1. I create lists, hierarchies for personal growth, commitments... I systematically break down existence into what I believe I need for that growth, for a good life, but the more bullet points I add, the more I need, until I've suddenly realized how far away from the truth I have strayed, and so I add yet another bullet point to bring me back. At this juncture, I wonder if the paragraph is not a more appropriate tool than bullet-point methodology.
I propose that so long as I use a bullet-point scientific method to choke my weaknesses, to systematically develop myself, I will fail. Not because they are not necessary, but the balance is wrong, there is insufficient actual striving, too little time spent away from the glow of technology...
2. If axioms of geometry (and further, any "laws" of science) are understood to be neither true nor false, but advantageous, this does not suggest that all theories fall into such a category (ie advantageous). In order to be able to solve a problem, the axiom must be "able." Much like a movement in parkour, used to solve a "problem," there may be no "better" movement," only a more advantageous movement dependent on the context of purpose (e.g. flight, flash, freedom, grace, elegance, etc)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment