Oddities that math people explain in different ways. But intuitively it sure seems like a paradox. — jgill

It's not a paradox. The diagonal line represents the distance I travel going from the bottom to the top - √2. It doesn't matter whether I use stairs or a smooth diagonal, that's the distance I'm travelling.

The number of "stairs" tells something similar how polygons start resembling a circle: — ssu

Except the sum of the chord side lengths on the polygons you've shown do approach the circumference of the circle. If I remember correctly, this is how pi was first estimated.

You can imagine what the horizonal and ellipsoid poems hold in store for us. — Raymond

If those metaphors work for you, that's good. If you hadn't explained them, I probably wouldn't have known what you were trying to say. Those are probably not words I would use to describe poetry.

That's true indeed?DNA tries to "kill itself"? — dimosthenis9

No. It's not true. It doesn't even mean anything.

But if you see it in large scale and not individually, the purpose of the variations of let's say the general "population of Covid viruses" (same with humankind genes) seems to be to keep staying alive. The purpose of this evolution procedure is to keep existing. Keep living. Seems to me like a "force" pushing towards there. — dimosthenis9

Some genetic strains survive and some don't, which leads to changes in the species, i.e. evolution. Changes in the population of organisms over time are the effect of the process, not the purpose. Evolution has no drive, direction, purpose, or force.

Can we apply verticallity to poetry or music? — Raymond

You seem to have a better grasp on what's going on here than I do.

The question “is everything clear to you” is for the post in this forum, not the website. In addition, I'm not sure how a technical problem on a website ties in with the question. — thaumasnot

I've put quite a bit of effort into this discussion. It's been useful and interesting. It gave me a chance to dive deeper into the issues we've discussed. After that effort, I still don't understand the purpose or methods of your system. I'm a pretty smart guy, so I think that means your system needs work. Getting pissed and questioning my motives is not a good way to get me to participate.

I'm not interested in taking this any further at this time.

So these strains were there from the very beginning? Since "virus birth"?? And just some of them die and others survive? Haven't these strains developed afterwards as an effort from the virus to survive? — dimosthenis9

Variations in the virus strains develop as the result of random genetic mutations which take place on a continuous basis. Some mutations have no significant effect, some have negative consequences for the organism, and some have a positive effect.

That sounds very similar to our existing criminal justice system. Its goal is not to punish people, but to prevent future offences in the society. What's important is to establish law—the likelihood of being punished—in the society, but not punishments themselves. — pfirefry

I'd call this metaphysical position less useful, because I think the existence of free will is not relevant for justice. Even if all actions are determined, the justice system still needs to deal with a lot of uncertainty. I.e. we know things have happened the way they were supposed to happen — pfirefry

There's a difference between justice and social control; retribution and coercion.

Don't tell me you don't know that in abstract painting most trees stand vertical and their leaves are convex. Same for realistic work. Vertical, up-down linearly, convex, spherical. — Raymond

Yes, I know what the words mean, but not in the context they are being used. I don't know their significance, why we should be paying attention to them.

Why even these tiniest living things have that Will to keep on existing? — dimosthenis9

No will involved, just evolution by natural selection. Some strains of the virus are more resistant to the vaccines than others just by chance. Those resistant strains continue to spread and infect people. Other strains, that are not resistant, die out.

T Clark, is everything clear to you ? — thaumasnot

Not at all. As I told you previously, the links to the definitions on your website don't work for me. I'm using Chrome. Even if they did, I'm not sure it would make any difference.

T Clark doesn’t want to participate, so I’ll leave the thread, unless someone wants me to continue the reconstruction. — thaumasnot

You are being petulant when you don't get the responses you want.

Even though it’s not interesting, it’s different from analysis in that reconstruction transcribes variations almost transparently. It makes no effort to add value to the content (except try to be readable and not too tedious). — thaumasnot

I think this gets at the heart of my questions. Why would I want to look at the reconstruction of the work of art if it's not telling me something interesting. That's what I'm looking for, someone who maybe knows a bit more than I do to pick out parts of the work that contribute to the effect it has. There are so many ways you can break down a work - word counts, uses of figures of speech, rhythm and rhyme, symbols, references to other works, references to mythology... and on an on.

