Every algorithm—society’s, science’s, spirituality’s, magic’s, philosophy’s, morality’s—seems to be subordinate to cause and effect’s. If I can figure out what works and what doesn’t, then I can use the resultant power to help others out…or crush them.
At this point, a higher test of character comes into play. The lesser test of character is exhibiting the discipline and strategy to arrive at that point in the first place.
I’ve always tried using the short side of the hypotenuse, but it never seems to get me where I should be going. Pluto isn’t a planet anymore and Calculus never wanted me really to find that area under its curve. What is really real, other than your musings and the fact that a Dirty Sci-Fi Buddha continues to read my blog, then there might be hope for me after all? Even if I never really understood the function of x!
Ha! Who knows what’ll be revealed to be “true” and “false” in a century or two? All we’ve got is the problems in front of us. 🙂
LikeLike
Another algorithm to be applied… or so it seems. A “character” algorithm? Except that you directly become one side of the equation. @bluerooster… it sounds like you have something figured out if you have DSFB reading your blog 😉
That’s one I could take or leave, as from my observations, the human mind is fairly mechanistic. (watch Derren Brown’s mentalist magic for a dramatic example of what I’m talking about). The most continually useful view of the world, at least in my experience, seems to be that of viewing it as a set of problems or riddles, which is why I like tracing things by cause and effect. It actually allows for magic and science, religion and spirituality, and it allows me to discount them as well, as needed.
A recurring theme. To which bluerooster points: “Works/doesn’t work” calculus has no universal, objective, or stable inputs and values; they often exhibits that strange characteristic of quantum response to observation. A sort of “eye of the beholder” over time with star ratings from users. The exact same formula producing the exact same results can become “tired” and unsatisfactory through advances in perception, changes in standards, experience and learning.
Analysis has value, if it does not take over the analyst.
It’s actually why I think it’s the best calculus, as it doesn’t claim to have any universal value. I’d argue that in a given context, however, it does have objective and stable inputs and values. So that would necessitate that functionality must be taken context by context, which allows for a fluidity of mind that also embraces practicality. The opposing view—that of claiming there is some sort of universal truth we should all know and operate off of—leads to religious conflicts, dogmatic idealizations, and a loss of practicality that necessitates increasingly elaborate self-deceptions in order to justify any idea of universality.
you are right “in a given context” even if the context is “given” the human perspective can/will change so, I guess you are taking for granted an unchanging structure/perspective or, a constantly changing algorithm, which is what Artificial Intelligence calls “learning.” think of rapid advances in technology that completely displaces the former ways of doing things, making the prior ways obsolete. In many cases, results that were never imagined manifest through this process.
Which is why I think knowing oneself well enough to frame problems correctly and address them effectively is a guiding light. Not only is it practical and necessary, because with enough time problems become imminent and amplified, but this approach necessitates all the idealized notions of fluidity and flexibility found in mysticism/corporate/military maneuvering/good art.
LikeLike
Kent Wayne 
Leave a reply to bluerooster Cancel reply