I am philosophical framework based.
In order to see the implications of exactly what that means, I suspect you would need to be a computer scientist, or a philosopher. I'm some fraction of both of those as is clearly my intent, but I cannot tell you precisely how much. Perhaps I'm 75% of a proper computer scientist. Perhaps I'm 68% of a proper philosopher. What those exact, factual percentages are, I don't know, nor do I care. I simply know that I am. If someone were to tell me today, by way of some odd Stanford-Binet exactly what percentage I am of each, then that's for today, but what will it be tomorrow? If my number fell below 50% would I not be enough to be considered any fraction? That's a subjective question, a subjective question consisting of facts.
What I have done in my life is upscale my philosophical frameworks. I am one of those American children I perceive to be rare that never heard the word 'Jesus' spoken around the home until he was in the fourth grade. I could be considered in no way a Christian and for the purposes of my life until then (and actually some time after) it was not necessary or important. It is also well known at Cobb that I was, under the same influence of my philosophically evolving parents, a Black Cultural Nationalist. And then a student of the Jesuits and then a confirmed Episcopalian, and then a Multiculturalist, an organic, and now some evolving flavor of Conservative intrigued with the spirit of the American Revolution and how it is exactly that Margaret Thatcher figured out all of the social dependencies of the core rights of property. I cobbled all of those things together in the way a beaver builds a dam, or perhaps more appropriately as a magpie feathers her nest.
At the age of 23, I made a profound discovery in the pages of Hofstadter's G.E.B. which was of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. The implications were that every philosophy is incomplete or inconsistent, or if you translated that into the argot of computer programming, there is always some input that can crash the system. Why wasn't my pre-Christianity good enough? Why was my Black Nationalism insufficient? What was wrong about those Jesuits? How could the Episcopalians go so sideways? How did multiculturalism beget that awful PC? And what exactly was that awful Paul Bremer thinking? Every system has its limitations. There is, somewhere, a single fact that renders the whole beast.
In computing it tends not to be the numerical value of the fact, but the sheer volume of them that must be processed. We test for conditions. Zero, One, and some number approaching infinity as well as the condition of having no numbers with no values at all. The robust system is architected to handle greater and greater amounts of complexities. It's rather like Apple's store - they've got an app for that.
In philosophy as well, it is the anticipation of the obscure fact that makes one the opposite of reactionary which is robust. It is the ability to handle the unforeseen implications of some combination of facts that makes for the greatest value. It is to keep the enterprise running.
In compute hardware, it's relatively easy to crash or hijack a system. You simply give it a contradiction or turn it back on itself so that it cannot do anything but try to resolve its own impossibility. You find its Goedelian hitch and send off the virus. In human minds, it's very difficult to do. We go into denial, or selective memory or something. The aim to keep the hardware running and ready is paramount. So, I believe it is with systems of humans - societies. Societies are inconsistent. Societies are inconsistent!
I am not fact based, meaning I judge myself not in terms of streams of facts, but in my ability to process them consistently to a philosophy. I hope my philosophy expands to be able to handle a larger set of facts, but it's not so important to me what the facts are, but that they never crash my system. Likewise as I look at society I want it to be robust in such a way that the facts of the individuals within them don't crash the principles of that society.
--
When I was the Boohab, my job was to be a 'persistent black object'. In that, I made myself into a striking racial artifact aimed to crash lots of systems. That was fun. But that was a decade ago.
Recent Comments