That brings up another question, which is especially important to me for media I am not familiar with. What standards are you applying? I don't know what "verticality" or "convexity" mean, represent, or imply with visual art. It's a language I'm not familiar with. Is it yours or is it a standard way of analyzing that type of work. I think it would help if you provide a written summary at the beginning for each type of work of art that describes the classification methods and standards, where they come from, and what they signify.

A specific question for "As I Lay Dying," the only work other than "Ode on a Grecian Urn" I am familiar with. All the other works are short or, like the photograph, all one thing. "As I Lay Dying" is long and you've only presented a few analyses of the text. Are the ways of analyzing you've provided intended to be exhaustive? Does that cover all the aspects of the writing it's worth looking at?

As @Metaphysician Undercover noted, I'm not really sure how these differ from an ordinary analysis, even after I read your response.

So I don't really understand where the "reconstruction" comes from. Let's take a simple pattern for example. Suppose a piece of music has a rhythm, a beat, and this you choose as a medium-specific narrative. So you might go through the whole piece and determine what parts are the fundamental rhythm, and what parts are variations, or maybe some parts are even completely different. That's an analysis, but where does the reconstruction come into play? How would a reconstruction differ from an analysis? What am I missing? — Metaphysician Undercover

The questions you are asking are the same sorts of ones I have.

I'd have to see an example in action. Much of what you write is highly complex and I am not sure I understand your intent. — Tom Storm

I've asked the moderators if I could post a link to @thaumasnot's webpage so others can see what he's done. I don't want to piss anyone off or get anyone into trouble.

Your conceptual reconstruction of Ode on a Grecian Urn is what I expected from what you described. I can see the value and agree it might be helpful, especially after I read the poem once. It's the kind of explication I never would have done for myself. It reminds me of several posts that @Michael Zwingli put together for some of the poetry we exchanged. Michael, are you still around?

I remember reading an interpretation of "Wild Grapes" by Robert Frost that I found really interesting. Two sets of lines referenced Greek mythology:

The day I swung suspended with the grapes,
And was come after like Eurydice
And brought down safely from the upper regions;

and

Where a white birch he knew of stood alone,
Wearing a thin head-dress of pointed leaves,
And heavy on her heavy hair behind,
Against her neck, an ornament of grapes.

And another which referenced Leif Erikson's foster father:

Bunches all round me growing in white birches,
The way they grew round Leif the Lucky's German;

The essay, which I have not been able to find again, explained the references. I found that really satisfying. It increased my depth of understanding of the poem.

But what you wrote here seems different from what you posted at the links you sent me.

I forgot to mention - you should give $100 million to the Philosophy Forum. Will that cover things, @jamalrob?

I'm not sure if Pay Pal can handle that.

Alternative 1 - Give all but $20 million to the Gates Foundation or some other worthwhile charity. Give $10 million to family and friends, including trusts for your children. Live quietly off the rest until you die. Buy a small farm and raise pigs.

Alternative 2 - Call your therapist and ask him to increase the dosage on your mood stabilizers.

It's a fascinating area and my most acrimonious discussions with others over the years have not involved religion or politics, but art and how it can be understood and assessed. — Tom Storm

I can get all the political arguments I want, but I have nobody to talk art with, so I'm enjoying this.

The OP seems to be working towards trying to capture the uniqueness in a work that may have been missed by conventional means of discussing works. I think this has merit. But to me this will often be a side dish to the main course. In some art what makes it 'unique' might be the least interesting aspect of that work. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure. At times it feels like @thaumasnot and I are talking about the same things. At others, like we're nowhere near each other.

Hey, @Noble Dust, we's talkin about aht. thought you might be interested.

For my money the key fact about art is in the aesthetic experience - there is always a risk in analysis that such an enterprise may rob a work of its reason for being and miss the point. This process can be like people with no sense of humour trying to explain the punchline of a joke.

Generally however I want value judgements from my reviewing. It's the main reason I would read a review. From criticism, what I want is further information to enrich my understanding of a work. I think you are aiming at the latter. — Tom Storm

I think your and my desires and expectations for reviews and criticism are very similar. I'm trying to figure out how that fits into what @thaumasnot is aiming for.

