I've been mostly writing since 9:00 this morning, so I'm very creatively talkative at the moment. That's why I'm making a tiny post about a book title that just came to mind:
Spiritual Calculus: Learning the Lord's Timing for Maximum Growth and Blessings
The best thing is that if this winds up being the title of an autobiography-style work, people who don't know me will go into it thinking I'm a math person. Granted, I did do well in Calculus during high school... There are all sorts of levels at which this title and the connotations it carries are appropriate.
Now you know.
P.S. It feels really weird to me to post rough, unfinished parts of ideas that may or may not actually go anywhere.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
E-pistemology
Hallo! It's been a while, mostly because I've been desperately swamped in writing papers for the last three months.
Here's some stuff for one of them, my final paper in my Philosophy 150 class. We're supposed to write about a topic that falls somewhere in the vast realm of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. A philosopher exploring the field of epistemology might ask questions such as: "How do we know what we know?" "What is the origin of knowledge?" "Is it more important to know than to love?" and, "What about Naomi?"
The question I'm asking (as prompted by a "discussion" with a friend a while back) is, "Does subjective knowledge have value?"
Many people, my physics-major-friend among them, would contend that it doesn't on the basis that subjective knowledge cannot have a solid "right" and "wrong," and therefore there can be no solid foundation of basic understanding upon which to build. No building of knowledge means no advancement, so subjective knowledge kind of doesn't go anywhere. By the same token, it's relatively easy for anyone with any level of training to jump into a subjective field and make it look good, whereas it takes years of studying the right subjects in the right order to get anywhere in an objective field. Thus, the compared realms of subjective and objective knowledge tend to look like this.
However, in my paper I'll be maintaining that subjective knowledge does have value, though obviously not for the same reasons that objective knowledge does. Here, with little explanation, are a couple of fuzzy images that came to mind as I worked out my reasons.
Here's some stuff for one of them, my final paper in my Philosophy 150 class. We're supposed to write about a topic that falls somewhere in the vast realm of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. A philosopher exploring the field of epistemology might ask questions such as: "How do we know what we know?" "What is the origin of knowledge?" "Is it more important to know than to love?" and, "What about Naomi?"
The question I'm asking (as prompted by a "discussion" with a friend a while back) is, "Does subjective knowledge have value?"
Many people, my physics-major-friend among them, would contend that it doesn't on the basis that subjective knowledge cannot have a solid "right" and "wrong," and therefore there can be no solid foundation of basic understanding upon which to build. No building of knowledge means no advancement, so subjective knowledge kind of doesn't go anywhere. By the same token, it's relatively easy for anyone with any level of training to jump into a subjective field and make it look good, whereas it takes years of studying the right subjects in the right order to get anywhere in an objective field. Thus, the compared realms of subjective and objective knowledge tend to look like this.
However, in my paper I'll be maintaining that subjective knowledge does have value, though obviously not for the same reasons that objective knowledge does. Here, with little explanation, are a couple of fuzzy images that came to mind as I worked out my reasons.
We begin with Plato's conception of knowledge.
 | ||||||
| Knowledge is the intersection between truth and beliefs (see Plato's Republic). But what if there are different kinds of truths, so that not all truths can be accessed by one kind of knowledge? |
 | ||||
If there are different kinds of truths, there must be different kinds of knowledge. To discount one kind of knowledge would be discounting an entire area of truth (e.g. "Subjective knowledge is not valid, therefore the truth that subjective knowledge covers are not valid"). Here's another way to look at it.
|
Friday, March 2, 2012
BIEBSES, BEST BIRTHDAY EVER HAVINGS IT WAS!
And this is a lot of what made it so.
Here is a special comic created for me by my doge, re-posted here with permission.
If this Emil/Baba thing confuses anyone, I...don't know that I have much of an explanation for you. These two characters just hijacked a texting conversation my doge and I were having one day, and then... well, yes.
Here is a special comic created for me by my doge, re-posted here with permission.
If this Emil/Baba thing confuses anyone, I...don't know that I have much of an explanation for you. These two characters just hijacked a texting conversation my doge and I were having one day, and then... well, yes.
The first known image of Baba and Emil.
Thanks for the birthday thoughts, my doge!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Pictures of people!
