptuality in learning, with at least a bit of context in regards to the particular crafts. Clearly, social science is not exactly biology, and biology is not physics and physics is not math, and none of these are history, or the humanities, and the humanities are not the arts. Of course I am not speaking in any order that could not be variously turned on head. But suffice to say, it seems like any notion of concept itself, changes quite a bit depending on the domain, if it is "present" at all. The methodological pursuit is undoubtedly an art of inquiry, a suggested means and ends, which would be variously clarified. In an art like painting on the other hand technical approach is both in the viewing and arguably in the creation, the loose end to pull on, and it could not be said to necessarily have any value whatsoever, even while we could assume most of all in art, it would be there. Mathematics is something Kant said you do in an ultimately intuitive way. He said in one example, with algebra you can hold place of numbers on your fingers, and in some way (not necessarily so literally) this is necessary. Frege and Russell and the logical positivists attempted to ground math in "logical" concepts, and a comprehensive theory of sets, but couldn't. So even math, which will seem to stand out as an analytical or conceptual based study, couldn't fundamentally ground a concept. Arguably the only place where conceptuality is grounded is in logic itself. So, in view of concepts, auxillary propositions clarifying concepts, in various disciplines, or context, seems necessary, in any suggestion. What I would find interesting, is that this prospect of a web of concept expanding would not necessarily suggest just inflating the technical conceptuality of whatever craft is being referred to, but would be found as sufficient to the craft. Ultimately I think a notion of pragmatism should rein in technicality of concept, even though it bears emphasis on it. Clearly we can be forebearing and critical to the extent any art departs from essential intimation with the world. To quote It all Calvino, lightness is a virtue. Ultimately I seek to follow a similar aegis... Quote: I wish I could spend more time, but life is getting busy and so I have to bow out here. I'll look forward to any last word you have. Best, Kurt.
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
I understand your point of view much better now, and I have to say that this is a school of thought that departs a bit from my views, albeit essential if I am to develop them in any direction.
I agree that pragmatism should rein in technicality. I do not agree with the Greeks who said teachers do not exist. Perhaps this is because I am one of sorts, but I am married to one of fact. I see that there are skills required for her profession, and all of them can be contextualized for the XXI century's challenges and realities. However, pragmatism, even if we so wished, is not the only pattern of thought we have. I speak of only 3, but in fact there are many ways to reason and digest intellectually. If wishful thinking or magical thinking did not exist, perhaps pragmatism would have stopped even the most realistic of technicalities from becoming. I do not think that what I want to say is based on sophistry, but I can see how the way I write it may be seen as such. It was lovely debating here. Much to read and re-read. Thank you for giving me the honor! -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Well..its the Aegis sword..did i just conceive of this?, Yes i did!
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Are you about to conceive some more, Brendan? lol I like your observations. It IS nonsense. It IS BS. Can I share the sword with you?
-------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Well for example, is the Excalibur..which is noted by the slogan.. Excelsior..
Or, in a more Abstract way(not like were modeling with clay here..) XLCR!! So this dish is provided for you..and i feed the poor..and as a Lawyer..i am willing to do the benefits of things...I cannnot say the word threat..for that would be a crime..but if we are into slicing the Gordian knot..or the cosmic lime..so to speak..then indeed..we share a Sword..! Or maybe just an S-Word..Lol..Happy face continues on and on to infinity..and eternal equinoxes are of the benefits of time it self..do we conceive of these things? Or are they just objects of nature?
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
ROFL - got me there.
