One Cʘsmos: A Hiatus

Monday, April 26, 2010

A Hiatus

While I determine whether anything remains unsaid.

46 comments:

julie said...: Of course it does; you just won't know until it doesn't go without saying.

On the other hand, the trouble with sticking to truth is that somebody somewhere has probably already said it. :)

Have a nice hiatus, Bob.; 4/26/2010 08:24:00 AM
Joan of Argghh! said...: Spring Fever stalks the bloggers!; 4/26/2010 09:28:00 AM
Brazentide said...: Enjoy your Hiatus. We await your return.

I suppose it is time to visit the Arkhive and catch up on my reading.; 4/26/2010 09:31:00 AM
Van Harvey said...: Sheesh. Just when I was getting caught up.

Happy Hiatus!; 4/26/2010 10:43:00 AM
mushroom said...: You can't get rid of us that easily, but I am confident you'll but the High in hiatus.; 4/26/2010 11:37:00 AM
robinstarfish said...: "........"; 4/26/2010 12:55:00 PM
Stephen Macdonald said...: It may be that this blog has covered so much territory that it seems like there is little left to say. However it seems to me that there is great value in keeping the Coonish flame alight as long as possible. Of the wonderful books we've all encountered here, I doubt I'd have read a single one of them otherwise. Certainly the overwhelming majority of "intellectuals" today have barely heard of Schuon or Balthazar. Blogs function differently than books. Once a book is written it sinks or swims on its own merits. A blog serves to keep ideas alive now, and of course to react quickly to new information.

At the risk of sounding grandiose on behalf of OC, one could say that "it's all be said before" at Church each Sunday, however that in no way devalues the experience of attending to sermons.

Truth pours forth from this wellspring, and Truth never dries up.; 4/27/2010 07:41:00 AM
Gagdad Bob said...: Noah's turkey found in Arkansas -- now that would be news.; 4/27/2010 09:17:00 AM
Open Trench said...: Bob:

I think a hiatus is not necessarily a productive idea.

Over the course of your blogging you've accumulated to yourself a readership and a certain amount of genuine authority on things spiritual.

You have earned by your focus, concentration, and diligent study, mastery over the subject. You are now in a position not just to teach, but to lead.

You have some momentum in what looks like a dynamic ministry, and that would be lost if you suddenly cease. Why give that resource away without trying to mine it for some good?

Craft for us not just a musing, a teaching, a review, or an opinion. Give us instead a sermon. Give us a course. Lay down to us what should be done. Back it with the full weight of your authority.

I urge you, just try it on for size. If it doesn't fit your soul, then don't post it.

But don't quietly bow out. Ask Petey what remains to be done here. He'll know, if anyone.; 4/27/2010 01:01:00 PM
Gagdad Bob said...: And yet, somehow, some readers haven't learned a thing. Go figure!; 4/27/2010 01:17:00 PM
Russell said...: "And yet, somehow, some readers haven't learned a thing. Go figure!"

That's why I keep coming back!
I figure eventually something will sink into my concrete blockhead.; 4/27/2010 01:21:00 PM
Tigtog said...: From Mondays post: "What’s the point of beauty? "

To soothe the soul, inspire the mind and remind you that all things are fleeting. Life is of great depth for the soul divers but unfortunately extremely brief on the horizontal. Thats my answer for now unless someone's got a better one.; 4/27/2010 03:00:00 PM
Tigtog said...: To Gagdad re:

"And yet, somehow, some readers haven't learned a thing. Go figure!"

Are things learned or discovered? My guess is most real things are discovered, most small things learned. Discoveries take time and introspection. Learning can be done via rote memorization.

Enjoy your slack. You do good work.

Odd WV: pusnemo; 4/27/2010 03:05:00 PM
julie said...: Tigtog,

I'm guessing things are discovered, but can be considered learned when the discovery is retained as knowledge. Hopefully as useable knowledge.

Just my 2 hundredths of a cent :); 4/27/2010 04:10:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Tigtog said "Are things learned or discovered? My guess is most real things are discovered, most small things learned. Discoveries take time and introspection. Learning can be done via rote memorization. "

Gotta quibble with you on that, though it may be more with how you're using 'learning', more as if memorization.

Rote learning, memorization, is easy... and can be done with little or no learning involved... like when I first became a certified database developer (snork!), I'd memorized entire manuals... and quickly discovered I didn't understand a thing, I'd discovered much, memorized even more, but learned almost nothing worthwhile.

