came to a hard won conclusion a few weeks ago about how to reconcile

 I came to a hard won conclusion a few weeks ago about how to reconcile infinite versus anti-infinite, continuous versus intermittent, approximation and Precision, ideal versus pragmatic, map vs territory, timeless vs time, etc.  and I’m glad to finally have resolution but it’s also a little depressing.

I decided that I’m OK with the meeting point between map and territory.

Infinite is fine as long as you recognize the validity of partial order sets and establishing limits and that these are choices that you can build on without losing the infinite or infinitesimal hiding beneath. 

Finite is fine as are hard categories as long as you recognize that there are other ontologies, other combinations, and even situations where the hard categories completely vanish.

Scale seems to be the most common way that these differences come out.

You can transfer from one to the other and it’s OK but it won’t always be easy.

Ontological pluralism, where the same words represent different concepts, can be particularly difficult because there’s not always equivalent concepts between ontologies.

Sometimes you have to accept that the differences are too great for now and become a rabbit hole if you don’t have the time to investigate it. Difference between quantum mechanics and chemistry for example or between chemistry and biology – it’s not for everybody to investigate the gaps. And that’s OK.

General versus specific. That was a matrix transform that I just couldn’t see. Swap space and time and time and space. but it’s not a clean rotation. If you focus on the fundamental – the fixed point - you can accomplish wonders of the expense of full relativity. 

Multiple simultaneous perspectives and finding overlap is my interest. Yet sometimes, some perspectives can be rabbit holes. When there’s work to be done, it’s OK to ignore the rabbit hole sometimes.

So it’s a bit depressing to have a whole world of conclusions and for me, the end of many internal debates about things because I found reconciliation for them. 

In short, I made a choice.

Took me long enough – and it was mostly recognizing my preferences that I have while also giving equal credence to the preferences I don’t have that are equivalent enough. 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three + = 11

Leave a Reply