Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by getbent, Nov 7, 2012.
It's not the "feel", it's the "vibe".
Yeah, there is necessarily interpretation and guessing/inferring. The documents left behind are imperfect, incomplete and not always easy to work with. As far as 'revision'...nothing makes my blood boil like people complaining about 'revision' in history. Of course it is being updated, and all the time! If it wasn't people would still have all kinds of erroneous perceptions of the past because their view of history might not have advanced beyond what they learned as a child.
History, like everything man does from afar, is an estimation.
The criticism of revisionism is usually directed at attempts to see history from a different political perspective, rather than a revision of the known facts.
History is by its nature subjective - do we concentrate on kings and empires, or ordinary life, for instance. As the saying goes, history is written by the winners - or by the prevailing intellectual and political elite at the time.
A child in France and a child in England will both learn the broad facts of Agincourt, but I doubt the focus is the same or that they both come away with the same historical perspective of the battle.
Both are needed.
Someone invents a wheel. Someone recognizes the practical use and adds a cart and calculates wheel diameter, weight ratios, PSI of the load on the cart, how much power he needs to exert to move it ets. etc.. Guy with an ox sees that pulling the cart with the animal is much better than him pulling it so he adds that (just makes sense). Another guy thinks if he had 15 carts and 30 OX, he could supply the next town with lumber that is available on his farm (Need roads, feed supply points, water, maybe some crews, liability insurance yada yada.). Guy with a bridge on the road sees all the traffic and thinks "If I put a barrier on the bridge, I can charge a toll and my kids will be able to move out sooner".
Each element involves intuitive thought and development. Each in turn builds on the previous work. Any one in the process doesn't necessarily have the ability to put it all together but recognizes the value of the sum of the parts and it may not involve anything more than perception. For others the process is much more complex and requires more than a perception.
That makes sense, looking back at my "common sense moments", they have been the culmination of my past experiences and constantly thinking out all the "what will happen if" scenarios and changing my behaviors and actions on the fly.
Innovators have both. The feel to head into new areas without a net, and the empiricism to make sure they went to the right place.
Wow, a great question. I laugh, but mostly at myself. I like to think I'm a rational and thoughtful person guided and perhaps to some degree ruled by logic. Yet I know that almost every decision I make is over-ruled or finalised by 'feel'.
It might be a chord change or a choice of colour. A turn of phrase or an expression, almost anything. Quite simply everything depends and the process is logical up to the point that personality or maybe if you're feeling snotty call it 'art' takes over. That little illogical leap that takes the by the rules process and makes it something special or magical.
That's it. Beauty and creation rather than the plodding and mundane. You always know it when you see it or feel it. And when you do it.... you grin like an idiot.
Knowledge, understanding, belief, cause, effect, experience, pattern, tendency, balance, recognition, ergonomics, physics, instinct, intuition, invention, innovation, inspiration....
"Feel" is quicker.
The economist who predicted the solution within a desired time frame had the right feel for society.
:?: not my feelings, fascinated, interested, impulsive, confused, uncertain, neurotic, paranoid, stressed, depressed, etc. etc.
generally a joy/disappointment cycle
yes, logic rules my mind
I believe that thought = language, and that complex thought is born of and borne by complex language. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, offers five general avenues--logic, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology--and language rules all of them. I doubt, going by feel as I usually do, that all philosophers have equal strengths or interests in all avenues. Empiricists, while they are well within the bounds of wisdom, are simply stronger in the avenue of logic; they do not rule all wisdom, in fact they often have relative weaknesses in the other avenues.
I do believe empiricism carries high status in our current culture, with its manic worship of mathematics and science, and I do admire the mental discipline some people are able to muster, I lack it. Och, tamale. I'd rather smell the flowers, and feel the love. Goo-goo, goojoob.
Good lateral thinking puzzles are interesting, they rely on instinct telling you the solution is impossible, yet the answers are allegedly 'bloody obvious'
Eg. my fave isn't even lateral thinking, yet it requires 'imagination/experience'
You're in a house, there are 3 light switches downstairs, you can switch them on or off however you like, then go upstairs to 3 lightbulbs, each one connected to one of the switches, and work out which light connects to which switch.
Warm one up and turn off, then turn one on.....
Shut up smartarse, it was a Rhetorical question and to quote Rhett, the answer is: i don't give a damn
okay, you got 3 solid state amps, which one is closest to the valve?
In case it hasn't already been suggested, there's a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell that has some interesting things to say about this topic.