I didn't expect much from your explication, not because of any judgement about you but because, like @Reformed Nihilist, I am very skeptical of grand visions of philosophy. I think you did a good job laying out your vision and I think it is worth talking about. I'm surprised RN or someone else hasn't responded yet.

My first objection is that you have mixed your physics and metaphysics. They don't belong together. That's kind of a knee-jerk reaction. I'll reread your post and see if I have more to say.

I believe what you are describing is more epistemology, the study of knowledge, then it is metaphysics. — Philosophim

Depending on the source you look at, epistemology is often included in metaphysics.

I also only interpret something I find interesting. The only difference is that I don’t try to articulate _why_ it matters to me (which is actually impossible because taste is not Ascommunicable), but the _what_, and this “what” happens to be objective, so we all win. — thaumasnot

I'm not sure about this. I find that taste is one of the primary things I find meaningful and useful in a review. A good reviewer is trying to share his taste with me. Share, not impose. Sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does, it opens up a new way of seeing things. A new willingness to try things I haven't tried before. Some of my favorite reviews have been for restaurants, so the importance of taste can sometimes be literal.

The medium-specific narratives are genre-less (or cross-genre, if you will). They actually show music in a light that make genre/subgenre considerations pretty much worthless if you find value in medium-specific narratives (which is my case). — thaumasnot

I need to look at the examples you've provided to get a better idea of what you're talking about.

Idem — thaumasnot

I always use "ditto." "Idem" is classier.

Actually, my goal is NOT to explain why this or that work is great. This is actually the contrary. My goal is to show content in a certain way that was overlooked and may actually the most important thing. In the case of Mona Lisa, I have actually nothing to report (for me it’s just straightforward artwork worthlessly hyped by interpretation and the context it brings with it). — thaumasnot

I think you and I are talking about the same thing.

Um, no? Why would me requesting to know on what basis someone is claiming that Graziano "is absolutely clueless" imply that I'm looking to give a "tutorial"? — Seppo

It was a request, not a question about your state of mind. A request that you rejected gracelessly. We can leave it at that.

Ok. I've finished the manifesto and scanned the rest of the comments in the thread. First thought - I have my work cut out for me. Some homework to do. Do I want to do it? Yeeeesss? I'm lost on some concepts. I think that comes at least partly from the fact that I am not experienced in interpretation because of the whole hating thing, you know. And also because of my tendency to focus on the experience of art rather than the understanding of it. More on that later.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to come at this piecemeal. I'll comment on the manifesto from where I stand now. Then I'll need to go on with later posts in the thread and some of the homework you've provided.

I just finished a book about “conceptual reconstructionism,” — thaumasnot

At first, I thought you meant you had just finished reading it, but turns out you wrote it.

Conceptual reconstructionism can be seen as a style of interpretation (of art and various other types of content) that consciously avoids value judgments and focuses on the “reconstruction” of works, which is the process of looking at (and transcribing) what I call their “medium-specific narratives.” The main motivation is a dissatisfaction with reviewing and analysis in general and how they fail to capture a certain uniqueness in certain works. — thaumasnot

Some background - I am not a sophisticated art user. I enjoy music and visual art, but I don't have much of a musical or visual imagination. I am very verbal and have a vivid verbal imagination, so I'm much more at home in discussions of writing. I want to lay out my understanding of meaning in relation to works of art. I don't think they are particularly relevant to your subject, but I want to describe them briefly so you can see where I'm coming from. I don't expect to go on in that direction because I think it might sidetrack your thread, which I don't want to do. It's your job as the original poster to keep us on track. I'll try to help, or at least not to hurt.

I remember a fun trip to the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston with a friend of mine, a visual artist. Lots to look at, most of it non-representational. I started a conversation with him about something I had been thinking about for a while. One of the museum guides came over and we had an interesting discussion. I laid out my thoughts - Art, of any sort, doesn't mean anything beyond the experience the viewer/reader gets from it. You can't turn art into words, even verbal art like poetry or literature. Interpretation, review, whatever you want to call it can only legitimately address the viewer's/reader's experience. Ok, enough of that. You at least to see how that colors my understanding of your views.

