Well yes, bias. It’s why I think any ontology worth its salt is a pluralistic ontology.

Well yes, bias. It’s why I think any ontology worth its salt is a pluralistic ontology.
 I put the useful beginning of existence to the point where the supernova blew up, collided with a giant molecular gas cloud, particles coaslesced through electrostatic then gravity and eventually here we are, everything we’re made up of that’s anywhere we’re going to reach. I toy with spacetime stuff too and love multiple dimension things but when I’m in pure pragmatism mode, I start with what we’re pretty sure probably is so.
 Nothing’s flat. Flatness is an error in compression in our brains, likely evolved due to the fact that not only can’t we see the curvature of the earth most of the time but only our nearby “flat-like” domains, but almost anything we evolved from thought there was such a thing as “flat”. Maybe birds know better. I dunno.
So do we have length width height? Well, humans do because we’re evolved to perceive things that way.
Look at all of the fictional characters we inhabit through empathy as children. Thousands and thousands, little snippets in tv shows, books, people we see, and wherever our brains take us in trying to piece “how to be human well” in our minds.


I am amazed at the universe available within one person in a society of people.


They are not less for seeing other. If you see a guitar washing up to shore when you’re on a deserted island and you can only categorize it as a guitar for that is what you see, then you miss many opportunities.


Our inability to come to a final conclusions – to “close the book once and for all” on categories does not invalidate categories. Rather, it shows how very flexible they are. They can be used, tossed aside, whatever is needed.
 I had a grain-of-sand incident when I was 24: sitting on the beach while two friends messed around in the water. Looked around at the amusement park (I think it was in Keansburg NJ), picked up a piece of sand and thought of how infinite that little thing is and how hollow and plastic the bright lights around me were by comparison. I didn’t know some important guy had the same thought but I suspect it’s a common enough experience.
In reality, the bright lights were far more complex than the grain of sand. But it was fun to do an imaginary mental travel through it.
This is why I like prototype theory best. I can’t even come up with the proper examplar from history. So, I use myself and my own stories as footing because at least I can track it.
 I want my philosophy to reflect my behavior, so it takes a lot of introspection. It’s not that I have a problem with hypocrisy — in observing myself I am a hypocrite so there’s room for that in my ontology (it is valid for me) – but I am shooting for an ongoing authenticity.

Leave a comment

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

7 − = four

Leave a Reply