Later on I did discover similarities between relational databases 'Normal Form', programming's 'Classes' and philosophical Concepts, but it took a lot more to learn from that (and discovering OC was a big part of it).

Discovering, whether without or within, can be done by accident, and many things are discovered and never understood or recognized, let alone learned from.

Learning of course may involve discovering, but learning in a way that creates understanding, is done by seeing and making connections, integrating one thing with another to rise to a higher level understanding... and personally I think that is a greater achievement.; 4/27/2010 04:36:00 PM
julie said...: Or, perhaps it could be said there's a third option: discovered, learned or grokked...; 4/27/2010 04:42:00 PM
Jim said...: Ah, I suspect you actually live in Greece and are a public employee. Perhaps the "Hiatus" is really a strike for better working conditions;-)

wv:stall, need I say more?; 4/27/2010 04:52:00 PM
Tigtog said...: To Van and Julie

My thought concerning discovery versus learning is that all real ideas or form were created in the beginning and we can merely discover them. Plato, Jung and Chaos. I guess we can learn new techniques to discover these ideas and forms, but techniques may actually be a discovery in itself. Conceptually, we can learn of other's discoveries. However, to completely understand learning speaks of internalizing the discovery and making it your own. I believe this is the heart of blues and jazz. Form remains the same but the artist makes it his own.; 4/27/2010 05:03:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Tigtog said "My thought concerning discovery versus learning is that all real ideas or form were created in the beginning and we can merely discover them. Plato, Jung and Chaos."

Much as I enjoy Plato, I'm definitely not a Platonist. Ditto for Jung, etc. Of course I'm speaking for myself here, but no real ideas were created in the beginning - ideas are human means of of understanding what is. What IS, was created in the beginning, but it takes our discovering what is, to us, new; relating it to other things we didn't realize had any relation to that, and learning what else follows from that.

Those connected relations, we call (in slightly different contexts) Ideas, Concepts and perhaps Forms (though Plato wouldn't agree), and they enable us to see what was always there to begin with, in a different light and with an understanding which we didn't have before.

To my eye, discovery is only the first step, learning is what we intelligently (in it's best meaning) do with not only the initial discovery, but the implications, integrations and meanings we've and learned over and above that initial discovery.

Discoveries are in one sense passive, but Learning, that involves the very core of you, even down to the soul spark, and requires your willingly allowing, seeking and choosing to establish understanding.

"However, to completely understand learning speaks of internalizing the discovery and making it your own."

We may be splitting on semantics here, but I'd say that internalizing the discovery, and by 'internalizing it' I take that to mean connecting, integrating it into all of your understanding to the point of being effortlessly 'known' when needed, and that leads to,

"...I believe this is the heart of blues and jazz. Form remains the same but the artist makes it his own."

makes it his own... not stumbles across in discovery, but so thoroughly understands it, it's implications and far extending integrations, that he can't help but conform to what he's learned... and it flows.

I've heard many an effortless musician, but never one who didn't get to that state of effortlessness without years of effort. It's learned and internalized, not simply discovered.; 4/27/2010 05:31:00 PM
Open Trench said...: I don't like the hiatus. How does this serve?

Only if there is substituted a mission of equal value would it be good.

A reminder to all: raccoons are valuable assets and time, energy, and talent are not to lie idle or be wasted.

Bob, you and the others are not "regular folk" who can go about the low orders of routine living; you all must actively engage the enemy, wherever it is found. You must craft a mission-statement and stick to it.

Bob, what is the source in your mind that suggested a hiatus? What is the quality of that source? The suggestion to quit the blog may be come from a parasite, or worse. Don't buy in unless you know the where that suggestion came from and can vouchafe its credibility.

Sheesh I sound stupid. But someone has to step up and say the obvious. You can't let OC go on an indefinite hiatus without good cause. "Nothing left to say" doesn't cut it, my good man.

Tell us what the heck is going on.; 4/27/2010 11:05:00 PM
walt said...: Grant sez: "Sheesh I sound stupid. But someone has to step up and say the obvious."

Well said!; 4/28/2010 03:56:00 AM
Van Harvey said...: grunt maker said "...raccoons are valuable assets and ti..."

grant, respectfully, shut up. Neither Bob nor anyone else here is a 'resource' for you or anyone else, or owes you or anyone else an explanation for their actions or plans or lack of them.

