A Focal Point for the Mind
Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose; a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye.
— Mary Shelley (1797-1851)
Look! The Horizon Lowers the Ship
A Focal Point for the Mind
Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose; a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye.
— Mary Shelley (1797-1851)
The titled responsion keeps an arm's distance away from the mind's intellectual eye but does elaborate on the lack of a grand narrative in our current contemporary condition of information abundance. What do you think?
Living with or without a teleological framework of sorts makes a difference to the outcomes we hold sacred. Are they needed? Not necessarily, but they help. The danger lies in the lies, not the algorithm that gets us there. To the finish line is an interim goal for the human race.
Charles Caleb Colton
Seashores and Action Potentials
We must always tell what we see. Above all, and this is more difficult, we must always see what we see.
— Charles Péguy's (1873-1914)
The titled responsion represents an ideal of sorts (i.e., ordered arrangement). As such, how do action potentials correlate to seashores?
Daniel Sanderson
There are plenty of concepts at work here. Charles Péguy's quote warns of truthful behavior. For this, we turn to biology and what a complicated human ecosystem we are with this ability to lie. Downtown or country ethics prevail, and the pursuit of truth is orientated toward perfection and often bound by duty. Others have used this meme or predate its transmission.
To myself, I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.
— Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
My very own QFT Horizon Principle (2016, 2022) tests our Euclidean foundations, or so I like to imagine. Other instances include David Hilbert's proud Pythagorean responsion and Harriet Beecher Stowe's "never give up" sensibilities suit that synonymous struggle we associate with Stowe. From the generalist, Mary Shelley advocates for the sharpness of the mind as a possible pathway to mindfulness.
The only trajectory I see is epistemological. For me, the swirl of data around the newly experienced big data paradigm is shifty at best. I suppose this has me picking sides. Will the rise of the technocrat be the fall of man? Such a tragic end to the narrative, forgotten? Perhaps. Let's work on the probable.
Turning the Tide Isn't Easy.
Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.
— Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896)
The titled responsion does not reflect an individual's work ethic, although sometimes that helps.
Mary Shelley
This reminds me of the PFC origins story from Robert Sapolsky. The power of 'maybe' biases humankind towards the possible, however improbable. This is the p.(x), where hope has nothing to do with it, and probabilities are all that remain! Hopium is a religion and, as Karl Marx correctly pointed out, the drug of choice for the oppressed. Circling back to Charles Péguy's quote on "see[ing] what you see," titled responsion and shared horizon/seashore meme.
Pythagoras would be Proud!
Mathematical science is, in my opinion, an indivisible whole, an organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection of its parts.
— David Hilbert (1862-1943)
The titled responsion is peppered with cheeky optimism (fempty), a plug for my version of a Quantum Field Theory, and a little polemical demonstration of sorts.
The above image is iconic to the philosophy that is planksip. From the QFT Horizon Principle (2016, 2022), where I discuss redefining the Euclidean point, to the sinking ship on the horizon, the son beside you, to the sun in front of you, lie potentials, actions, and otherwise. Will we capitalize the incipit inspiration between bookends or squabble over resources and their seemingly infinite appetites to consume? Will the PFC prevail or fall victim to the tyranny of the majority? Half Fempty is the glass that pairs proud and Pythagoras in the same sentence. Awestruck would be the appropriate descriptor for Pythagoras; imagine what he would say today if he saw his imagined world of number-made material.
Below is the published copy of my discussion paper attempting to redefine the Euclidean point. Any takers? It's just a conversation. Let's keep it civil!
The planksip writers' cooperative sponsors a re-writing of this article (2,500 words) with $2,500 in prize money for the best article as voted by your peers in the planksip writer's cooperative. Judged by your peers, your chance to join a community of creative thinkers and win over $750,000 in prize money is your entry point into becoming a planksip journalist.
We want to change the way people engage. The planksip organic platform is dedicated to supporting your voice as a writer and a thought leader. Join today. Membership matters!
Daniel Sanderson