-------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret?
| |||||||
|
Nerdy floater Registered: 08/20/15 Posts: 939 Last seen: 7 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Part II.d. On Wishful Thinking
Wishful Thinking A wish is an expectation of something that may or may not make factual sense – and factual in the sense of being either based on past realities or new information. Wishes, much like beliefs, induce minds to expectancies that might, in a pristine fashion, not bear foot or arm. Nonetheless, they also motivate minds to create adequate environments where other thoughts and their concretization can fruit as independent forces of nature. Ideals, although subject to the same subjectivity, are known as a necessity, and are only possible when one allows wishful thinking to become part with the intellectual seeding and harvest. Ideals may morph into ideologies. Ideologies are perhaps the most solid and consistent of structures, shielded with their intolerance of other ideas and an uncanny stubbornness. The quasi-concept conceptualizes faster since the wish colonizes the molecules of pragmatism. The shell it creates is perhaps the opposite of being the safest, albeit, as a quasi-concept, its foundation is seen as if it was. It becomes a self-healing organism since it does not allow “contaminations” to easily penetrate its thick carcass. Not without gaps and defects, but optimal enough to allow thoughts to develop into strong – but fragile – ideas. Wishful thinking, however, opens doors for “eureka” moments, that first part of the creation of a well-formed idea dropping into the inverted funnel. It is when what one wishes to be, becomes, in a shape or another. This was the case for recently deceased, Dr. Albert Hoffman, who discovered LSD while searching for a pain killer. Wishful thinking also allows for desires to be taken to the longest possible extent. The latter may extend into nothingness, or create something new, notwithstanding the original wish. Part II.e. On Magical Thinking Magical thinking These is our counterpoint to pragmatism. As opposed to wishful thinking, when a person understands, even unconsciously, the possibility that the wish shall not become, magical thinking does not allow for such possibility. We could dwell on the esoteric and mystical, but it does not serve our purposes. It is in the practical world that our ideas shall apply. If a farmer plants a seed of a winter flower in a desert and believes it would grow with such fidelity that the farmer would guard the sand for months before giving in to the idea that the sand is not the fertile soil, the event is a fair example of magical thinking – or insanity, on which case I beg to differ, as insanity has its own definitions. To simplify, magical thinking allows us to believe, sensu stricto. It is not that it has no purpose in the chamber of thoughts. As one of the dominant blades of thoughts, it also has its role. Sometimes, the impossible is a limit unknown. In this case, it is by prying and persisting relentlessly toward the achievement of a goal that one finds whether the magical thinking could move on to wishful thinking or pragmatism. At other times, magical thinking has been tested enough not to validate any naïve beliefs, such as the farmer and winter seeds in desert sand. Imagining the world as a place full of “magic” or infinite possibilities allows magical thinking to exist, but not necessarily dominate one’s mind. Finally, magical thinking bares a similar solidity in its foundation as those of the quasi-concept of ideologies. It is solid enough to fight off infections and remain unchanged, but consistently challenged by facts of the external world. If perception was not relative, this pattern would be destroyed every time someone’s magical thinking disappointed. However, since the way we see the world depends on our concepts (preconceived or otherwise), there is always room to protect the foundation, which does not take away from the fact that it is in constant conflict with reality. To sum up, the combination of these patterns and dominant subdivisions 'are' the dominant traits in our thoughts. Seldom is a person inclined to only one line of reasoning. There might be a guiding shoulder, indeed, but subject matters as well as many other factors for the guidance to be followed or ignored. We should now look at a metaphor for how thoughts are processed – or grinded – inside the imagined chamber of thoughts lodged inside the inverted funnel. Part II.e.2. The Thought Chamber The process consists, in our metaphor, in distilling the impurities of mixed thoughts in intertwined thought patterns, and it takes place in the second and thickest part of our inverted funnel (still based on the Judaic-European metaphor). If the concept consolidated with assumptions in the first drop, there are systems, inside the chamber, confabulating thoughts, deconstructing and putting them back. Here, everything is analyzed, purified, rejected or approved. Once again, the more solid the concept, the more consistent the resulting agent moves on to the next stage. Concepts consolidated and rooted inside a given brain have little choice but to sediment and become understanding. This is true of imagined worlds or concrete