If you haven't grasped even that much after all this time, what makes you think any further posts are going to be at all helpful?

Or less windily put,

"And yet, somehow, some readers haven't learned a thing. Go figure!"; 4/28/2010 05:02:00 AM
JP said...: Van says:

"I've heard many an effortless musician, but never one who didn't get to that state of effortlessness without years of effort. It's learned and internalized, not simply discovered."

You have to have some sort of passion for it in the first place.

You do have to discover that. If you don't have a passion for it, you will never become effortless. Too much work.

It's only after you discover that you have a passion for it that you are willing to put in the effort of 70 hour weeks for the next 10 years to achieve effortlessness.; 4/28/2010 06:58:00 AM
JP said...: Van says:

"grant, respectfully, shut up. Neither Bob nor anyone else here is a 'resource' for you or anyone else, or owes you or anyone else an explanation for their actions or plans or lack of them."

I beg to differ. The arkive is a resource. It's just sitting there waiting for Grant to read all 2,000 posts or however many there are...; 4/28/2010 07:11:00 AM
Gagdad Bob said...: Grant:

I did not plan to start blogging, to blog for this long, or to stop blogging, either temporarily or permanently. Each day and each post is new, arising as it does out of the vertical now. As my wife can attest, there is no plan but no plan. The windbag blows where he will. But in any event, spirit -- which means breath -- implies a rhythm of inhalation and exhalation. Far be it from the B'ob to disobey the cosmic rhythm.; 4/28/2010 07:41:00 AM
Open Trench said...: Van and Bob:

You're comments are well taken; I was histrionic about Bob's decision and that is due to emotional lability.

I'm feeling better about the hiatus now; I can relax and go with the flow.; 4/28/2010 09:54:00 AM
julie said...: Off topic (Oh, wait - there is no topic. Sweet!),
I'm really glad I don't live in California. Yes, I know it's just one county, but if it catches on it'll be just like the smoking bans. (Is it legal to smoke anything but pot in California anymore? That might explain a lot...)

Money quote (emphasis mine):
"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," Yeager told the Times. "But we now know that 70 percent of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"

Because if kids are fat, it's not ever the fault of the parents. It's everyone else's fault and we should all feel guilty. And the only way to decrease childhood obesity is to punish everyone.; 4/28/2010 10:15:00 AM
Van Harvey said...: JP said "It's only after you discover that you have a passion for it that you are willing to put in the effort of 70 hour weeks for the next 10 years to achieve effortlessness."

Hmmm... as I said,
"...To my eye, discovery is only the first step, learning is what we intelligently (in it's best meaning) do with not only the initial discovery, but the implications, integrations and meanings we've and learned over and above that initial discovery..."

I've known more than a few who discovered a passion for music, but never the intestinal fortitude to develop it.

Discovery is nice, even necessary, but it ain't enough - and passion even less so. The deliberate activity of learning, and the actions of spirit and choice that involves, is a must for anyone who's after that effortlessness which results from much, much, much effort.; 4/28/2010 10:19:00 AM
Van Harvey said...: JP said "I beg to differ. The arkive is a resource."

I beg to differ with your differing... I said "Neither Bob nor anyone else here is a 'resource'"... I didn't say the resources (blog, book, etc) weren't resources.

I hate to have to do this to you JP, but... here it goes...
Vegas! Blackjack! Mt. Charleston! Lake Mead! Hit ME! 24hr ANYTHING!!!

Sorry... it was for your own good.

;-); 4/28/2010 10:24:00 AM
Unknown said...: "The windbag blows where he will"

I think Bob is talking about Van. :); 4/28/2010 01:23:00 PM
Tigtog said...: To Van re:

" but no real ideas were created in the beginning - ideas are human means of of understanding what is"

I disagree, man merely discovers things through pattern recognition. If you understand pattern recognition is the heart of man's discovery/learning, then you have to recognize the patterns existed before man recognized them.

You need to give Plato and Jung another shot. Actually I find Plato to be something of a buzzkill except for his work on Forms and Ideas. I am more of an Aristotle kind of guy. The glass is half full not half empty.; 4/28/2010 03:15:00 PM
Tigtog said...: To JP re:

"It's learned and internalized, not simply discovered."

You have to have some sort of passion for it in the first place."

