Some are collectively accepted as temporary support, but known to be false. These we call “irony.” Some are NOT accepted as valid models even in the temporary sense. These we call “joke.” Essentially the collective laughing at members who would fall prey to an understanding of process that is non -real in its relationship to other analogous models or understandings. More search jokes = less cohesive understandings. Is it possible to understand function outside of comparative premise? Within our limited abilities, no.
But perhaps we are only limited because of a conditioned response (to place all within model-context.) i.e.: teaching of children by drawing similarities to that which they understand, TEACHES an ability for understanding that precludes new self -made descriptors for environment -adaptation. All is built together as a chain of grasping function, and our ability to modify outcome by addressing success in one trial and error field while confirming or applying it in another.
Answers for myself lie within this learning process, and how a continuance of mental instability lies within the applicative process of comprehending function and the tool of metaphorical validation. Directions in personal discovery are begun with mistrust. When too many “flail-models,” much joke and a breaking from traditional correlatively analogous material. When much mistrust, the individual becomes ‘spiritual/ religious’ for their applicative process of environment control. Or they remain in flail continuance of mismatched analogous models for reference IN that effort of environment control. Duration answer to loosen needs for control…i.e. lessen FEAR. Other answer is to round studies and knowledge to support and grow models of function to a state where their balance allows for an analog system of stable reference, with corresponding favorable results in environment pliability.
Creating a less pliable environment….i.e. tend your own backyard, is also a temporary hold to avert madness until education OF ONESELF can reach appropriate or balanced levels. BUT it is important to not keep all metaphorical reference at one time as equal models of correctness. I call this “the zipper effect” (from a dream i had once of time itself unraveling). For those “equal” models will fit inside themselves like Russian dolls, with no counter of start or finish. This might leads to despair and self-emollition. When I get caught in “the zipper” I create greater understandings of function with or without collective input. When these understandings hit on correct analogous materiel, more flailing enters more need for more function-correlative-factors and we have a spiral of causality. With the only answer by collective to curtail investigative process through incarceration. My job is not to find the answer. But THESE are the mappings of the problem.
Heavy religious instruction at early ages, with their highly-dependent metaphorical structure-is certainly something to be looked at. So too, the collective “right” in ‘teaching ‘ children at all. We have those who have grown up on environments such as farms, with much in self -realizations and correlations of function in their environment, who are categorically more probable to become mentally stable individuals. Verses those who earlier on receive greater amounts of instruction as compared to amounts of self-realized and analogous understandings of function. Coupled with a hostile environment, needs to control and manipulate that environment will increase, creating inordinate degrees for the necessity to understand and manipulate function. I.e.: abusive home results in greater self-realized-knowledge in exploration or greater search for metaphorical build in established collective understandings. That is as far as i would go, though.
Would caution that human mental well-being and development is a series of balances and checks, and the administration of trial and error for societal change should be minimalized and not attempted without a sound and viable theoretical outcome. It is a solid train of thought, i don’t know if I will find the tracks again for further exploration. But there is that hole blown in the mountainside. Have at it. Know it will not fail you to base on these understandings. I started at square zero. This IS my best work. Nothing grand. But then I never have needed scope, only stability.
I was hurt as a small child, and I never will be un-hurt. Therefore I must stay wandering. You seek nothing more than the parent who decided to not be -there. And you keep company with the fact that you can learn and understand your world in a solitary fashion. Sometimes you love, and sometimes you hate. But mostly you keep exploring. Generate purposeful exaggerations of function to generate more flail and the NEED to explore more deeply the models of explanation, of how we shore our knowledge.
Like the one-way shunt in a vein. All builds. Avoid the zipper, always make sure one field of education outstrips the others. But also make sure that education is well-rounded so you don’t fall to madness. Is all there–mental instability rates in a correlation to the BALANCE of educational departments. Girls getting less math, poor getting less music and more athletics. All combine for varying degrees of mental well-being. Not that simple, of course. And again, before jumping to change anything, there must be consideration that methods currently in place are performing to adequate degrees. You can change those educational environments to get different results. It might be a more ethical approach than drugging individuals into their own backyard.
