South Truro is probably in Massachusetts, but this scene by Edward Hopper doesn't look too unlike our scenic landscape.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Trevor Burrowes Hi Alma, thanks a lot for joining us. There have to be better ways to get a laugh than weeding through what only a handful of specialists even think of addressing. This is all pretty much over my head too.
I'm not really trying to understand philosophy; I tend to be philosophical by nature, although in a highly unschooled fashion. But in order to have more solid footing on what I'm proposing, I occasionally look up things on Wikipedia, and usually find too much and more complicated information than I really want to, or can readily, understand.
Jamaica is a small island with a very coherent geography: the entire coast is flat, with a mountainous spine running lengthwise from east to west. over the centuries of British colonial rule, starting in 1655, towns sprang up by natural harbors along the entire coast. And except where there was exceedingly craggy limestone, the towns were like a string of pearls held together by a narrow coastal road. Since sea travel was by sailboat, and land travel was pedestrian or horse powered, travel was slow, and towns remained rooted and held on to their character. By contrast, the advent of fossil duel power travel in the 20th century allowed towns to sprawl, roads to widen and congest. There was also more industrialization, consumption, economic mobility, more energy dependent construction--like the ubiquitous use of cinder block concrete--and the discarding of architectural heritage. The list goes on. What I'm proposing is based on empirical observation, and the ability to think critically, and philosophy is a useful tool in that endeavor.
I'm not really trying to understand philosophy; I tend to be philosophical by nature, although in a highly unschooled fashion. But in order to have more solid footing on what I'm proposing, I occasionally look up things on Wikipedia, and usually find too much and more complicated information than I really want to, or can readily, understand.
Jamaica is a small island with a very coherent geography: the entire coast is flat, with a mountainous spine running lengthwise from east to west. over the centuries of British colonial rule, starting in 1655, towns sprang up by natural harbors along the entire coast. And except where there was exceedingly craggy limestone, the towns were like a string of pearls held together by a narrow coastal road. Since sea travel was by sailboat, and land travel was pedestrian or horse powered, travel was slow, and towns remained rooted and held on to their character. By contrast, the advent of fossil duel power travel in the 20th century allowed towns to sprawl, roads to widen and congest. There was also more industrialization, consumption, economic mobility, more energy dependent construction--like the ubiquitous use of cinder block concrete--and the discarding of architectural heritage. The list goes on. What I'm proposing is based on empirical observation, and the ability to think critically, and philosophy is a useful tool in that endeavor.
Neither in Jamaica, nor most place do people have a good ability to think creatively or critically. They simply follow the patterns that have become normal through repeated, long term use and through institutional (structural) support for them. Philosophy might be a way to think clearly enough, with enough pattern of logic and reason, that it supports change, however indirectly.
I'll share more opinions and thoughts soon. Very, very best for the New Year!
EPISTEMOLOGY AND GARVEYISM
We have Foundation metaphors for epistemology, and here are Coherence metaphors as well. But these appear to require much more study than I can give it. Each might be useful at different times and for different occasions. One philosopher has combined the two:
"Susan Haack (1993, ch. 4) articulates a position she calls "foundherentism", intended as a synthesis of foundationalism and coherentism, by comparing knowledge to crossword puzzles. The correctness of a word depends on the correctness of all the words with which it intersects, requiring a kind of coherence."
To apply these metaphors to my Aims is a thorny, if even possible, task.
- The project must be driven by art.
- The artist Edward Hopper might illuminate at least Foundation metaphors.
- If intuition matters in my project, then my age old fascination with Hopper, Vermeer and Steinberg might be examined for its relevance to the epistemological metaphors required for my main subject.
- That subject is African-oriented nation building, emphasizing thoroughness, manageable economics, order, coherence, environment and aesthetics.
- Absent some compelling reason, the elements of nation building, as envisaged, will be considered germaine to Garveyite nation building.
