Design is concerned with how it works, and therefore, not so much with what is and what truly is (or truth).
So we can turn this concern on itself and ask: How does design work?
One answer to this question is a whole field of knowledge, namely “design methodology”, but we can find a rougher answer (and therefore more abstract) if we point out that the question itself is an application of design! We want to create stuff (not make stuff, there is a difference) and in order to do that we begin to concern ourselves with how stuff behaves when it is joined with other stuff. Read More »
There are quite a few concepts in Mathematics where a few options could be true, and only one is, and you go and try to find why and the answer is “because Mathematicians prefer it that way”. Like zero to the power of zero. There are a few, but i’m on the phone so i wont go wikipeding.
Deep down, what it is is: That’s what’s on the manual. The neolythic shamans who invented Mathematics were dreaming of calculators and we only now realise it so. Read More »
In all dualities we want to go to one side (that is, MIND, and the release from inertia and the enhancement of freedom), but the means to do it always seem to lie exactly in the side that negates it (that is BODY, and the power of presence and of being concretely real). In the end, we want more MIND in order to get more BODY. But every time we go in this direction we get farther and farther from what we want, exactly as we are getting nearer.
In fact, we try to go to a third world, a third point beyond the dichotomy, and it becomes an impossible goal which we can’t stop following.
This third shade, this World-3, is not less direct than World-1, nor less real, it is just different. But contrary to World-1, you can never tackle it quantitatively. It is never possible to brute-force World-3, neither with muscle, nor money, nor spam. Thus, BODY-through-MIND is always difficult. Read More »
Trapped by their fears, Realists retreat screaming whenever faced with a Relativist idea. Simply can’t swallow it. And they retreat into exactly the same lack of intellectual discipline they accuse litcrit of. Conditioned by our cruel education system, that treats children as cattle, they refrain from any philosophy not geared towards providing “correct answers to the test”. To win the argument, then, you should proceed not with sound argumentation — that would only lead them into rationalization — but instead with masking relativism’s sour taste of personal responsibility. Read More »