Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Can there be Clear Dialog
Can there be Clear Dialog
The simple thought that struck me last night, a rather muggy day here, trying to post pictures of life around Eau Claire and the sculpture tour (see my other blogspot www.spheresend.blogspot.com) but the coffee house computers and other on line storage or transmission paths were undergoing maintenance) I tried to read more of the recent posts with a feeling that we have all gone beyond each other in our separate detailed and esoteric directions. It if as if I finally got to that point where I cannot read what I write- it being so obscure or simple- that is, it seems that the others have caught up in this respect. For all practical purposes who really will read all this and who has the time to decipher the hieroglyphics in the language and formuli save those with an avid interest in archeology to come- or even the buyers and sellers of these entertaining cosmic issues, some already mummified.
Do we even hear each other when the nature of total theories, if we looked deep into them as an overview and reach a core simplicity, a clear understanding and communication, an x-ray vision in terms of applying what seems empty information and meaning in terms of clear coordinates and artistic distinctions, as our core ideas converge? In the doing so, have we found a state of isolation or useful dialog for in the chaos, the white noise by which our imaginations try to measure things and internalize them as evidence by statistical data, in the computations of life that is not just endless repetition or crazy randomness but a grasp of the processes and content that can be, as in the DNA, useful information in artistic contrast to whatever the background of the weight of the worlds?
Of course whether we desire a graph or picture rather than ordered and intelligible strings of symbols, formulas, is a matter of taste and emphasis of brain-mind design given and its ability to adapt to the background of meaning and information. The music of the mental spheres is as much a question of melody as it is of harmony and each emphasis has its limitations and advantages.
From a more unified view as to what languages and methods we learn, the various papers presented or buried deep,(of which we have at heart a few profound core principles the theoreticians relate to one way or the other) in effect archived as reference - the end and beginning really of a library to which we are close to foundational information when in the body of knowledge in the process of enquiry.
Forgive me if I of late use the Lockean inputs and good weights, that is the meaning of the idea of Liberty- but it is just a philosophy among others while the frontier of the enquiry is a tightrope between balancing allowing or rejecting all inputs. The paradox of democracy is that it allows the other philosophies of input that is as much a weakness as its strength of method.
We can only read and not check out the core references - as we translate a popular or obscure writing- take time to be sufficiently fluent in the symbols presented. It seems to me in that a theory makes progress toward a more general unification, our expert authors, theoreticians and tinkerers, dabblers here all point to core foundational issues to which a given discipline becomes more clear.
We have our own internal thoughts and dialog to consider also. But such an issue, a philosophic one, does ask things about the background of a more physical theory as well as to ask if we as a poet, full of emotions, write about ourselves and not our love, or of love and not any particular object of our love.
Some ideas, a few core ones, if they make sense at all to what is familiar to a receptive reader, seem so outrageous or foreign as to seem irrational or not seen in the clarity and simplicity as an issue worthy of comment and in general the weight of information and ideas that are of a greater depth and scope are not seen as unique or that relevant to the order undertaking the enquiry no matter how much the point is shouted or the equations worked out- most likely such new ideas that does not conform to the agenda in power are dismissed as most likely in error or from a source that wastes effort and pushes the results of that effort into obscurity. It is a sorry time for science when for one idea to come close to clarity it meets resistance for the fact that another school must vanish- but it is simply not the general case that for one person to gain another has to lose something. Even the sciences are subject to such a grounding of unscientific politics applied without the sense of consequences, purpose, or understanding.
But insofar as the clear physicality in the exchange of content as dialog it is a core question and principle as to when and where, what and who, how and why, and at what precise abstract coordinates and background, any such wisdom is conveyed or exchanged that after all seems independent of either the physical or spiritual source of things in the multiverse.
* * *