tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post4260948871136096304..comments2024-02-12T23:25:09.583-08:00Comments on Overweening Generalist: Night of the Living Chomsky Problemmichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-31117980857144027962019-03-16T11:36:33.652-07:002019-03-16T11:36:33.652-07:00We should embrace uncertainty only with uncertaint...We should embrace uncertainty only with uncertainty's consent. #metoo #uncertain. Another great post.Eric Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312033917401203598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-54825323271733840822011-06-24T02:18:36.149-07:002011-06-24T02:18:36.149-07:00I should like to add: Wilson thinks that, when we ...I should like to add: Wilson thinks that, when we systematize - develop a high level of abstraction about some phenomena - then the system we've invented using our symbols and powers of mind - will seem to impose its own demands upon us...and then: who's in charge? <br /><br />And if we try to develop another system to keep the first one in check, this second system will make its demands. We must learn to embrace uncertainty.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-57649207844776304622011-06-24T00:37:19.432-07:002011-06-24T00:37:19.432-07:00RAW was influenced by another logician/mathematici...RAW was influenced by another logician/mathematician/philosopher named G. Spencer Brown, who wrote a book called The Laws of Form. In the glossary to Wilson's omnibus edition of the Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy, RAW defines FORM thus:<br /><br />"In the sense of G. Spencer Brown, a mathematical or logical system necessary to systematic thought but having the inevitable consequences of imposing its own deep structures upon the experiences packaged and indexed by the form. See COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION"<br /><br />So, RAW seems to be saying via Brown and Bohr, that we can use mathematical formalisms to map some phenomena, but it is not the phenomena itself; in addition, the mapping is a product as much of our own instruments and nervous systems as the phenomena itself. Wilson seems to see this a basic to 20th century epistemology. In some ways Chomsky seems to intersect with Wilson, but in many ways: not.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-45174196170938736472011-06-23T23:51:29.779-07:002011-06-23T23:51:29.779-07:00I wonder how would Chomsky with his Cartesian stat...I wonder how would Chomsky with his Cartesian state of mind: "such a neat, orderly, clean world of rules and representations, transformations, logic, rigor" react to Robert Anton Wilson's style and mind? Would Chomsky feel irritated by Wilson?ARW23https://www.blogger.com/profile/12640332269499504745noreply@blogger.com