Under careful examination, the description is a grab-bag of geographical, economical, political, cultural and demographical considerations which give rise to a mosaic. That is, it is based on juxtaposition rather than other types of relation (temporal order, cause-effect, deduction, formal similarity, etc.). It characteristically builds up into a familiar “messy” whole: while it is conventional and reads well, the mosaic typically doesn’t have a clear direction, — thaumasnot

I love Wikipedia and the mosaic you are describing. It gives me just what I want. I'm your average user. I have specific types of information I'm generally looking for and it's good when I find it where I'm expecting to be. If I need to go further, which is not often, I'm capable of doing that on my own. From what you've written, I don't think you disagree with this.

Consuming reviews and interpretations can be:

1. for information
2. for pleasure

The mosaic suits the consumption for information. — thaumasnot

I commented on this in my first post. I agree that this isn't what I'm looking for in a review.

In the context of the consumption for pleasure, we enjoy the work’s content united to the mosaic of interpretation, although the connection has a fundamentally conjectural quality. Take the live performance of a song. The enjoyment of the song is heightened by the belief in a certain connection to the musicians, the technicality of their performance, how they seem to enjoy themselves too, etc. Even if the connection is real, the conjecturing is always in the background: the audience always has to transcend a fundamental doubt, however small, regarding the connection (playback, autotune, whether the performance is that difficult to pull off, and so on). — thaumasnot

You say "enjoyment," I say "experience." I think we're probably talking mostly about the same thing, although experience might include a bit more. I'm not sure. The factors you identify probably would contribute to the experience for me, although I think there would be lots of other factors. I probably won't be aware of them unless I'm really trying to understand my reactions to the piece.

A notable labelling act is the value judgment. A statement such as “I like this work” is always a highly compromised abstraction of a rich experience. It tries to cram a more or less unique cognitive process into one quantity (informal or numerical, it doesn’t matter). — thaumasnot

Sure, if value judgement is all there is. On the other hand, why would I interpret something that wasn't at least interesting? I write reviews on Amazon, Yelp, or Chowhound from time to time, almost all for things I have strong feelings about or interest in. I've been known to end a review with "I love this book."

The interpretation of the average value doesn’t match the actual experiencing of content, which is a process with a narrative quality. Not narrative in the sense of a traditional story, but in a medium-specific sense. For example, if the medium is painting, a medium-specific narrative is based on visual perceptions (“events”) and how they relate to each other (through morphology, color, transformation, topology, etc.) on a timeline affixed to the viewer’s roaming gaze. Even in a text-based medium, a medium-specific narrative doesn’t always coincide with the traditional concept of story or plot. That’s because medium-specific specificity isn’t so much about what the words mean, but how they are told. — thaumasnot

I'm interested in this, especially in media where I am not familiar with technical aspects. I know that bluegrass and old time country music sound and feel different, but what is it about them that makes that difference? For visual art, I'm even less knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the work. Even for written works where I am more comfortable, I am not usually paying attention to these aspects unless I make a special effort or unless someone points them out.

The interpretation of the medium-specific narrative restores the granularity, temporality and epiphanic quality of content... Reconstruction is a product of the interpretation of the medium-specific narratives. It consists in transcribing a medium-specific narrative perceived in a work. — thaumasnot

I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, this means. As I said, I think I have work to do.

The interest of reconstruction is in pushing the scope of the perceived narrative to the physical boundaries of the medium. — thaumasnot

I need to see some examples. I see you have provided at least one in later posts. That's the homework.

Reconstruction is based on 2 conventions... Conventional medium delimitation... Pure referentiality — thaumasnot

I don't understand. I will probably have more to say once I've read some examples.

