0297 Does the shifty reorientation infer that the regular person, following the intuition of Aristotle, ends up “entangling” scientific sensible construction with aesthetic work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Does the layman confound the positivist intellect3a<\/sub> (for the reorientation) with disciplinary language3b<\/sub> (for the scientist) with what I experience3b<\/sub> (for the general interscope) and style3b<\/sub> (instead of aesthetic or technical work3b<\/sub>)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0298 Dr. Noe exits the laboratory and enters the real world, filled with regular people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, I find out that his argument leads to a re-orientation that supports the claim that common folk cannot distinguish scientific work from aesthetic work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0299 It makes me wonder whether things themselves<\/em> belong to the dyadic realm of actuality2<\/sub><\/em> or the monadic world of possibility1<\/sub><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0300 Section one of chapter twelve (S1C12, “Creatures of Our Own Creation” (S1) in “Nature After Art” (C12)), starts with a discussion of “binocular-rivalry” and “aspect-shifting”. Usually, one regards an ambiguous form as composed on one matter (rabbit) or another (duck). But, there is the third frame where one is aware that both matters, one originating and one entangled, are in play. Confoundings<\/em> can be dangerous<\/em>. Confoundings<\/em> resolve in many ways<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0301 The author is a modernist, who does not have a technical definition where “entanglement” is integral to a “confounding”. Nonetheless, Dr. Noe’s vision is worthy of “engagement”, because he is on target with the idea that the normal context of what makes us who we are3c<\/sub><\/em> operates on the potential of ‘art and philosophy’1c<\/sub><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0302 He proposes that art and philosophy1c<\/sub><\/em> may support a reorientation2c<\/sub>,<\/em> where new processes2cm<\/sub> and constitutions2cf<\/sub><\/em> are socially constructed<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 0303 However, he does not grasp that the aesthetic work of art and philosophy1c<\/sub><\/em> may enrich and add value to established processes2cm<\/sub> and constitutions2cf<\/sub><\/em> (R, see points 0157-0160).<\/p>\n\n\n\n He only grasps that the aesthetic work of art and philosophy1c<\/sub><\/em> can resist established principles2bm<\/sub> and embodiments2bf<\/sub><\/em> (S).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0304 Finally, lest I forget stating the obvious, bad art and bad philosophy1b<\/sub> may destroy established processes2cm<\/sub> and constitutions2cf<\/sub> without any awareness that these things2c<\/sub> offer solutions to the question, “What makes us who we are?3c<\/sub>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0305 Come on, are we really “creatures of our own creation”?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am reminded of the title of a modernist book by classicist and archaeologist, V. Gordon Childe (1892-1957), Man Makes Himself<\/em>. The book came out in the fate-filled year of 1936.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0305 One day, there will be is nothing more “historical” than “dialectical materialism”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That day has not yet arrived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0306 Consider the following permutation of the reoriented interscope of the layman in a world permeated by science. <\/em> The noumenon1a<\/sub>, which was placed by the Positivist’s jud<\/em>gment into the realm of possibility, shifts to base actuality2z<\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 64<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0307 The unfolded Positivist’s judgment,<\/em> with its actuality2a<\/sub><\/em> reified from a triad into a dyad, occupies the layman’s situation level. The subscripts are a little confusing, as they should be for a reorientation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The resolved basement-level confounding<\/em> entails the noumenon’s form2zf<\/sub> [entangling] mathematics and mechanisms as matter2am<\/sub><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does that confounding imply?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0308 The above interscope, inspired by Dr. Noe’s path from the laboratory<\/em> to the world outside the laboratory,<\/em> surely adds value to the author’s book, because it shows how this work comports with the author’s 2009 book, titled, Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain And Other Lessons From The Biology of Consciousness<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, we can even add another subtitle: Despite what you think about these sciences<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0309 What does the noumenon2z<\/sub> say?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does the scientist experience3a<\/sub> matters of mathematics and mechanics2am<\/sub><\/em> substantiating forms of disciplinary language and data2af<\/sub><\/em> emerging from the potential of phenomena1a<\/sub>?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Does the regular person experience scientific technical work3b<\/sub><\/em> as matters of organizing principles2bm<\/sub><\/em> manufacturing the forms of scientific reports2bf<\/sub><\/em> (disciplinary language and data) as emerging from ‘the power of spoken language to assign referents’1b<\/sub>?<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0297 Does the shifty reorientation infer that the regular person, following the intuition of Aristotle, ends up “entangling” scientific sensible construction with aesthetic work? Does the layman confound the positivist intellect3a (for the reorientation) with disciplinary language3b (for the scientist) with what I experience3b (for the general interscope) and style3b (instead of aesthetic or technical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[417],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-review"],"yoast_head":"\n