FURTHER READING
3. Coherence Metaphors
In 1860, Charles Peirce published an incisive attack on Cartesian epistemology, rejecting the method of universal doubt. Peirce criticized the idea of a chain of reasoning that Descartes derived from mathematical proof. According to Peirce, (1958, pp. 40-41) reasoning should be understood as a cable rather than a chain:
Philosophy ought to imitate the successful sciences in its methods, so far as to proceed only from tangible premisses which can be subjected to careful scrutiny, and to trust rather to the multitude and variety of its arguments than to the conclusiveness of any one. Its reasoning should not form a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but a cable whose fibers may be ever so slender, provided they are sufficiently numerous and intimately connected.
The cable metaphor is a powerful antidote to the chain and foundation metaphors that have dominated much of epistemology. What matters is not the strength of a particular proposition, but its connections with numerous other propositions. The metaphor that reasoning is a cable is based on a complex analogy that involves interrelated correspondences: fiber/beliefs, cable/set of interconnected beliefs, and strength of cable/validity of knowledge. These elements are causally related, in that just as the number and interconnection of fibers is what makes a cable strong, the number and interconnection of beliefs is what makes them justified. Justification is then a matter of coherence rather than foundations.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
THE HOUSE AS EPISTEMOLOGICAL METAPHOR
"Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the origins, structure, methods, and validity of knowledge. In order to theorize about the nature of knowledge, epistemologists have used numerous metaphors and analogies, from Plato's cave to Quine's web of belief." Paul Thagard and Craig Beam
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/epistemological.html
I am proposing that The House is an epistemological metaphor suited to modern times, better suited than a cave, at least.
THE HOUSE
I had a vague notion that the "eco" in the word "ecology" stood for house. (Webster's Dictionary has ecology meaning habitat or environment.) Beyond or accompanying such undirected musings, I was looking to see if the term could help me toward a better understanding of "house" as a basic epistemological metaphor. An important way in which one sees the house is that it epitomizes ecology in the relationship between its parts.
- A house must have a logical relationship between its parts if it to stand up.
- A good roof can't preen itself about being such a good roof if has only rotten rafters to rest on. Neither can a spectacular floor over rotten joists.
- A governance system might function like a house. In Jamaica, we have a flat coast and a mountainous spine. What is the systematic relationship between these two, as between a roof and its rafters?
---------------------
The Oxford English Dictionary (second edition) defines a foundation as "the solid ground or base (natural or built up) on which an edifice or other structure is erected". Many philosophers have sought a ground or base on which knowledge could be erected. To say that knowledge has or needs a foundation is to use a metaphor based on a systematic analogy between the development of knowledge and the construction of a building. Descartes (1984, vol. 2, p. 366) explicitly endorses this analogy:
---------------------
2. Foundational Metaphors
The Oxford English Dictionary (second edition) defines a foundation as "the solid ground or base (natural or built up) on which an edifice or other structure is erected". Many philosophers have sought a ground or base on which knowledge could be erected. To say that knowledge has or needs a foundation is to use a metaphor based on a systematic analogy between the development of knowledge and the construction of a building. Descartes (1984, vol. 2, p. 366) explicitly endorses this analogy:
THE HOUSE AS CATHEDRAL
House by the Railroad, 1925
The house as cathedral: It's often said that the use of spires and arches in medieval cathedral transform their huge mass into images of gravity defying ascendance. The tower section of the house is like the spire, while the slender columns supply lightness and lift, somewhat like flying buttresses. The house is in the Gothic Revival style, which further reinforces its cathedral-like character. And the white color serves an additional role of creating the sense of lightness.
HOPPER AND THE HOUSE
A rail line stretches horizontally along the bottom of the picture plane. A very flat band of mountain range rests like a foundation structure along that entire expanse of rail line. Above this are strips of cloud that could function as clapboarding, and above those are a painterly expanse of sky, ranging from yellow to a choppy bluie. The picture plane is, therefore, divided into horizontal bands, ranging from a thin near-black band at the base--"the earth"--accented by thin, silvery rail bands, somewhat like constructional girders, to a thick band--less dark and more green--that functions like a rusticated stone foundation wall. The heavier elements of sky--like the dark, thin cloud strips lie at the bottom of the sky, while the lighter, airier sky floats at the top, but somewhat provides a roof-like sense of completion. The vertical lookout tower and the signal pole pin the visual elements together into a unified whole. The red band above the mountain range that defines the sunset also divides the heavier "stone " section of the "building" from the lighter areas made from "wood." The elevation views of buildings tend to be balanced. Here there is a balance between dark vertical (built) elements on the left, and the light-and-dark horizontal elements of the clouds to the right. 