The mosaic, as a format of content, is just one symptom of amnesic thought processes that forget narrative relations, leading to a simplistic interpretation of information and reality, with unfortunate philosophical and cultural consequences like excessive vulgarization and false lifestyle dichotomies (for example, being a commercially successful mainstream artist versus staying “authentic” and underground). In particular, value-based interpretation creates artificial communication barriers that become social barriers. Role segregation is a consequence of the opacity of value judgments (e.g., a renowned critic’s opinion is unfalsifiable but considered authoritative), and feeds into an inferiority complex. It paints “great” artists as geniuses, and “great” critics as authority figures. — thaumasnot

This gets at a question a lot of unsophisticated people like me have about art. Sure, the Mona Lisa is a nice painting about a pretty woman. What's so great about it. Or maybe - Hey, that's just a bunch of squiggles. My 3 year old son could do that. Maybe that's my problem with interpretation. I've read very few whose judgement matches my understanding, experience, of wonderfulness.

With the focus of interpretation moving away from value judgments, not only do the critics lose all their privileges, but the gravity center of communities, now educated on on the sterile and manipulative aspects of value, shifts to the sharing of perceived content. Let me quote a random thread about a game on a gaming forum: — thaumasnot

As I've written, you and I have a somewhat different opinion about value judgements, but I do know what you're talking about. I read a lot and spend a lot of time on Amazon. Amazon ratings and reviews of books are practically useless. Most books get 4.5 or 5 stars, even crap. Then some of my favorites, well written and meaningful, get 3.5 stars. If I want to see what's really going on with a book, I always read the 3 star reviews and then look for outside reviews from reputable sources.

The focus on experiencing individual works and what makes each unique (as medium-specific narratives rather than consumerist novelties based on aesthetics, theme, and so on) directly contradicts the need for grand theories (what is Art, what is great Art, etc.). Reconstruction isn’t so much a theory as the cognitive process of finding medium-specific narratives. — thaumasnot

Sounds good. That goal is similar to mine for focusing on the experience of a work of art rather than it's meaning. Sometimes in reading what you've written, I think maybe we are getting at something similar. Sometimes I think we are far apart.

See now, this is all tl:dr, but that's your fault, isn't it. I'll PM you to discuss.

I do tend to conflate interpretation and reviewing. I’m not rigorous about it, so please bear with me. — thaumasnot

Don't apologize. Making distinctions is what we do here.

I just noticed you started this a month ago. I guess I missed it. Or maybe I said, tl:dr and went back to reading one of the 5,000 threads about free will.

I would be glad to discuss the concept/project with you. In addition, I’m particularly looking for criticism about my writing (is it readable? is it logically sound? is it repeating something that already exists?). You can message me if you’re interested in reading the book or knowing more about the project, or we can discuss things here. — thaumasnot

I'll start with this. You write very well. Clear and interesting. The ideas are well presented in a way that's easy to understand, although the ideas are not simple. And, no, this is not something that has been covered before. Interpretation is not a subject that gets addressed here much and it's one I'm really interested in, by which I mean I hate it. I'll provide a more nuanced discussion later if we get that far.

There's a term. Perhaps you know it - tl:dr, meaning too long, didn't read. Your post definitely qualifies. I almost didn't read it, but then I read the first couple of paragraphs and got sucked in. That's a testament to your writing, but also the subject. Did I mention I hate interpretation? Problem is, I don't know if you could have laid this out in a shorter post.

My post here relates just to the upfront part. I'm about a third of the way through the Manifesto. I'm determined to finish!!! When I do, I'll get back to you, today I hope.

One point I want to discuss is the difference between reviewing and interpretation. As I see it, they are not the same. I love a good review. You say they can be for information or pleasure, but they can be something more. A good review is an essay just as much as an article by Stephen Jay Gould, my favorite writer, on evolution. As Gould has written, a good review often starts with specifics, like bricks, and builds a wall. The specific to the general. I guess that's the mosaic you are talking about. It transmits ideas beyond just the specific subject being reviewed. Other good reviews have different ways of dealing with their subject, but they all give something more than just pleasure or information. More later I guess.

Good post. I'll try to keep up. Welcome to the forum. We need good writers and good thinkers.

And especially on this topic, given the propensity towards willful misunderstandings/misrepresentations of eliminativism by people strongly (but largely uncritically) committed to a naive/folk dualistic metaphysic. — Seppo

Sounds like you know something about the subject. Care to give us all a tutorial. Serious request.

As you note, a lot of what you write makes sense, but is beyond the intended scope of this discussion.