What is discovered in your example is the form of the artist. His style.; 4/28/2010 03:18:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Lance, not sure he meant me, but I certainly identified with it!; 4/28/2010 03:50:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Tigtog said "You need to give Plato and Jung another shot."

I've given, and do give, Plato many shots... I have given his dialogs a great deal of time, thought and consideration - I even listen to them in the car... for fun; I like him a lot, especially for his (and his mentors) ability to ask questions. But his answers... not so much.

"Actually I find Plato to be something of a buzzkill except for his work on Forms and Ideas."

I disagree with that so much, it'd be hard to express in anything short of hurricane length windiness... so I'll just leave it there.

"I disagree, man merely discovers things through pattern recognition. If you understand pattern recognition is the heart of man's discovery/learning, then you have to recognize the patterns existed before man recognized them."

Sigh. This has all the earmarks of a never ending semantical disconnect, and it is highly unlikely that we'll come to agreement.

But being a flogger... I've got to give it one more try.

Try it from a more flattened, perceptual, point of view. A man is hiking up a mountain, tired, hot, sweaty, turns his head aside as he presses his way through a long though narrow cleft in a mountain pass, finally forces his way through in a stumble, stands and rights himself facing forward and is struck all at once by a awe inspiring, sublime, landscape, one of sight and sound and sensation - the air is suddenly cool and moist, a breeze presses against his entire body, the sound of cascading waterfall's fill his ears, eagle's calling above, the sun is setting and casting a rose tinged glow over an indescribably beautiful landscape - Yosemite's El Capitan to the 10th power... but even those general distinctions are only 'noticed' afterwards, first comes the sudden discovery of the incredible scene. Then he becomes aware of the general distinctions I just mentioned. If he's something like a botanist he may discern within what I would describe as "greenery", tens, hundreds, thousands of varieties of plants, and so on.

The scene he discovered existed whole, overwhelmingly so, it simply IS. What can be learned from it, the details of it's contents, how one portion - flora and fauna - relates to another - soil or even the eagles - from careful conceptual identification (Aristotle would kick in here big time), and the distinctions are only made possible by the continually finer observations and distinctions made by an active mind. It's not enough to just discover what exists, what exists must be essentially identified and related in and of themselves, as well as related by our perspective and for a purpose, and that involves reasoned learning, not just the perceptual taking in of a, perhaps overwhelming, discovery.

(friggin' anti-longwinded blogger break); 4/28/2010 05:01:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: (cont)
Existence exists, the Cosmos is One Cosmos, and we can only say that "Things are what they are" because we artificially parse them through analyzing what is, based upon the methods of conceptualization which we as human beings use to grasp the Cosmos - as best as we can. Proper pattern recognition keys off of existing characteristics which are essential to and within a given context. Our ability to make useful ideas, depends upon what exists, the context we are approaching it from, and the useful and essential characteristics which establishes the pattern which we come to identify.

The pattern didn't exist before us, only IT existed, whole, and it is in making distinctions - hopefully rational ones - that we create patterns, but the patterns didn't exist, only IT did - patterns are only our method of recognizing what exists.

Those patterns we recognize very much depends upon our position, and our perspective upon what IS, as well as the scope of our perception; it intersects with the set of things which are, and forms a subset which is what we call a pattern. Our ideas are not formed from what is typically called the subjective or the objective, but from their intersection.

From the point of view of the Cosmos, it is all One Whole, but we are not able to grasp it in that fashion, and when we try to say "It's all related so it's all good" we end up with gibberish because that obliterates an important part of our perspective, namely our purpose for forming it - the difference is between what is rational and what is irrational. I could say that I see a pattern between an AC/DC power chord, a portion of a Frank Sinatra performance when he started low and soared up high, a chord in one of Beethoven's Sonatas and my car engine revving up to freeway speed and call it the "Pattern of things which use middle C"... and while it may be technically true, they are all things I heard sound middle C, it is not a rational pattern, that's not a proper form of human conceptual pattern formation, only the barest of associations, and no one in their right mind would call that learning or a proper pattern, even though it is something which undoubtedly exists and which I discovered. If you want to say that pattern existed... fine, can't help you out, but I for one can't see how you can say it existed in any reasonable, rational, human fashion.