realities. The mind, in many ways, creates the environment, and it is at this level that the sedimentation of the inner perception of the environment takes place. In a physiological sense, brains can be built, for instance, not to see certain colors due to an oddity in the eye. Since this small defect creates a physiological prison for the conceptualization of colors, which leads to the “understanding” that certain colors do not exist, as such, it fits our analogy. With the intellect free of said imprisonment, the concept is equally molded by external references and their internal elements, albeit within a sane and healthy mind. When concepts are too solid, they mold interpretations to the extent that they may deny other interpretations as a possibility. This is one irritating feature of ideologies, although it is “irritating” as per this author only, as far as this author can tell. It is at this part of the filter that malleable ideas are either broken or remain solid. If intended to be accurately processed and solidified toward a concise and concrete trail of well-formed ideas and understanding, the concept is usually broken and rebuilt. This way, as a car that requires the removal of many of its parts for an accurate diagnosis, assumptions and concepts are comprehended and made compact, for a steady drop into the Hall of Understanding. Part II.e.3. The Hall of Understanding After distillation and refinement, what once were raw assumptions or concepts, or an equal ratio of both, start to drip senses into the Hall of Understanding, which, for our analogy, is the thin drip-hole of the inverted funnel, where understanding takes place, conceptualizing, at last, the well-formed idea. This means that, without value attribution, the idea is ready for all effects. It is what governs the mindset and modus operandi of individual decision-making, belief (based on rational possibilities), faith (irrational), and ideologies, as well as resolve, pragmatism and cold calculations. As we stated above, nothing ensures that the well-formed ideas are good or bad, and, in this sense, we speak of John Stuart Mills' concept of those dichotomy-based values, whereas good is what is good for all parties involved, akin to the definition of bad. Insofar as our social and political behaviors toward us and others, the Hall of Understanding sees no face value. Although it is a secure hall, whereby new assumptions and concepts shall arise to undergo the same process through the upside down filter, it does not secure decisions for the best interest of life, health and sanity. Once more, assumptions may enter the Hall to stay, just as solid concepts that were not properly distilled in the Chamber of Thoughts. They become the “well-formed” idea, such as prejudice (assumption, preconception) and strict ideologies. Perhaps, if it is forceful to wish specific concepts and ideas to form, it may be less forceful to understand that, appealingly to what we can and should consider in our judgment of good and bad, the more malleable the assumption and preconception, the best chances they have to evolve at mid-filter. Hence, the more chances they have to become more malleable understandings, which could create more flexible ideas and ideologies less staunch and indestructible. It is important to at least assume that concepts cannot be made into recipes, just as education is not well transmitted through learning bullet points by heart. There are obviously no chambers or halls, and the metaphor is not new enough to be regarded as pristine. However, it seemed essential to delineate the abstract thought behind the defense of teaching and learning concepts as opposed to educating in recipes. What should come next is the development of this argument, partly based on the above abstruse mental masturbation, albeit now counting with bibliographical references as well. Let us, then, proceed to argue in favor of concept handling as opposed to list memorization. --- Part III Conceptualization of Concepts Think of any skill: driving, reading, swimming, riding horses, learning a new language, or how to farm, or cook. Now, think of how any of those skills could apply to other events in our lives, as driving would to dexterity, reading to attention, swimming to breathing, riding horses to equilibrium, learning a new language to learning general guidelines as opposed to specific and particular rules for specific languages, farming to patience and creation and cooking to cleanliness. These are ramifications of concepts well-formed. In the particular field of skill education, many of those foundations could apply to general ethical values in respect to value attribution. However, they are practical examples of what the education should perhaps achieve – contrary to what it tends to achieve. Let us elaborate the thought based on language skills first. It is my experience that, if a person understands the concept of a language, any of those may be learned without a teacher. It is a radical notion, but it may work for certain individuals better than for others. Conceptualizing “languages” in their purest of definitions, is to understand that they are composed more of complete sentences and fully expressed words than of their alphabet or pronunciation. All languages have