Saturday, December 29, 2018
DELETE HOPPER AND THE HOUSE
Railway Sunset, 1929
A rail line stretches horizontally along the bottom of the picture plane. A very flat band of mountain range rests like a foundation structure along that entire expanse of rail line. Above this are strips of cloud that could function as clapboarding, and above those are a painterly expanse of sky, ranging from yellow to a choppy bluie. The picture plane is, therefore, divided into horizontal bands, ranging from a thin near-black band at the base--"the earth"--accented by thin, silvery rail bands, somewhat like constructional girders, to a thick band--less dark and more green--that functions like a rusticated stone foundation wall. The heavier elements of sky--like the dark, thin cloud strups strips lie at the bottom of the sky, while the lighter, airier sky floats at the top. The vertical lookout tower and the signal pole pin the visual elements together into a unified whole. The red band above the mountain range that defines the sunset also divides the heavier "stone " section of the "building" from the lighter areas made from "wood." The elevation views of buildings tend to be balanced. Here there is a balance between dark vertical (built) elements on the left, and the light-and-dark horizontal elements of the clouds to the right.
https://search.aol.com/aol/image?p=RAILROAD+SUNSET%2C+1930&s_it=img-ans&v_t=webmail-hawaii1-basicaol&fr=webmail-hawaii1-basicaol&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn-s3.touchofmodern.com%2Fproducts%2F000%2F035%2F171%2Ff6840a44e7c3cf609a8a52825e458fdb_large.jpg%3F1368129073#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcollectionimages.whitney.org%2Fstandard%2F172204%2Flargerpage.jpg&action=click
Friday, December 28, 2018
Thursday, December 27, 2018
POST COLLAPSE
It seems that even Gail entertains some sort of post bottleneck scenario (if only toward showing its gross limitations). :-) But that goes in contradiction to other lessons from her that have sunk in well.
1) A new cheap form of energy--and we tend to downplay what havoc that would cost to non energy resources--would need to use existing infrastructure to be affordable.
2) 8 billion people in a hyper networked industrial civilization don't just go away nicely post collapse, allowing a few hardy, self-sufficient souls to make a go of it. With so large and unprecedented a global population, and so large and complex an economic system, the human mind can't take in what a collapse affecting the heart of the civilization would look like. So...
3) To have some chance of working, a (relatively) post collapse scenario would have to use the current social, physica (and maybe political) infrastructure that we have now. It would have to look and feel very much like how it does now. People wouldn't abandon cities and go do homesteading in the bush. Not enough bush, for one thing. Since it takes more energy to run a central government (and since it also produces apathy and passivity), government would become much more participatory and local. Individualism would also be tamped down, and groups and "tribes" would need to work together. And since the quality of the land would be critical for the welfare of relatively deindustrialized networks, there would have to be great cooperation as to the welfare of the broader landscape--coasts, fisheries, watersheds, etc. I agree that a lot of scrounging and tinkering would be involved, but it would involve some sort of educational backing, as well as strong local government support.
It seems that even Gail entertains some sort of post bottleneck scenario (if only toward showing its gross limitations). :-) But that goes in contradiction to other lessons from her that have sunk in well.
1) A new cheap form of energy--and we tend to downplay what havoc that would cost to non energy resources--would need to use existing infrastructure to be affordable.
2) 8 billion people in a hyper networked industrial civilization don't just go away nicely post collapse, allowing a few hardy, self-sufficient souls to make a go of it. With so large and unprecedented a global population, and so large and complex an economic system, the human mind can't take in what a collapse affecting the heart of the civilization would look like. So...
