Lectures 2009.10.06

Where should I be?

Lectures (new) 2009.10.06

It is not easy to explain or admit how I am wishing. Permanently. I am supposed to be a man of science. I could resort to reasons of the psychological order for the efficiency of my mind. That would be absolutely unsatisfactory. If that was the case, I would have to inquire about the shape the meanings take, because it would be a special one. Wishful thinking. If I wander about it, life is more of a growing concept than anything else. An idealistic proposition over a small square of complex, plenty life, that sits and rules even having no grounds or strong justifications. That’s an easy thing to see now that I know how shallow I am. Surfaces become inherent to me.

 

Written language is a two-dimensional mean. Sound speaking has a dimension of intensity and a dimension of time. As long as the educated brain remains unable to comprehend in any larger scope of information, such characteristic language is the only thing required to establish a humanly understandable transit and a humanly understandable creation of knowledge. My point is that language is, by mere evidence, superficial. Civilization, being an act of the mind, relies only on the superficial scope. By living here, I am also a four-dimensional being employing a two-dimensional intelligence. How could world be understood this way? How could I make myself clear? In fact I have to admit I am not trying to be easily readable. I shall move on.

 

As a child, I had no problem guessing the number of dimensions in this reality is unlimited. Facts can be modeled by simulations, but can the be understood? It’s a contradictory grievance: I am using the simulation argument to justify my hypothesis, of only what is important is interesting and only what is interesting is important. Even worse: It becomes such a strong hypothesis, because I wish so.

 

I have no foundations to believe that in every case, what is wanted finally happens. And I mean beyond human ignorance of what is utterly wanted. I also have no foundations to believe that laws of nature as harmonic or trustworthy, instead of arbitrarily ever-changing. That, for instance, is a pervasive wishful thinking from scientists. Simplicity, and beauty: Those were the commandments of modern physics. I think the only thing I have left is to resist.

 

A political battle ends up approaching when you try to warn instructors and colleagues about superficiality or, put in different words, shallowness.

Lectures. 2009.10.05

I am a microeconomic equation. A consumer problem for optimized differential calculus. Yet I didn't seem to be a reason of effort from my professor.

 

– I don't think I truly consider my goal to be reachable. Let's digress for a second over perfection. Nobody knows what it is yet there is a number of things that can be acknowledged as such. The critic point here lies in the fact of the stability of the definition. See how a two-dimensional dynamic simulation arises experience over a third dimension in the phenomenon; equivalently, a varying closeness perception applied to my quest gives a tell about an additional feature of thought.

 

– Very impressive. I think it's a clever move to forget classic theory and to attempt one of your own. Besides, any large effort to sustain your methodological framework is justified by the pleasure experienced by the gigantic size of your ego. And the awareness of the scope is what places somewhere in your space the rest, what is not relevant, what is not throughly felt. Usually, appearances are enough in this reality to resolve an issue. I'd dare to say appearance is the Queen and Master of the universe. I'm not quite sure it means such a powerful figure for yourself and yet it is the one reason you follow your quest: it's an aesthetic one.

 

– Looks by no mean can be sufficient into comprehension. That’s why answers are never lasting.

 

– You look enormous after yourself. That is why you are your own main problem. Is your use of language nothing but an apparatus of beauty to make everything else interesting? I just remembered your hypothesis: Only what is important is interesting, and vice versa.

 

The mention of the world beauty immediately led me to think about academy; and the reasons that keep me inside.

 

– I guess I have to build a world to base any further enlargement or enhancement.

 

– Yet you do not dare to act so. You are merely adopting existing objects. That’s why you’ll never set yourself free. That’s all you do, and that’s all you are: a living things recycler. Do not say you also get to relate with ugly. You embellish ugly to make it accountable.

 

– Power of the ugly is actually my own power inflicted into myself. Masochism.

 

I truly was not enjoying the way truth was adding up. The findings would make my work irrelevant to a major extent. Why that happens so often only to me is a wicked thing; my professor wondered maybe I’m being the only one who really understands the scientific method. It sounds naïve, pretentious and blatantly wrong. I have a problem with that.