common features that, when grasped, may lead to an easier approach toward their conceptualization. As stated in book “Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching” (Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers) (1), in the late nineteenth century linguists grasped this idea that would later be replaced by several ramifications of language schools. “When linguists and language specialists sought to improve the quality of language teaching … they often did so by referring to general principles and theories concerning how languages are learned, how knowledge of language is represented and organized in memory, or how language itself is structured.” (Richards and Rogers, 2001). The idea of these late language educators, such as Henry Sweet, Otto Jespersen and Harold Palmer was inclined toward the understanding of what a language is, rather than understanding how a language needs to be expressed. “They sought a rational answer to questions such as those regarding principles of the selection and sequencing of vocabulary and grammar” (Richards and Rogers, 2001). If we convert principles to conceptualization methods, their procurement of rational answers to general questions, which apply to most languages if not all, applies as a fitting cap onto the head of our line of thought. They believed, to a degree, that language needed to be understood before learned, or at least it required both in a concomitant fashion. In terms of educating and teaching skills, languages, as aforementioned, do have commonalities that may be approached to apply conceptualization to practical learning. Another good example is farming, but, for our purposes, we shall peek inside the world of mushroom cultivation: Mushrooms are essential to our planet, being one of the most preponderant decomposers of organic waste in nature. They have an interesting and quite peculiar life cycle. A mature mushroom releases spores, much as flowers release pollen, albeit they must undergo through a longer process to begin “mushrooming,” if at all. Two spores must germinate and generate, within a week or so later what is called mycelium, or the body of any given fungus. The mycelium colonizes the substrate in which it is located before gathering all nutrients by decomposing waste, generating hypha (“mating of compatible hyphae”), or a network of mycelia. They then naturally sprout with sunlight and water in adequate quantities: too much, and they drown and dissipate – too little, and they die or abort. While still in their hyphal stage, some species produce sclerotia, which are “stones of mycelium,” which, in some cases, are very valuable to culinary - such as French truffles. Otherwise, the cycle repeats itself indefinitely. Whereas growing mushrooms is a tradition passed along by ancestral generations down our lineage, there are several concepts about their life cycle that, once understood, help improvise or improve on growing methods even for first-time growers. If we, for instance, understand that some species need plenty of CO2 to colonize a substrate before being introduced to fruiting conditions, the way the CO2 is maintained may vary among dozens of different techniques. In this sense, it is by understanding what fungi are and how their life cycle works that growers are able to produce initiatives that would otherwise perhaps not arise, or at least arise at random, as opposed to their basis on logical reasoning. Sometimes, all they need is packing tape. Sometimes they need more complicated methods for germination, colonization, substrate colonization and birthing. All of it may be better assessed if a grower is not simply provided with the recipe for a particular technique, where random events are not taken into account. (1) “Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching” – Page 18 – Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers), Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, First Published in 1986, second edition from 2001, 18th printing up to 2011 – Printed in the United States of America. -------------------- In Hebrew, the words "wine" and "secret" hold the same numerologic value. When wine comes in, secrets spill out. Do you think the person who said that knew mushrooms? When mushrooms come in... Is there anything beyond a secret? Edited by Count of Sabugosa (09/11/15 05:42 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
what does art mean to you? | 1,174 | 7 | 06/17/04 08:59 AM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
martial arts ( |
5,538 | 43 | 05/26/04 12:46 PM by Swami | ||
![]() |
The ability to conceptualize ( |
4,049 | 27 | 01/18/04 01:05 PM by jpod | ||
![]() |
Conceptual thinking. | 1,324 | 1 | 05/01/06 12:43 PM by TheQueen | ||
![]() |
Conceptual Evolution And Physical Evolution | 3,321 | 15 | 04/19/05 06:33 PM by entiformatie | ||
![]() |
What is art? ( |
2,873 | 27 | 05/12/03 12:50 AM by Sclorch | ||
![]() |
My essay on Koans and the Zen arts. | 1,237 | 6 | 12/16/02 07:57 AM by 3eyedgod | ||
![]() |
Science vs. Art ( |
2,165 | 24 | 03/16/05 06:20 PM by slowburner |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 1,785 topic views. 1 members, 12 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

you have raised the bllshit bar in this forum.