That I drew! I was trying out a new process for my very first job as a caricature artist (woohoo!), and these are what happened. I used pencil (for layout), brush pen, and crayon.
 |
| My roommate has the coolest hair... |
 |
| ...but maybe not the coolest hat. |
 |
| So dashing! (Aww, yeah!) |
 |
| So rugby? |
 |
| These yellow cowslip cheeks... |
And these guys also happened. Brush pen, crayon, and some goofing around on Photoshop. With a mouse.
 |
| The unwitting model for the man is never that creepy-looking. |
Monday, January 16, 2012
Demon of idealism
In the following scenario, let us define B as a friend from French class. French is one of those things that I frequently accuse of being meaningless (or at least pointless), confusing, and often painful (see also literature, art, philosophy, psychology, and sometimes even music). Which is obviously why I keep trying to learn and do it.
B also did not get to hear the bulk of this conversation, because I thought of it later. He started it, though.
E: Just because I think it's meaningelss and confusing doesn't mean I won't work to be good at it.
B: A remarkably effective philosophy for surviving and thriving in college.
E: There's this pesky idelaism demon, though, that objects to my doing anything without meaning it. Makes for a lot of rationalizing, existential crises, and internal pep talks. Though I often wonder whether everyone doesn't experience life in much the same way?
B also did not get to hear the bulk of this conversation, because I thought of it later. He started it, though.
E: Just because I think it's meaningelss and confusing doesn't mean I won't work to be good at it.
B: A remarkably effective philosophy for surviving and thriving in college.
E: There's this pesky idelaism demon, though, that objects to my doing anything without meaning it. Makes for a lot of rationalizing, existential crises, and internal pep talks. Though I often wonder whether everyone doesn't experience life in much the same way?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
That's my cousin!
I was privileged to attend his mission non-farewell* this past Sunday and hear his testimony of the gospel once more in person before he leaves to serve the people of Japan for two years. While he was speaking, I scribbled him:
His most telling quote was: "I have many doubts about myself, but I have no doubts about my God." And that, cousin, is why I have no doubts about you. Good luck, Peter!
*Oh, right. Just in case there is ever a reader who is unfamiliar with the customs of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. Traditionally, when a young man (or woman) is about to leave on a mission, he and his family or close friends will give the sermons, prayers, and/or musical numbers in their ward's Sunday worship meeting (sacrament meeting). These meetings are often termed "mission farewells," as the family and ward will not see the missionary again for 1 1/2 to 2 years. However, central Church leadership has recently requested that this practice be changed, as the farewells have tended to focus more on the missionary and less on the gospel he is about to go out and share. The transition is happening, if slowly.
 |
*Oh, right. Just in case there is ever a reader who is unfamiliar with the customs of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. Traditionally, when a young man (or woman) is about to leave on a mission, he and his family or close friends will give the sermons, prayers, and/or musical numbers in their ward's Sunday worship meeting (sacrament meeting). These meetings are often termed "mission farewells," as the family and ward will not see the missionary again for 1 1/2 to 2 years. However, central Church leadership has recently requested that this practice be changed, as the farewells have tended to focus more on the missionary and less on the gospel he is about to go out and share. The transition is happening, if slowly.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
This will be sort of like Plato's Allegory of the Cave...
...in that we have a sort of exploratory dialogue going on between the philosopher and his friend. Except in this case, the friend can't get a word in edgewise.
E: Sometimes it's too bad that language is a linear mode of communication.
J: How do you mean?
E: (He asked for it...) Because, as I'm sure you know, ideas have a tendency to sprout (or explode) off in all directions from whatever starting point, and it can be cumbersome to follow one thread through to its fullness and then have to go all the way back to the beginning and take off in the next direction.
We talk of going off on tangents as though they're extraneous and distracting, but they may in reality be essential parts of the fully developed idea, and we need them to understand the entirety of what's being explored.
I find that I can't ignore the little offshoots of idea (at least when I'm working honestly, from the sincerest part of my creativity), which is probably why I use so many parentheticals, footnotes, fragments, and inside jokes and in my verbal communication. Which usually means that streamlinedness goes out the window. But by referencing the points of connection, I can hope that my readers/listeners will get a clearer picture of what's really going on with the idea.
That's a very tenuous hope, though, due to the fact that, by its very nature, language is one-dimensional. Spoken or written, we can only process it one word at a time, in the chronological order of its reception. Forcing a whole idea into this time-linear format creates the illusion of precedence (or antecedence?), which can lead to the illusion of causation, when often the components of a truth just are, together and simultaneously. That's nigh impossible to portray with words.
So, then. Why write, you ask?