You see, I wouldn't say, technically speaking, that "punishment" is the right term but, rather, "prevention". However, I would also so that "justice", or "retaliation", is perfectly justifiable under a deterministic worldview. — Bob Ross

Definition of "retaliation" - The return of like for like; the doing of that to another which he has done to us; especially (now usually), requital of evil; reprisal; revenge. That's from the web.

Why does that make sense if it doesn't prevent the offender from offending again? How is revenge justifiable if there is no free will?

Makes sense. Like axioms. — pfirefry

Yes. R.G. Collingwood calls them "absolute presuppositions."

What considerations would we apply to distinguish between someone with free will and someone without? — pfirefry

My stated assumption is that there is no free will. In that case, we would assume that all actions are determined. I guess my question is, would be treat offenders more leniently in such a case. We're not punishing them, we're trying to stop them from offending again.

Liability, accountability, responsibility guilt, etc. are just inventions to give people the false impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions, — Raymond

All language is just an invention to give people the impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions.

If the accountability is installed in people, then they have the false idea that it's them who are in charge of what they do or think, and are accountable for what they think or do, while it are in fact the imposers of the accountability who are in charge of the thoughts and actions they want to control by introducing accountability. — Raymond

If I lend you $100 with the understanding you will pay it back in a month, am I trying to impose my control when I ask for payment 30 days later?

free will is rejected solely because at some point it was understood to be a product of a creator God. — Cheshire

I'm not a theist, but I don't reject free will.

I feel like you are being dismissive about an aspect of philosophy that is deeply rooted in its history, and still exists in a very broad sense in modern philosophy. — Reformed Nihilist

I often call myself a pragmatist, so suspecting me of some bias is probably reasonable. Still, every philosopher who denies the possibility of certainty still goes about their life as best they can with whatever limited certainty they can find. Descartes recognized the futility of "I think, therefore I am," as a guide to living.

what sense does it make to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions. — Cheshire

I guess we have no choice but to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions.

Then where does the fascination with certainty come from? — Reformed Nihilist

Too many philosophers with too much time on their hands. In this world, everyone knows you put your money down and take your chances. That rubs some people the wrong way.

It feels a bit like saying "there's no foundation that is impervious to natural disasters, so you can't build a house" or "all houses are subject to possibly being ruined by natural disaster, so you may as well build anywhere". — Reformed Nihilist

Not quite. All houses are subject to possibly being ruined by natural disaster, but I need somewhere to live, so I'll do the best I can. That seems like a good analogy for philosophy. That's where philosophy ends - I'll do the best I can.

That's why it is better to get rid of accountability, responsibility, guilt, a moral consciousness, or similar nonsense all together. Aren't they just instruments to constrain, forbid, or limit thoughts and actions to fit the expectations of the ones applying them? Isn't this feature imposed on people? To get rid of unwanted behavior and thinking by holding them accountable and making them feel guilty if thinking certain thoughts or performing certain actions? — Raymond

No. I don't agree, although this may be outside the specified scope of this discussion. Accountability is one mechanism by which people face the consequences of their actions.

So if there is a will only, without it being free or not, and no such thing as accountability, the question doesn't make sense. — Raymond

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making between will and free will. It sounds interesting, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.

Accountability hasn't been proven to exist scientifically, and any claim to its existence is speculative. — Raymond

Here's one definition of "accountability" from the web:

The state of being accountable or answerable; responsibility for the fulfilment of obligations; liability to account for conduct, meet or suffer consequences, etc.: as, to hold a trustee to his accountability; the accountability of parents toward their children, or of men toward God.

There may be doubt as to whether accountability is an effective way of ensuring someone's behavior, but it's existence is not in doubt. I've held people accountable. I've been held accountable. It's not a scientific concept.

The lack of free will follows from a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. If one ascribes to a purely materistic ontology than accepting the lack of free will should follow from that premise. This type of metaphysics though relegates human experience to the realm of the 'unreal', only the third person perspective decides what is really really real. It is a metaphysical position. I am not saying I also ascribe to it. I do not think we are very far apart, if at all on this point. — Tobias

I might have some quibbles with some of this, but I think you and I mostly agree.