Well that’s where my personal outrage ends my ride and punches my ticket. If you go back two or three stops you can find that hole in the mountain. Hopefully fortune has smiled on you to lay better tracks and find better outcomes for many of our fellow human beings. Because we should have more smiles. With our bellies full and ails tended, we should be dancing ear to ear.
* My theory is that a correlation between analogous models COULD be seeing similarities of application due to the reaching of a threshold in cognitive abilities …. rather than involving true relevance. ie: Here, peel this potato like you would an apple. The only reason the tasks and the teaching of the tasks are similar and therefore used for instruction, are a limited view of the differences between apples and potatoes. So in metaphorical teaching, or parables, that threshold of understanding might be creating “levels” of false-applications due to leveling off according to the degree of reason to which the individual or collective is capable. Two levels, 9 levels …. how many instances or variables can they hold within an argument? How many moves can they think ahead within a game of chess?
So the plateauing of those abilities is creating a sense of correctness to the arguments, rather than correct content within the arguments themselves. The reason for perceived similarities is that comprehension is reaching a threshold that has humans mapping correlations within that level of similarity, that don’t exist or are weak in their suppositions.
I believe mechanical models are exempt from this theory, in that comprehension of a mechanical model in metaphor is dependent on states of function, not states of construct. Or rather, our PERCEIVED “truths” regarding states of construct. Degree of error within states of mechanical function are little to none, in that reactive principals remain constant.
The big difference there, is a FULL understanding of that which we construct (mechanical models). And a PERCEIVED understanding of that which we deconstruct (categorical models).
When knowledge is based upon categorical models, you digitalize and build on THAT, and when perceived understanding of that which you deconstruct CHANGES, every FUNCTION within metaphor ATTACHED to that model, is decommissioned. A breaking-down of understanding ensues, while the individual reconstructs their perceptions. This process is what I termed “flail-about.”
IF we did not construct teaching realities within the context of categorical models, but rather stuck with mechanical models or no models, I believe that not only would individuals conclude their education as more mentally-stable individuals, but that also any level of schooling would serve as “think-tanks” with the only limit upon levels reached that of the HIGHEST member of that grouping. As it stands, those levels of schooling are firstly limited according to the knowledge retained by the source of educational materials and degree of current theorem. And secondly, by the lowest common denominator of ability within the class itself.
A deconstruct or categorical model will NEVER be correct–I don’t care if it was made by Einstein or Plato–we might have DOUBLE the ability of Einstein out there. But they were forced to work WITHIN the limitations of intelligence of those TEACHING absolutes in categorical modeling. ANY taught methodology will be hampered by the THRESHOLD of intelligence available to whatever individual or group who DETERMINED that understanding.
What I mean by keeping to mechanical models or no models, is that instead of TELLING a student that this is an APPLE, and here on the inside, these are SEEDS. You ASK the student what THEY think it is. AND you don’t “correct,” but if something seems inaccurate, you ask THEM why they have come to that conclusion.
In otherwords, you don’t give out the secrets. You don’t teach the formulas. You hand them the stuff, and take out lots of insurance on your chemistry lab.
Not only does each deconstruction then start anew with each individual — but in creating knowledge that is their own, within how things work or what things ARE, there is a stability because THOSE metaphorical correlations are being constructed AT THE STUDENTS EXACT LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION and will not fall to a “flail-about.”
WHEN you have a student who is capable of GREATER deconstruction technique than THAT of the mass-distribution technique of “the best” or what is collectively accepted as “correct” ….. you get a “flail-about.” They will comprehend holes in the reasoning, know the understandings are false or invalidated, and because of our system — be forced to develop ON THEIR OWN, a viable alternative to the nature of that reality.