J: No, I actually didn't--
E: Because words, for whatever reason, seem to be the common denominator. Reading and writing/speaking and listening are skills that almost everyone can learn. And words are specific; you can be almost sure that your message will come across to anyone who receives it if you've written it well (as opposed to a piece of visual art, or music, or dance; the general feelings may come across all right, but the specific reactions they elicit and images they evoke will often vary enormously from what the creator intended. Notice that these kinds of things often have a written "artist's statement" to clarify the artist's intentions and/or to shape the viewer's interpretation. And, yes, much writing is as obscure as any Pollock and can be interpreted and debated all sorts of ways; but words can attain a higher level of precision of expression than any other medium. Long parenthetical.). And we in our society expect that of each other.
J: . . .
E: But to write well, in the sense of clarity, one has to conform to the nature of language, i.e. streamline. Focus. Cut down on...well, on the sprouts (the bean sprouts; she wants a bean feast). Otherwise, your writing comes out like that last sentence of mine, and you lose people. You have to own the single dimensionality.
J: Right.
E: Except that it's wrong! Because the idea, the truth, (the elephant!) is so much more than that! Truth is at least two-dimensional, probably more--hence painting, sculpture, music, dance, drama--but when we try to capture it in anything like its entirety, the potential for explicit, certain understanding (slim as it ever was) goes away. And isn't the point to be understood?
(?): Maybe it's okay for now, while we have to exist in a time-bound realm, to have to deal in its limitations. We won't always be stuck with an imperfection (lack of wholeness). Some day, some existence, we will have the capacity to see things as they are (see Moroni 7:48), and those who are with us will have a perfect understanding.
E: Sometimes it's too bad that language is a linear mode of communication.
J: How do you mean?
E: (He asked for it...) Because, as I'm sure you know, ideas have a tendency to sprout (or explode) off in all directions from whatever starting point, and it can be cumbersome to follow one thread through to its fullness and then have to go all the way back to the beginning and take off in the next direction.
We talk of going off on tangents as though they're extraneous and distracting, but they may in reality be essential parts of the fully developed idea, and we need them to understand the entirety of what's being explored.
I find that I can't ignore the little offshoots of idea (at least when I'm working honestly, from the sincerest part of my creativity), which is probably why I use so many parentheticals, footnotes, fragments, and inside jokes and in my verbal communication. Which usually means that streamlinedness goes out the window. But by referencing the points of connection, I can hope that my readers/listeners will get a clearer picture of what's really going on with the idea.
That's a very tenuous hope, though, due to the fact that, by its very nature, language is one-dimensional. Spoken or written, we can only process it one word at a time, in the chronological order of its reception. Forcing a whole idea into this time-linear format creates the illusion of precedence (or antecedence?), which can lead to the illusion of causation, when often the components of a truth just are, together and simultaneously. That's nigh impossible to portray with words.
So, then. Why write, you ask?
J: No, I actually didn't--
E: Because words, for whatever reason, seem to be the common denominator. Reading and writing/speaking and listening are skills that almost everyone can learn. And words are specific; you can be almost sure that your message will come across to anyone who receives it if you've written it well (as opposed to a piece of visual art, or music, or dance; the general feelings may come across all right, but the specific reactions they elicit and images they evoke will often vary enormously from what the creator intended. Notice that these kinds of things often have a written "artist's statement" to clarify the artist's intentions and/or to shape the viewer's interpretation. And, yes, much writing is as obscure as any Pollock and can be interpreted and debated all sorts of ways; but words can attain a higher level of precision of expression than any other medium. Long parenthetical.). And we in our society expect that of each other.
J: . . .
E: But to write well, in the sense of clarity, one has to conform to the nature of language, i.e. streamline. Focus. Cut down on...well, on the sprouts (the bean sprouts; she wants a bean feast). Otherwise, your writing comes out like that last sentence of mine, and you lose people. You have to own the single dimensionality.
J: Right.
E: Except that it's wrong! Because the idea, the truth, (the elephant!) is so much more than that! Truth is at least two-dimensional, probably more--hence painting, sculpture, music, dance, drama--but when we try to capture it in anything like its entirety, the potential for explicit, certain understanding (slim as it ever was) goes away. And isn't the point to be understood?
(?): Maybe it's okay for now, while we have to exist in a time-bound realm, to have to deal in its limitations. We won't always be stuck with an imperfection (lack of wholeness). Some day, some existence, we will have the capacity to see things as they are (see Moroni 7:48), and those who are with us will have a perfect understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)