A computer historian would be someone who knows a
little more about the field than just reciting the latest technobabble found in "Wired" magazine. For example, anyone who has programmed in a George 2 type, late 70s environment with intelligent terminals offering unprotected fields, already knows a lot about structuring CGI programs using HTML FORM tags. Unfortunately, the supervening bullshit usually makes applying the lessons of the past ideologically inacceptable, because "state of the art indescribable complexity genius blah blah" doesn't sit well with a simple technique from dad's era:-(
I do not believe I have rejected any model, except for an implicit model that says that there is nothing going on in human sociology that we are unaware of. That implicit model proposes that the human state is fully explained and rational, which anyone would have to be deluded to believe. Nor do I believe that the Reciprocality model is complete - quite the reverse. It is merely the beginning of a new way to see things that is more complete than the vacuum we've had to date. The argument of this posting seems to be that since all is mush, and there is no such thing as reality, no theory or attempt to understand anything can ever be valid. Certainly no model can be an imporvement on any other, so there is no point trying. I do not agree with any of these ideas. There is in fact an objective reality, and we can get better at seeing it. All mystics invite us to see what is there. Not some arbitrary human-constructed irrationality. This is true from the Christian "what is before your sight" to the concept of the material world being a wonder to be studied with reverence that is at the core of Islam, to Steiner emphasis on mathematics, to Gurdjieff's "perfecting of one's objective reason". Claims that it is the mystics that are irrational are not usually backed up, and simply accompanied with contempt/threat displays. It is true that I have not repeated the *conventional* interpretation of Magritte's "This is not a pipe" - to a packer my view of it would by definition be wrong. That's why I've never wasted time on things like academic art history. But as far as I know, Magritte did not endorse the conventional interpretation, and mine does more to explain the abiding, disturbing nature of this painting than the usual one.
Totally freelance. I deliver - I eat. It's people who are on regular paychecks that are far too clever to actually spend time *thinking* before they act. If they haven't got a ridiculous deadline to excuse short sighted and sloppy work, well they just make one up. At this level, nothing more need be said beyond Ed Yourdon's wonderful "Decline and Fall of the Amierican Programmer", a good 7 years ago.
Methinks thou does protest too much... One of the features of a blindspot in the mind such as I have attempted to describe is that detractors will not address the concrete and falsifiable proposals made. Instead they will deliver hysterical abuse *around* the subject. The question for example, is not whether the work is invalid *because* I propose a mass psychlogical explaination for the origins of religions (which I certainly do), but whether my proposed expaination might be *correct*. And my argument has not been addressed by those who have cited the very topic as evidence of lack of merit. The mere fact that the work addresses a topic does not make it inherently invalid. At least, to people not trapped by the blindspot in the mind, it doesn't:-) With the blindspot in place, the very mention of certain topics is enough to set the victims cavorting about making the most extraordinary contempt and threat displays. Personally, I don't think I'm a genius by the way. I think I'm *normal*. But it doesn't actually matter if I am a genius or not, or if I *think* I'm a genius or not. The question is, does the argument *work*.
It's all about finding the deeper truths that unite the truths found by prior sincere investigators. So I took two ideas that fit well together in the new picture, but seem poles apart in prior thinking. These were Gurdjieff's "Reciprocal Maintenance" and Einstein's "Relativity". Then I arranged them... In a vase...
Slashdot Mirror
A computer historian would be someone who knows a little more about the field than just reciting the latest technobabble found in "Wired" magazine. For example, anyone who has programmed in a George 2 type, late 70s environment with intelligent terminals offering unprotected fields, already knows a lot about structuring CGI programs using HTML FORM tags. Unfortunately, the supervening bullshit usually makes applying the lessons of the past ideologically inacceptable, because "state of the art indescribable complexity genius blah blah" doesn't sit well with a simple technique from dad's era :-(
I do not believe I have rejected any model, except for an implicit model that says that there is nothing going on in human sociology that we are unaware of. That implicit model proposes that the human state is fully explained and rational, which anyone would have to be deluded to believe. Nor do I believe that the Reciprocality model is complete - quite the reverse. It is merely the beginning of a new way to see things that is more complete than the vacuum we've had to date. The argument of this posting seems to be that since all is mush, and there is no such thing as reality, no theory or attempt to understand anything can ever be valid. Certainly no model can be an imporvement on any other, so there is no point trying. I do not agree with any of these ideas. There is in fact an objective reality, and we can get better at seeing it. All mystics invite us to see what is there. Not some arbitrary human-constructed irrationality. This is true from the Christian "what is before your sight" to the concept of the material world being a wonder to be studied with reverence that is at the core of Islam, to Steiner emphasis on mathematics, to Gurdjieff's "perfecting of one's objective reason". Claims that it is the mystics that are irrational are not usually backed up, and simply accompanied with contempt/threat displays. It is true that I have not repeated the *conventional* interpretation of Magritte's "This is not a pipe" - to a packer my view of it would by definition be wrong. That's why I've never wasted time on things like academic art history. But as far as I know, Magritte did not endorse the conventional interpretation, and mine does more to explain the abiding, disturbing nature of this painting than the usual one.
Totally freelance. I deliver - I eat. It's people who are on regular paychecks that are far too clever to actually spend time *thinking* before they act. If they haven't got a ridiculous deadline to excuse short sighted and sloppy work, well they just make one up. At this level, nothing more need be said beyond Ed Yourdon's wonderful "Decline and Fall of the Amierican Programmer", a good 7 years ago.
Methinks thou does protest too much... One of the features of a blindspot in the mind such as I have attempted to describe is that detractors will not address the concrete and falsifiable proposals made. Instead they will deliver hysterical abuse *around* the subject. The question for example, is not whether the work is invalid *because* I propose a mass psychlogical explaination for the origins of religions (which I certainly do), but whether my proposed expaination might be *correct*. And my argument has not been addressed by those who have cited the very topic as evidence of lack of merit. The mere fact that the work addresses a topic does not make it inherently invalid. At least, to people not trapped by the blindspot in the mind, it doesn't :-) With the blindspot in place, the very mention of certain topics is enough to set the victims cavorting about making the most extraordinary contempt and threat displays. Personally, I don't think I'm a genius by the way. I think I'm *normal*. But it doesn't actually matter if I am a genius or not, or if I *think* I'm a genius or not. The question is, does the argument *work*.
It's all about finding the deeper truths that unite the truths found by prior sincere investigators. So I took two ideas that fit well together in the new picture, but seem poles apart in prior thinking. These were Gurdjieff's "Reciprocal Maintenance" and Einstein's "Relativity". Then I arranged them... In a vase...