The differences or similarities in perception and that which could be taken as though connected or in some sort of continuance are endless, there is a finite universe of information, but the recombinative values in imagination mean the possibility of infinitum of choice in value. Values always change, the constant is change, the ONLY constant is…change. The distinctions of space and that which is considered faultily whole or in any combination actual, the distal contrivances of actual timing and space, the differences in that which is assumptive of the environment and its supposed wholeness to a perception of whole being. The actuality of partiality in the endless potentials of existing and the distinctions in space that mean actual movement and shapeliness beyond the shallow still life portraits of wholeness assumed in person or environment. Assumptions of wholeness and the distal contrivances of the actuality of personhood, that which could singularly beset an entire environment is inaccurate at best, as any system that could pretend the same. I don’t need to be decided on anything to have presence in environment, and being decided or having an opinion has very little to do with personhood. Silence is an answer. Assumptive measures in supposed environmental messengers and that which is actual communication, cause meaning and reason attached to chemical and electrical conversions in efforts to decide that which is indeterminable from environment or perspective of it will never be accurate, either. The distances beyond that which is applicative or pure and the language of interaction or suppositions of potential that could be taken in any given direction by any systemic pattern, path, and shapeliness. The conditions of unrest and the divisions in nature of that which works or the existence of parasites, the actuality of natural order and that which is often added from human perspective. These ideas of beauty, always asymmetrical to us, perfect beauty would be so ugly, maybe angels aint purdy? The symmetry or asymmetry of angling in the precisions of perceptions of beauty, the volatility of change and the necessity in beauty in natural systems and pattern that proves underlying orders. Strands of consideration, underlying force and higher powers, the origins of void or space, breath or word, the conditions of wonderment in that which is beyond imaginary, beyond sense, and beyond collective and the need for free thought and discernment. Critical thinkers are not afraid to admit that we do not know (Carol and Carol, Tarvis and Wade), and the allowance of wonderment in timing for the cognitive economy of rapid solutions isn’t necessarily conducive to fair, reliable analysis. Slow down and shut up! Personalization is incredibly easy when guessing for similar instancing or assuming in the ambiguity of validity any connectivity or continuance.
Leonard B. Meyer knew it was always according to the will of the observer.
Lewis Thomas knew intelligence tests have very little to do with information reliability.
Charles Van Doren knew we don’t belong to any system based on similarity or difference.
Norman D. Stevens knew that just because it fits, doesn’t mean it works (or needs to).
What has happened to information science? (and scientists?)
3 thoughts on “for your information…”
Room for Wittgenstein in there too, I should imagine.
Thanks for visiting me.
I think Wittgenstein will repay a quick study – and then a longer think!
WOW – I used the Dummy’s guide to Wittgenstein – two people, walking down a street, one sees one thing, the other sees something else. Basic Cervantine perspectivism. I’ll have you reading Cervantes (1605-1615) next. The artistic answer to Descartes, before he posed his questions. They were already in the air. This is a conversation that may well continue.
LikeLiked by 1 person