You are not teaching science. You are creating followers.
To say they can then build on that body of knowledge, is to contend that all of that knowledge is correct. Which it is NOT. So you have sentenced them to REBUILD other’s mistakes.
Which they will then do with THEIR mistakes, forcing those following to REBUILD and so on and so on–you have a chain of causality.
Which it works fine IF the assumption is that every generation following yours is going to be equally intelligent or less intelligent. But what happens when you get entire classrooms of children who have BETTER brain development than those who created the body of knowledge they are to “learn?”
Intelligence is NOT what you know. It’s how you PROCESS what you discover. That processing capability is available at very young ages. Are basically shooting children in the feet before they can learn how to walk.
In poetry, or language — we apply metaphors that can easily fall to reductio ad absurdum. You take the model ‘too far’ in its application, and the correlations fall apart. There IS no model that does NOT fall apart at some point. What does that tell us?
When you have a parable, that says YOU are LIKE the grain, and God will separate the chaff from the wheat. The question should BE, what does God want with grain? Because we EAT grain. To me, that’s not such a great outcome in a metaphorical model.
So you STOP it, at that one level. MY theory, is that not only are we creating correlations of modalic function where they do not exist–we are forcing those taught to ACCEPT those models as TRUTHS, into LIMITING their number of levels or depth of reasoning, TO that model’s limitation of application.
WHILE creating it’s “correctness” within a correlation to OTHER models of the same level, rather than to inherent usefulness of the application itself.
Not to mention, why not just say that God can tell who is doing their best and who is not, and will remove the best then to a better place where all people are the best.
Doesn’t sound so nice, does it? He will separate the wheat from the chaff. A metaphor is a defense of action. We are making excuses for God. And historically, God was really the leaders, saying this is what you should do and don’t blame me, it’s “God” who wants this.
Wheat from the chaff IS a mechanical model. It is not incorrect. My question is why are we sacrificing computational abilities by setting limits on reasoning, for the sake of excusing the decisions of “God?”
You have the field of science
You have the field of philosophy
You have the field of mathematics
Inside ALL of those, you have the field of problem solving. Not given it’s own space, the most important field of all that determines choice and manipulation of environment. We discover methodology, and then apply it to another field. Grow our understandings, and all seems “correct” because all is leveling off at the degree of comprehension ALLOWED.
When one tiny piece of information is found to be UNCORRECT, it unravels the whole thing.
Flail-about. In Latin, it is “tritura ubique” (thrashing everywhere)
In Spanish, tritura ubique translates to “locate crushed.”
I think we need to add more disciplines, not keep building into and on our predecessor’s mistakes. The only place that is happening is at community center classes, where instructions or disciplines grow outward as well as up. And who are teaching those classes? The ones with no degrees and time on their hands.
Meanwhile, the official learning centers are stagnated in their selection of fields of instruction. Good teachers will cross the bounds, and teach beyond course descriptors. But still, no one is asking WHY we create the SAME classes and dictate the SAME bodies of knowledge year after year. Because that isn’t teaching, that’s brainwashing. That isn’t expanding minds, helping them discover … that’s programming considerations to help minds stagnate.
And it is taking those most gifted in reverse engineering, and making them mentally unstable. it’s not easy when you have to start at square one in the formation of your knowledge, at age 30. and 32, and again at 38, 45 …… find too big a mistake in the conclusions that have been handed to you. scrap everything, and start over.
Year and a half ago, I wrote a piece that says “We are at square one: Man hits stone on rock, starts fire.” Because that’s what happens when you use this methodology of information-translation ….. eventually the individual is back at square one, because this fact is TRUE:
IF you discover someone has given you a falsehood, you can NEVER return to trust.
When the collective body of knowledge is riddled with falsehoods, you have a people who are riddled with mistrust.
and that concludes, my “analysis of a people.”
thank you for your time.