Spaceweaver     Tue, Jan 13, 2009  Permanent link
Brilliant !
marianne     Tue, Jan 13, 2009  Permanent link
: )
Wildcat     Wed, Jan 14, 2009  Permanent link
This demands a poetic/noetic response the like of which Rabindranath Tagore gives:

"“There is a point where in the mystery of existence contradictions meet; where movement is not all movement and stillness is not all stillness; where the idea and the form, the within and the without, are united; where infinite becomes finite, yet not”
Robokku     Wed, Jan 14, 2009  Permanent link
What a superb reference! A new one to me. Others, too, please find it in its own context here. Thanks, Wildcat!

Even if that quote on its own makes you suspect it, there is nothing muddy or vague about this piece of writing, The World of Personality by Tagore. Here is another gem that I liked (but I'm sure you'll find plenty of your own if you have a read):

The phenomenon which a dog perceives as a smell does not keep its time with that of our nerves, therefore it falls outside our world.

Great. It's humbling to see ideas you can reach at full stretch handed out with relaxed elegance and on a grand scale. And such magic can be found even without looking at broad cosmic arrangements or science fiction scenarios.

We don't need to reach a future dystopia or an holistic spiritual awakening to open up our ideas - we don't even need to abandon or challenge entrenched rational principles. If we just realise that our consciousnesses are not operating to a scientifically rigorous specification every second we're awake, then we can choose to point the deviations at conceptions that are fun and fulfilling. Perhaps they wouldn't withstand analysis, but if we're never going to analyse them...

Wildcat     Wed, Jan 28, 2009  Permanent link
R: "..Perhaps they wouldn't withstand analysis, but if we're never going to analyse them..."

which is why there are no deviations to conceptions but that which we do not accept as our own multitude during over analysis.
In response I have written this: guess what?
Fast T     Thu, Jan 29, 2009  Permanent link
They make a fine model. They reach up to some reality, which was my starting point when I plotted them.

they certainly reached an unfoldment of reality in which I had a great pleasure, I had no preconceived idea of. If that is short of magic, I don't know what isn't.

brilliant, thank you.
Rourke     Thu, Jan 29, 2009  Permanent link
Superb Robokku. I thoroughly was taken away...

Having read this - in regard of your 1-2-3+ 'Realm' posts - I was reminded of Socrates and Plato and specifically:

In Book II of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates' dialogue with his pupils. Socrates warns we should not seriously regard poetry as being capable of attaining the truth and that we who listen to poetry should be on our guard against its seductions, since the poet has no place in our idea of God.

In developing this in Book X, Plato tells of Socrates' metaphor of the three beds: one bed exists as an idea made by God (the Platonic ideal); one is made by the carpenter, in imitation of God's idea; one is made by the artist in imitation of the carpenter's.

So the artist's bed is thrice removed from the truth. - wiki-link

Are you thus positing a fourth removal to the informational realm? Something like:

; one bed is reduced to its algorithmic relationships, to a series of coordinates plotted in a virtual space - a space which itself is thrice removed from 'the truth'.

In some sense this plotted bed is as much an ideal as God's original. No bed created from the coordinates will ever assume the 'being' of the original algorithm. Does the informational realm take us back around to the beginning of the circle of being/representation?

I was also reminded of a quote on the innate 'removal' of mimetic art:

To treat a work of plastic art as a discourse intended to be interpreted, decoded, by reference to a transcendent code ... is to forget that artistic production is always also - to different degrees depending on the art and on the historically variable styles of practicing it - the product of an "art", "pure practice without theory", as Durkheim says, or to put it another way, a mimesis, a sort of symbolic gymnastics, like the rite or the dance; and is also to forget that the work of art always contains something ineffable, not by excess, as hagiography would have it, but by default, something which communicates, so to speak, from body to body, i.e. on the hither side of words or concepts, and which pleases (or displeases) without concepts. - Pierre Bourdieu in Outline of a Theory of Practice, 1972

One is an ideal of you sitting on the train; one is you sitting on the train; one is a paper-craft representation of you sitting on a train; one is a mimetic blog-post about you sitting on a train crafting a paper-craft ideal of you sitting on a train.

I was also reminded of one of Michael Frayn's meditations on the real:

“All narration and description, even leaving its declarative aspect aside, is indissolubly subjective because it involves selection. The information transmitted about any situation can never be more than a fraction of what is available. There is no way of representing the totality of a situation except by the situation itself. And the point of representing it, after all, of turning it into transmittable information, is to make it amenable to examination and manipulation, to bring out what we wish to bring out for the purposes we have in mind.” - The Human Touch: Our part in the creation of the universe

So much to ponder. Thanks again!
Robokku     Wed, Feb 4, 2009  Permanent link
First of all, thanks, Wildcat, for your great follow-up to this. I enjoyed it very much and will definitely get a comment up on there ASAP. Thanks to Obvious, too, for finding connections spread so broadly.

Obvious described Socrates' thought that the artist imitates the carpenter's imitation of God's ideal. He asked if I might be positing "a fourth removal to the informational realm".

Although I hadn't considered it in such terms, I suppose I would be keener to dispute the hierarchy of those different renditions than just to add one more realm to the bottom.

If God knows a truth that is not described by the artists' creations then we have a choice between at least two worlds. One is the world of God's truth, the other is the world artists describe. I want to suggest that we may well be closer to the artists than we are to God, and so their version of things is more relevant to our lives. In turn, it might be completely rational in some cases to consider the artists' creations to be real. Sometimes God's realm might be better held as the truth, sometimes the carpenter's.

By rejecting the objective priority of God's truth (even if we accept its fundamentality) we open the door to as many realms as we can fit in our heads, without their addition being a further descent into irrelevance, or an extended departure from "the truth" we think is relevant. The multitudes are really there. This isn't a departure from reality; it's a departure from the notion that a consistent, shared reality is so important.

Feel free to switch "God" for "science", or "physical laws" if it helps...
Robokku     Sat, Feb 13, 2010  Permanent link
Note to self (excuse me):

13:19 "The nature of the model is governed by how it is to be used, rather than by the sensory modality involved."

He then immediately goes on to specify scientifically Tagore's point about dogs in my comment 14 Jan 2009.
ColdBloodedKyle     Sun, Feb 21, 2010  Permanent link
One word: EPIC
dream.weaver.tron     Mon, Feb 22, 2010  Permanent link
tight craftsmanship...