Discovery is part of learning, but learning is the higher end of the spectrum, from which we learn what those discoveries meant and mean.; 4/28/2010 05:01:00 PM
Susannah said...: Okay, Bob...as long as you don't go away forever!; 4/28/2010 05:34:00 PM
Tigtog said...: Van, everything you described and more is a multi quilt of patterns. How much of the pattern we can explain (discover) is limited only by our perceptual senses. Dimensionally, we can't observe what we can't observe. I read you reply, both of them, and I don't really get your disagreement with pattern recognition. To offer that there are a lot of patterns layered on patterns doesn't change the fact that man with his perceptual limitations can only recognize some of the patterns doesn't challenge the notion of pattern recognition as mans only tool to understand (discover) his surroundings. Each one of us is a unique pattern. The funny thing is very few of us are able to discover our own pattern much less those of the phenomena that surrounds us. Everything is the universe is formed on a pattern, many similar, but each unique. If it wasn't then you could point to anarchy as proof of the non-existence of intelligence in design/creator/God. Just saying.

You don't have to agree with me, but for the life of me, what I have proposed is not really earth shatteringly new.; 4/28/2010 06:56:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/28/2010 07:34:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Tigtog… first off,

;-)

Ok, that being said, you said “I don't really get your disagreement with pattern recognition.”

Heh, I’ve zero argument with pattern recognition… pattern recognition is vital to my understanding of our conceptual faculty, and integration – the heart and soul (figuratively speaking) of our ability to understand anything, is heavily dependent upon patterns, and finding the essential point of a pattern, and integrating it into a higher level pattern.

Where we started this from, was not on patterns, but the relative ranking of Discovery vs Learning, where you said,

“Are things learned or discovered? My guess is most real things are discovered, most small things learned. Discoveries take time and introspection. Learning can be done via rote memorization.”

That appears to me, to rank Learning well below Discovery, and down on a level with rote memorization.

If that isn’t what you meant, then we’ve been arguing with someone other than each other. But, if that is what you meant, then let me (please, please, please) briefly restate my position:

Discovery is a result of something else, and more on a level with a perceptual impact – rich with potential information, but like the hiker example above, it’s mostly undifferentiated sensory impact, cognitively, Vertically, lower on the scale than that process of differentiation, identification and integration (which likely involves much pattern recognition), and along with much deliberate volitional choices and actions – the process of Learning – results in something Learned.

Short summation: Learning Way high on the vertical scale, Discovery way lower on the scale (though possibly packing high emotional oomph).

My argument is not against patterns or pattern recognition at all, and I think that came into this with your comment,

“My thought concerning discovery versus learning is that all real ideas or form were created in the beginning and we can merely discover them.”

And there I disagree with where patterns are, I say they are in us, not existence. Patterns are formed by us, in our minds, from the similarities we perceive in Reality. As I think Gagdad has noted often, without life, the universe is but one continuous, undifferentiated whole, it is only with humans that it becomes differentiated, that there becomes a ‘here’ and a ‘there’, a ‘this’ and a ‘that’, and from among those, we perceive those wonderful vital thingamajigs, Patterns, and long after that, Ideas.

So… how’s that look?; 4/28/2010 07:37:00 PM
Mizz E said...: Nice catch, Sensei!

Hilarious comment @ 10:15:00 AM, Julie.

Is forever like eternity and infinity? If so, I'll need more wine.; 4/28/2010 07:54:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I can't get my head around the big bang theory, but, a timeless eternity that always was and always will be, that, I have no problem with.

Not sure if it's been said or not but a little sumpin' to go 'round.

Enjoy your subconscious stirrings.; 4/28/2010 08:23:00 PM
ge said...: to say 0 is human
on inhalation
to say all is diwine
on exhalation
but the held breath is
otra cosa; 4/29/2010 03:29:00 AM
black hole said...: So Bob, what are you up to today? Anything planned?; 4/29/2010 08:17:00 AM
Tigtog said...: To Van re:

"And there I disagree with where patterns are, I say they are in us, not existence. Patterns are formed by us, in our minds, from the similarities we perceive in Reality. As I think Gagdad has noted often, without life, the universe is but one continuous, undifferentiated whole, it is only with humans that it becomes differentiated, that there becomes a ‘here’ and a ‘there’, a ‘this’ and a ‘that’, and from among those, we perceive those wonderful vital thingamajigs, Patterns, and long after that, Ideas."