3) To have some chance of working, a (relatively) post collapse scenario would have to use the current social, physica (and maybe political) infrastructure that we have now. It would have to look and feel very much like how it does now. People wouldn't abandon cities and go do homesteading in the bush. Not enough bush, for one thing. Since it takes more energy to run a central government (and since it also produces apathy and passivity), government would become much more participatory and local. Individualism would also be tamped down, and groups and "tribes" would need to work together. And since the quality of the land would be critical for the welfare of relatively deindustrialized networks, there would have to be great cooperation as to the welfare of the broader landscape--coasts, fisheries, watersheds, etc. I agree that a lot of scrounging and tinkering would be involved, but it would involve some sort of educational backing, as well as strong local government support.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
SAVE DISCOVERY BAY ROUGH NOTES
Quite. It's flawed, for every single land use decision in Jamaica is flawed due to the absence of planning.
So they've invested a lot, and the government has blindly approved their plans. How would it be not to have them sue the government for going back on their approval and causing them to incur huge infrastructure and other expenses? I'm not on their side, by any means. People who torture animals get what they get. But this sort of mess results when there is no national or community planning.
If there was a St. Ann Coastal Planning District, there would have to be plan for the coast. That plan would need consistency between its parts. If the plan promoted healthy fisheries for the entire coast, a dolphinarium would not be consistent with that. (The objections of the dep of Fisheries should make that clear.) While marine sanctuaries are a proven way to promote healthy fisheries, dolphinariums are known to do just the opposite. A coherent, consistent plan for the coast would rule out locating a dophinarium along the coast in the first place, but it would take very little thought to rule out any being located immediately adjacent to a marine sanctuary. What would be the economic cost of such contradictory planning?
To the extent that it won't detract from this groups purpose, I'm looking at how environmental mismanagement through the years might already have jeopardized Discovery Bay's marine health. If it's clear that thoughtless developments, especially regarding river flow, have damaged marine resources already, it could strengthen the case for not making things worse with a dolphinarium.
But I'm very uninformed about the issue. Which rivers and creeks flow into the bay? What was their role regarding mineral and other beneficial supplied for ocean health?
Jinx McDonald While I know of no natural river or creeks that flow from the Dry Harbour Mountains into Puerto Seco, I have been there immediately after a storm and seen every imaginable form of filth and nastiness wash down the man-made concrete gully and into the bay. Can we try to clean this too?
1
Quite. It's flawed, for every single land use decision in Jamaica is flawed due to the absence of planning.
So they've invested a lot, and the government has blindly approved their plans. How would it be not to have them sue the government for going back on their approval and causing them to incur huge infrastructure and other expenses? I'm not on their side, by any means. People who torture animals get what they get. But this sort of mess results when there is no national or community planning.
If there was a St. Ann Coastal Planning District, there would have to be plan for the coast. That plan would need consistency between its parts. If the plan promoted healthy fisheries for the entire coast, a dolphinarium would not be consistent with that. (The objections of the dep of Fisheries should make that clear.) While marine sanctuaries are a proven way to promote healthy fisheries, dolphinariums are known to do just the opposite. A coherent, consistent plan for the coast would rule out locating a dophinarium along the coast in the first place, but it would take very little thought to rule out any being located immediately adjacent to a marine sanctuary. What would be the economic cost of such contradictory planning?
To the extent that it won't detract from this groups purpose, I'm looking at how environmental mismanagement through the years might already have jeopardized Discovery Bay's marine health. If it's clear that thoughtless developments, especially regarding river flow, have damaged marine resources already, it could strengthen the case for not making things worse with a dolphinarium.
But I'm very uninformed about the issue. Which rivers and creeks flow into the bay? What was their role regarding mineral and other beneficial supplied for ocean health?
Jinx McDonald While I know of no natural river or creeks that flow from the Dry Harbour Mountains into Puerto Seco, I have been there immediately after a storm and seen every imaginable form of filth and nastiness wash down the man-made concrete gully and into the bay. Can we try to clean this too?
1
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