Van, we do differ. While there was no one to appreciate the created patterns until our creation, by definition (Genesis) their creation had to precede our perception. I think of it this way, all the patterns we discover are nothing but bread crumbs left by the Creator to bring us to him. He, after all, created us in His image, giving us pattern recognition and imagination. Populating the entire universe with His designs, forms and patterns implies a sort of game of hide and seek. My take is He wants us to play with him. He wants us to find Him. This goes along with Gagdad's observation of why we developed such a large brain. The brain is a divine homing device. It works on both the vertical and horizontal.

Well, that's how I see the jigsaw puzzle at the moment. Things change though, especially opinions.; 4/29/2010 03:16:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: Tigtog said "While there was no one to appreciate the created patterns until our creation, by definition (Genesis) their creation had to precede our perception."

Again, it's highly unlikely we'll take to each other's view, still the effort of trying to clarify our own, at least for me, is worth the effort, so here goes again.

Imagine a perfect featureless sphere. That sphere, unadorned and smooth as Smoov can be (where'd that come from?! (long timers might get it)), is complete and entire, and we, on examining it, would find a near infinite range of possible patterns which we could draw upon it... circles, ovals, ellipses, lines through it, triangles even... and all would be valid, and all could serve a purpose towards further knowledge, geometry, etc... but it is in the process of examining what is, that our thoughts discover patterns, elaborate upon them and integrate them into our knowledge - nothing subjective here, all based upon, and corresponding to reality, but the patterns are formed within us from the limitless possibility of patterns to be divined from the uninterrupted Whole of what is.

Patterns, ideas, concepts, etc, are our way of grasping what is, but what IS, is independent of our perceptions of it.

"Populating the entire universe with His designs, forms and patterns implies a sort of game of hide and seek. My take is He wants us to play with him. He wants us to find Him."

Assuming that He is there, I'm sure he does delight in our seeking him out, in finding some of the possibilities inherent in Him and His creation... I just suspect that he would rather we didn't confuse our sketches of his Moon, with the Moon itself - no matter how fine the painting, it is not the reality, only our perception of it.

It would be nice if we could just relax and open ourselves to knowledge, the thought is tempting (and there is a nugget of truth to it, once you've established some understanding, you are more readily able to grasp further implications and possibilities of it - but that requires raising yourself up to that tipping point to begin with). But what it would mean in the end, is that reason is completely passive, without either logic or imagination, operating only on the more you 'just open your mind' the more chance you have of letting wisdom just flood in and wash over you.

But I’m afraid such a practice in fundamentals, are more likely to open you to a draft, than to wisdom.

You do need to alert your mind to the possibility of deeper, more refined and correct patterns & ideas, but again, IMHO, that is a process of more carefully and diligently taking note of what IS, and adjusting your observations of what is, to fit better with what is and to integrate more deeply with your awareness and understanding of what is.

Like the example of an infinite possible number of angles which can pass through a point - that is what IS, and presumably is how an all knowing intelligence would grasp and understand the cosmos... however that isn't within the realm of possibility for a human being to grasp. There is a clear complementarity involved... based upon our familiarizing ourselves with as many of those angles of perspective as possible, we can grasp and become enlightened in the process, in our very finite ability - but we have to do the grasping, and the possibilities are infinite because IT is not limited by a set number of existing patterns to draw from - They don't exist, what Does exist enables us to describe patterns within it.

Our minds function and improve by methodical and sustained volitional effort and actions - we can't just 'open wide' and become smarter without effort - see you unfriendly neighborhood leftist and deepak worshiper for living examples of that.; 4/29/2010 06:29:00 PM
Van Harvey said...: However... all this is straying off into patterns of speculation... the original point, simple and fundamental, is stiil that,

Discovery is something that results from something else and opens the door to higher realizations - more on a level with a perception than conception – rich with potential information, but like the hiker example above, it’s mostly undifferentiated impact, cognitively and Vertically lower on the scale, than the process of differentiation, identification and integration which volitional choices and actions combine to create the process of Learning – and which results in something being Learned.

Short dejavu summation: Learning is Way higher on the vertical scale, than Discovery, which is way lower on the scale.

Discoveries are largly little things which may lead to larger implicaitons. Learned things are (potentially - assuming they are True) vastly larger things, which are finer and higher than what may be simply discovered.; 4/29/2010 07:02:00 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

The First Word Shall Be Last: