Carl Jung and Metaphysics
Litany and Liturgy
Programming Style or Method [Structured or Object Oriented] and Newton Only
The idea behind Newton Only for scientific investigation is to break a problem down into simple steps so each step has one input and one output. But that is implying one such test [Newton Only] on all science. Actually that is a change in metaphysics. The experiments of the Copenhagen school were done with scientific methodology and careful scientific analysis.?Thus you recreate the test and evaluate each step on a true or false or as 1 or 2 level or success or failure with or without Newton Only [Newton Only would mean that all testing is done on singular problems and singular processes only]. The one input and one output for the sake of isolating specific tests into testable and re-testable formats actually is meant to reject testing that leads to any quantum conclusion. The Copenhagen School tests are all scientifically reproducible - and test real occurrences in real metaphysics. But then the folks from Global Warming can claim all the ice that is now floating will melt to increase the depth of ocean but that is already part of the depth of the ocean [it is floating] will melt and add that to the ocean it is already in; but then also they multiply it by a coupe billion so they can scare everyone and that is supposedly science. That is not really Newton Only science since it is not even science. The metaphysics of Global Warming is disgusting; and not real.
Jung and the Object Oriented Mind
I have programmed in various object oriented languages for many years. I also have taught object oriented programming in University classes and as a consultant. I have also written textbooks for object oriented programming that I was teaching. I also studied the development of object oriented design and programming as it was developing because I knew I would be teaching that, soon. I have also studied the Jung’s development of an understanding of the object oriented mind. As a result of this I have come to the conclusion that object orientation is a better way of building software because it includes an understanding of what the world is actually like and recognises how the various parts of the problem are related so that can be defined and accessed in the programs.
Neurons and Connectivity
Jung developed a different concept of how the mind works, than the structured [and Newton Only] cognitive theories. Archetypes are not operating as a singular processes. Archetypes are an important part of an object oriented mind. And Jung is specifically implying that there is an object oriented real world for the mind to recognize as object oriented. Yes there are some singular steps, but the whole structure and the ultimate methods of processing is polymorphic.
Object Oriented Mental Processing
Applying object oriented design rules to describe Jung’s work in this area produces a design?that looks like this:
It uses an Archetype based set of linked lists to process and store information. The Archetypes themselves and the inner workings of any ”helper code” follow a basic Archetype like linked list kine control. This makes these linked lists into - what might be called - a polymorphic list.
The Shadow object [or copies] processes new information into new Archetype polymorphic instantiated memory objects The data is analyzed through comparison with many polymorphs that are available to the Shadow immediately. Since so much data is available the process is similar to a Peek-A-Boo methodology. Saving of data is like using hide in Hide and Seek. Retrieving is like seeking in that game. Shadow establishes [and instantiates] the data and the links necessary as each new data item is stored.
See?Data Processing of the Mind: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/mental-data-processing-jerome-heath/?trackingId=1gwnBWdIkCrwbwfM7vblZg%3D%3D
[I had a student in a programming class [object oriented] that I was told was handicapped - so I needed to give special advantages to him. He turned out to be extremely bright. He also spent the course trying to figure out exactly what polymorphism is. We did figure it out, and I am glad for that because my pursuit of the Jung approach is ultimately the pursuit of polymorphism.]
In the harmonics way of operating, and according to John 3:8, where there are options; "the system, [in my analysis it is the entropy]" chooses one of them - in order to go on to the next step with the process. In my wind study the wind could go down Liliuokalani or down Walina. According to this view the "wind" decides. Often the output in harmonics systems has a choice of multiple polymorphs to choose from. Something needs to choose one and move on [there is an approximately 1/16th of a second rule for the processing cycle]. In my own analysis that choice is made by Entropy [the Dealer].
Brain Waves
On some theories of cognitive skills there is the "theoretic" need for an extra input, at some specific step [of course the extra data input would violate Newton Only]. You recognize that you need some specific information that is not apparent in the input [actually one input and one output cannot explain all that is going on in the mind]. But the only input to each Newton Only step needs to be singular. I was making a presentation at a psychology conference in Waikiki - my home town - on one of my ideas related to Jung's alternatives to cognitive theory. The person presenting just before me was demonstrating how the brain uses alpha, beta, etc., waves for particular purposes. My training for the Ph. D at the University of Hawaii was based on understanding how you sent messages, electronically, under different bandwidths so you make the system more efficient - i.e. more messages could be sent at the same time by using different wave bands. I realized the brain could be doing this and then the theoretical need for two inputs rather than one is doable [but that would not be Newton Only{more than one input}]. Also, thinking Jung concepts through; the polymorphic structure of the mind, according to Jung, could support processing multiple inputs and outputs together and at many steps. But that is part of our Peek a Boo and Hide and Seek for recognition and save and retrieve.
So there are "scientific or just real [but not Newton Only]" processes that do not follow one input one output. Real means they are truly part of the metaphysics even though some scientists want to avoid including them since anything that is not absolutely singular is a threat to bringing back Copenhagen. Multiple inputs and outputs is exactly the issue in the world of the Copenhagen School. Having recognized that “harmonic” processes as real occurrences; then the basic processing for these processes is not one input and one output. The basic processing is with at least more than one or groups of entities [usually we are talking about atoms or molecules] that move and act [together] under some kind of rule that is imposed by the circumstances of a system [The Context].
A Huge Shore-breaker at Waimea Beach
In Hawaii it is fun and very available to study waves and swells of the Pacific. It is a relatively small island and has the [huge] Pacific on all four sides. Something definitely is happening in these waves we see everyday that is not Newton Only. This is particularly true as the swell structure breaks down, and changes [forming new flow patterns], and then breaks down again, as it approaches shore. This dance is notable when watching one wave after the other do very similar but sort of strange things.
This cannot be explained in pure Newton Only terms. Here the context is the shore [Is that anything like the transcendental - from our island perspective the shore is the transcendental that keeps the Pacific “out there” and us “in here” - and after seeing the nice but scary picture just above, where we need o understand some kind of group {not singular} organization of the many, many molecules going on under the hood of this massive wave even after it begins the collapse of the wave equation - due to the ocean bottom rising to meet the ocean surface - and here ar Waimea that collapse is suddenly because of a sudden deep drop off right at the beach.].
Click the first Huge Wave Picture for the video.?
This is excellent video of wave action. The local beach patrol must have given some local photographers the right to take this video, here. Pipeline is just down the road from here, and a center for very high quality surfing and wave video production for their internationally syndicated Surf Meets. Note that the front of the waves hit and "bounce" since they are hitting sand underneath a thin layer of water [from the previous waves going up and down the beach].
Design Styles
So we can get back to our subtitle [Programming Style and Newton Only] now that we have described some issues of Newton Only. The structured method of designing computer software was meant to be dividing up the processing so each part of the process as a whole had only one input and one output [they were then called atomic processes]. And also, in the processing, the input was supposed to be converted to the output in a singular process [the black box rule was supposed to allow the programmer to use science and math style programming for everything]. When I describe it that way, I just realized that the structured method was specifically meant to put totally Newton Only as the rule of all program design, in order to force Newton Only physics style for work on solving systems analysis problems generally.
One problem with this system is that any complexity yields a system that cannot be truly followed. Try these two videos using different numbers of variables. See how complexity can hurt. If no-one can understand the process then no-one can manage it. So breaking the system down to singular processes may provide many processes that no-one can know what they do,
Simple
If something is wrong anybody could fix it.
Very Complex
If it is broke - who can fix it.
Object oriented systems break down definitions by physical and visible characteristics of these various objects, and divide down processing by dependence or accessory relationships. Or in the other direction the object is preceded by its source or parent. Anyway, one can see the importance of being able to understand what is happening in all object oriented programming - and that is helped here by recognition of the process and the steps involved.
Structured Design was a grand scheme but it actually was too simple and too theoretical and based on science abstraction, to match most things we were programming about. So, to begin with, to do most [any] programming there had to be a lot of flexibility.
The computer, according to all those who knew nothing about a computer was going to turn the life of the company into just math and science [accomplished mostly by the computer] and the drudgery of recording all the business transactions would be gone. That did not happen, and Structured Analysis and Programming did not work. But like the wicked queen's poison apples in Snow White, it looked good - but the total lack of context in the process was like poison [context seems to hamper “real” science ]. [Hermeneutics is science, but like much “soft” science it was not Newton Only. So these scientific programming people did not trust hermeneutics so they threw out all the understanding of context and interpretation that went with hermeneutics. I think that completely shunning hermeneutics was a big part of the complete failure of structured programming design. The other big problem was not talking to anyone as you developed the software. People in general might not be “scientists” but they certainly know a lot that we need to know about their system].?
But lucky for us the poison just put us to sleep. It could not kill us and the abstraction we were working with [science and math] was close to right.
But we were also asleep in the mirror of the leap of faith. The leap of faith was a reflection from the mirror of scientific abstraction [may Campbell rest in peace] since it went in without context, but it could only come back without context. So like the wicked queen we fooled ourselves that we and our solutions were "the best”. But now that we interpreted the reflection that our problem was meaninglessness; we could be dissatisfied with that. So meaning could become that we were dissatisfied with meaninglessness [neo-Gnosticism] - and we got there by trashing of science [which we were required to use to develop programs]. So if science is just trash as we go in - science is still trash as we go out. It is not brought back to life be reciting Newton Only or I reject meaninglessness. And Newton Only science is the cause of complete meaninglesness in science. Only one input and one output does not allow us to even think about context, which is where meaning comes from.
The Same Data Comes Back that You Sent In
But the mirror image we viewed was still just science and the context [under Newton Only] was still void. But Jung [the old prince charming] saw the problem and told us what to do; but we were too happy with our party in front of the leap of faith mirror, so we did not want to listen. So we [with Campbell's help] developed the poison apples to put people back to sleep and that was that Jung had misread all the myth. Myth was actually just science. [I remember this kind of logic that came from Campbell on his show and even though I had no personal investment in myth - his dealing with myth was unreal. I also thought Campbell was being unfair about myth since it was part of all deep discussions on the mind - but Campbell is criticizing myth as even a subject matter. Most people would accept the criticism since they did not know myth; but scholars should have criticized Campbell for this tactic.] It did not even make sense to me. Actually these last sleeping pills can kill you in the long run. To mush all the things we have ever learned from many different sources into one statement "it is all, really, the same" [except that Jung, is dangerous]. The whole school is tattling on Jung. This is not science it is Staatsicherheit.
[Note the things structured analysis did right [but everyone had for a long time realized these things were necessary]: These goals of structured modeling: of simple modules, minimum moving of data, and hiding data from modules that did not need it, did stick. These were one set of prime goals of the structured approach that actually should be required with any program design technique. We call that, data hiding and it is meant to control the access to data to prevent changes that could come from "nowhere". It is easy for data to be wrongfully changed by another source - since whoever gets to that data, that way, can not ever be sure where this data came from.]
The lack of communication with customers during the design and development stage had to be scrapped. That [the preventing this communication] was meant to make the computer process more scientific, since interference by the customers would tend to be "unscientific". The problem actually was that the customers did know something about what they wanted and the "science here" was only used by developers to baffle and confuse them [and cut off communication], to keep them from commenting. Agile labs were able to prove their methods quickly and get an exception. Agile methodology, then, could ask for and get ideas from everyone.
Most programming groups moved towards some kind of agile methodology - and some way to talk to the customers - and that was needed. The information I, as a programmer, needed - and others in my programming group also realized this too - was to know just where they [the customers] were in understanding the computer and the use of the computer. We needed to develop systems they could use so they would use them.
But the poison apples of political correctness will not just put you to sleep - they will [through wars, and plagues, and riots, and hatred and burning down cities] kill us all. Then the queen still stands before the leap of faith mirror, insisting on how beautiful and smart she is, and then everyone else is ugly and stupid.
Object Oriented Programming
Then there was an effort to develop what came to be called object oriented programming. They would also need to develop a programming design method that could be used for object oriented design. The original point was to develop programming systems that could do things like draw pictures, using the concepts that were learned by trying to draw pictures on a computer screen, with a computer. They were asking [programmers, designers, and online artists] about what was really happening in the real processes they got to work, and how can we describe and then copy that in language that could be converted to code that does the same thing.
This is not just another efficiency study with stop watches and mirrors. The efficiency folks had done this kine of thing this new group was now doing but then their goal of efficiency meant - how do we cheapen the product, and maybe reduce the number of workers. There was a second round of this kind of development that was the structured design people whose only goal was complete control of the process [the designed features guaranteed control by managers who knew nothing about computers but wanted control over the computer part of the company]. This cheapened the people instead of the product - but that cheapened the company and left computer programming as a battleground.
The latest attempt was to provide a new language [and ultimately computer language] that would explain what was actually going on in processing [however it was done]; but not just in the processes but in the understanding of the things themselves. These were programmers and they understood algorithms of the world as a basis for understanding how things worked. Object orientation was being born. You see defining things as objects and clarifying what that means provides a different path to successful computer processing.
But there also was the cryptic [cryptic to people who could not be familiar with computer programming] writings of Jung. His writings on how the mind works ultimately played a part in how object oriented programs worked [since they were at least very close to right]. The developers of object oriented programming did consult Jung’s writings. So there is something about how the world works [How do you set variable definitions that copy the way things work in the world?]; and there is something about how our minds work [The descriptions of Jung, in fact, could be used for an object oriented textbook - but you need to scrub his description of the processes using mythological stories - killed by Campbell. At least, my own use of Jung's descriptions includes scrubbing the myth out of the text - and you then have an object oriented textbook.]. They were redefining reality.based on discovering details about how the world processes - analyzing the algorithms of the universe. The harmonics of the universe is not just of opposites but of everything, starting with the [molecules of] elements; and is not just by the numbers as with musical notes, but with melodies as well [See: Plato].
[The attempt to see how the world works, say, when you are drawing pictures, actually captured something special in how the world works at least for this development group. They were sensing that this way of breaking down structures of things and activities {and parallel artifacts and activities in various processes}, was getting at something more foundational than mere compiler improvements. Jung's work was seen as helpful in applying a more philosophical basis. The fact that Jung felt the mind already worked this way indicated its necessary relationship to how the real world works [Through the Looking Glass]. The brain had to recognize or reflect the real world or we are all lost. So Jung added philosophy to the practical processing which the basic group was strong in. And Jung provides a psychological base for the work. Ultimately the programmer needs to recognize the psychology of himself and his customers.
My own experience in object oriented programming, is the fact that when you are doing OOP the programming results seem so much more related to the real world you are working with {a better look through the looking glass}; and the programs themselves are far more understandable as to what they are doing in the real world than the total "black box" sense of what you are doing in "scientific" abstraction of structured programming. There is no comparison in the two feelings: I understand the object oriented program - but let's test that structured program a couple more times, just to be sure.]
The link between the two - the mind and the way things work in the "real" world - is important. And the real world works as objects in this new view, rather than like the scientific modules of structured programming or scientific abstraction that captures some underlying relationships but those relationships are ultimately with the abstraction not reality, which should be a clue to what I think is the great "Western Philosophical" problem. They sent everyone searching for the perfect [scientific] abstraction. They should have sent them out to look for the object orientation in reality. The world is made of objects not abstracts. The abstraction they had was science, and the mathematics of science; and that enticed us but was not working. Science, in fact, was too generalized to actually completely match reality [failing at particularity is a prime problem here]. In the science abstraction lines were always straight when in real things no line is straight. Generalizing can never even begin to understand particular.
Looking at Object Oriented Patterns - Through the Looking Glass
The discussion of an Object Oriented World or an Object Oriented Philosophy [which implies some kind of Object Oriented World] is ripe with a whole series of discussions and I would call such a study “through the looking glass”.
For computer applications the looking glass is about how well the processing inside the computer agrees with the facts of and the processing required for the related activities in the real world.
Through the Looking Glass
Matching these two views of these activities requires understanding how the computer processing sees the information in its processes as compared with the equivalent information in the real world [objects].
The computer acts like a looking glass since it must reflect the world external to it. Whatever we program into the computer it is meant to be a reflection of something in this external world. To the extent that we approach the computer like a looking glass [there are two worlds visible here], we will be able to create more usable software.
We define “Through the Looking Glass” as a way to approach the parallel world of the computer. The goal is to describe the computer and its applications as a parallel world (parallel to the real world) so “Through the Looking Glass” is an advantageous approach. Such an approach emphasizes the need for greater visibility of internal computer processes. But, here in this work, we are also reminded of the needed for greater visibility of our mental processing. Mental processing is always through the looking glass [or should be].
We use hermeneutics to define the dimensions of the looking glass for context calculus. Thus we should begin with hermeneutics as a basis of systems development. We need all the information not just what the structured part leaves us after scrubbing out the context. The lack of context [on purpose for “scientific" reasons] is the reason that scientific abstraction failed.?You see the context to them [in general terms] was ultimately what they felt had to be abstracted out to get the science abstraction and move out of the past. Much of the context supposedly would interfere with a good science abstraction and the new world of the future. Abstraction then becomes: first - rid the process of “unnecessary” context - but what is unnecessary and what is necessary. It is not much different from the collapse of a wave equation due to testing problem. But here it was much less obvious. The lack of context hides the meaning behind the abstraction - so it has lost its objective meaning.
These philosophical discussions, here, are about how we [people] view, or would view, an object oriented world - and then we compare the mental image with the computer image, and, of course, with the real world. As a programmer I work harder at comparing the real world with the computer interpretation. Actually, I do compare both the computer and the mental images as I go on - but I feel the analysis of the comparison with the computer version allows a less personalized approach - and thus creates an environment for the comparison with the mind [the mental version], later, with a less personal emphasis.
Sitz im Leben
Programming in Object Oriented Mode
I start the further discussion in this venture, now, with the conviction that the mind is unquestionably object oriented [Actually the difference between the two worlds is small and involve details. But the detail can make a difference particularly in how we understand and in this case how well we understand [and the context is a detail that we often lose on “simplifying”]. I am in agreement with Jung on the object oriented mind. I also mention, here, the fact that I now consider the world as object oriented too. That is from experience using object oriented programming and being able to visualize how it is working effectively in the real world. I ignore all the arguments of typical philosophers about what the real world is. Going through all that in developing software would lead to long unproductive conversations about the boundaries of our work. So I just say the real world is the current process that we are improving here, whatever that philosophy is. May the spooks all remain under the rug and the objects come out of hiding [from political correctness].
[The ideas associated with abstraction have helped us understand how extreme “perfection” could be harmful - at times - and particularly a special kind of understanding. But even saying that in this real universe no planet is a perfect sphere, we can picture a perfect universe. But, since is is not and can never be “real”, we need to be careful of using the perfection standard as some kind of necessity. Perfection {which structured programming often claims} as we mention here tends to be from scientific abstraction {or maybe it always is}. There will never be a pothole on any road. And babies will never again wet their diapers. It seems that object orientations allows a sense of imperfection {parallel to reality} that does not destroy the effort {it is not perfect but we know that} - but actually that makes the effort real. The fact that scientific abstraction is not real the perfect abstraction becomes useless.
The other side of this coin, that we try to hide, is revealed in the old saw: perfection is the destroyer of the good. Object oriented design sees the world as it is and also describes it that way. Once you see it, the {scientific} abstraction no longer interferes {it has lost its teeth}.?And you understand because it is real not abstraction. And our object oriented minds can tune into the object oriented world around us.]
Layers of Data
We then continue with the assumption that the process itself [that our program is going to be mirroring] is, or was meant to be, object oriented. I used meant to be, to related to problems possibly caused by a structuralist doing a lot of damage to the system long ago and we need to fix that [we need to get back to reality].
Jung had developed these ideas about how myth could clarify an object oriented worldview. But the metaphysics of our worldview then questioned the generality of myth. Then Campbell said the myth was general in order to disagreed with Jung. Personally I do not think myth was generally abstract like science was trying to be, because each separate telling in different mountain valleys could have and probably did have different local issues to consider. But the problem here was Jung using the non-generality of myth to justify the possible meaning and usefulness of the object oriented approach {non-generality}. That was an embarrassment to scientific generality. [To Jung {and me} myth was particular. But this was an embarrassment to science that felt the world could be totally described and understood in generalities. Something that described the world as particular {myth} was a threat. So Campbell copped a lie to end the problem.] This gave science power, They were never worried about the particular-ness of myth until it reminded people how general the science was. The generality might allow us more knowledge but definitely caused less understanding.
I remember Campbell’s program on myth. He had taken it on himself to become the most knowledgeable person on earth on the subject of myth. But there was a complete clash of philosophical worlds here. Campbell, in a sense, considered himself as a defender of Jung. His defense of Jung and science was that myth was general - actually, then, all myth was saying the same thing - once you justified the seeming differences as “unimportant”. The issue Campbell missed, and everyone else too, was that the differences in the myth was a basis for understanding the particular-ness of the world and the particular-ness of Jung’s object oriented approach. So Campbell hurt Jung’s arguments, but also hurt the value of myth since this generality made it ultimately useless. I think he also hurt science too, by making science a destroyer of another venue. I knew a little about myth, so I felt very strongly that Campbell had done us all a disservice. Ultimately he did that to save the generality of science and, he thought, Jung.
The fact that some scientists are saying there are no patterns in the universe is a direct result of defining the search for the perfect abstract as the “solution”. To them and the wicked queen - the patterns in the universe were a threat [the stupid mirror does not see what I see]. An abstraction can be a reference, if used carefully, but it cannot replace patterns that are in the universe [abstraction cannot hold meaning because it is based on avoiding context - it can only hold a reference to something real, as an example]. The Three Stooges did not recognize that. Object orientation captured the fact that real world objects and object -inheritance, -association, -composition and -aggregation; [this list is important {and not just nice sounding} as this approach seems to have captured a methodology that develops software that is real and recognizable and parallel through the looking glass] makes for a very clear understanding of how the world works. We are not just imagining or creating patterns in our minds. There are basic rules about how we do this. And the real kicker in all this is that this proves that our minds are actually object oriented. The philosophers are doing something with math and science, and they could get by with using it for most purposes - but the universe is not doing “exactly” science [as they have defined science], so it cannot work for everything. The details, at the edges of the scientific approach, are frayed. And you can’t just reweave them. [Or it is better, that the real world is naturally frayed and the abstract world of science cannot duplicate that.]
Waikiki Beach
So our minds fit the world that is out there [meaning object oriented]; if we can just learn to use our capabilities correctly. Object orientation has shown, emphatically, by the fact that the "scientific" programs of structured design were never fully understood. As a system group, you would work on the program until it functioned - mostly. Then it was canned, so to speak. That program did that - we proved that and that is what we know about the program. But if you wanted to do some other “something”, close to that, you started all over and built a new program from scratch. That really emphasized that you still did not know what that first program did or how it did it. In a sense it was not really understood by the programming team, since it had to be canned. And it definitely was not understood by the customers. And the black box methodology and thinking was a cobra in the closet. And the black boxing hid this until the cobra surprised us at all the wrong times.
?These structured problems are not the case when object oriented programming "is done right". You do know what the program is doing; and feel confident about that. Also, a program that we did last month will very likely be a start for the program we are doing this month since it is doing similar things and "we understand what it is doing”. Actually our minds are object oriented because the world is object oriented [we developed minds that were useful for the real world - more useful than we knew]. Ultimately this leads us back to harmonics - a simple organizing basis for a world that is object oriented. The science/math abstraction was actually the wrong abstract to hunt for. The real abstraction, we now find, is Jung's Object Oriented World. I give Jung credit because he recognized this world [both in reality and for the mind] long before any of the rest of us did. Now an Object Oriented World is a world of patterns and harmonics. It is not Newton Only or Science Only. It is a part of the world that science basing missed. Object Orientation understands the frayed edges that came up in the past as programming errors.
An Example Object Oriented Processing
The idea of Object Definition is to take some burden of repetitive steps and definitions off the final program and “hide” these details in the definitions of the programs objects. Everyone is a person. So a person object will work as an object for everyone.?
class Person {
??private $name;
??}
?????public function getName( ) {
????return $this->name;
??}
}
class Employee extends Person {
?}
The Employee extension would have data like job title and salary - the name, and other general data, is kept under person. There are other People extensions like Customer, Contractor, etc. They would have their own data to record. It should be easy to find and recognize what is needed since we are object oriented - under that thick blanket of learned scientific structural analysis.
A plus here, is the data definitions hold a structure, and thus defined, like reality. Then programming is actually simplified and easy to remember once the definitions are right. We are just talking to the objects like they are here at my desk with me. It is the beginning [just the beginning] of the Turing conversation of intelligent entities. The scientific structured approach can only do long indexes of types of answers or responses so if you find where you are at in the index you can answer. If the right index cannot be found you need to devise a punt reply or response.
How do we Find Object Oriented Processes
Definitely if there is human activity the processes used will take on some object process characteristics - and some learned structured methodology. This would be at different levels of object orientation depending on backgrounds and training of the people involved. There is a natural tendency by people to structure things in an object oriented way - some training improves, and standardizes, that result. Others have had training in other abstraction techniques that could interfere with object orientation. But such, like science, training instead of object orientation does have a purpose.
There are many natural systems that follow these object rules. Trees have trunks, branches, branchlets, and leaves; and they are tree objects. Of course every rule has its exception and that reminds me of Ironwood where the leaves are like branchlets. But the rule is strong enough to use in horticulture books. I have found that handling data like a thesaurus is a better way to understand it than handling it like a dictionary or index [the structured methodology]. These last two [for the sake of how they hold and reference the data] both assume the data is atomic and immutable.?The thesaurus approach assumes that data has context and is dependent on context [the thesaurus methodology just does this]. Object Oriented data is always wrapped up in context - inside and outside.
?Rural Protection from the Ocean on Oahu
Psalm 96
King James Version
96?1?O sing unto the?Lord?a new song: sing unto the?Lord, all the earth.
2?Sing unto the?Lord, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.
3?Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people.
4?For the?Lord?is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
5?For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the?Lord?made the heavens.
6?Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
7?Give unto the?Lord, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the?Lord?glory and strength.
8?Give unto the?Lord?the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts.
9?O worship the?Lord?in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
10?Say among the heathen that the?Lord?reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
11?Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
12?Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
13?Before the?Lord: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
There are object oriented lessons everywhere in living things. But there is also interesting objective character in non living things, say, a mountain range. All mountains are different but most mountain ranges look alike. The telling point in this is that if you drive through an area enough times, even though at first, it all looks alike, you can later know exactly where you are from something in the scenery. You may not know consciously what that is. Then this is due to the "intuition" of the Archetype system.
Then there is, turn right just past where the concrete silo used to be. We have object orientation, in our interpretations, but we use it, sometimes, in strange ways. But the recognition of locality is part of the particularity of an object oriented world [the particularity Campbell was trying to deny.]. Patterns are characteristic [they follow a group of properties or standards] but are always particular. That tree there [it looks just like a tree] is different from every tree, everywhere [it still looks just like a tree].
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
Algorithms of Music Object Oriented Music Design
Being able to recognize natural formations is just part of harmonics [the study of patterns in nature]; and reality seems to be built around some such a structure [it happens that way - even though there is no “science” for it]. These patterns can not be recognized by science or science questions, since everything is particular, and there is no science to it. It is a completely different abstraction. But this is part of reality and must and will be seen as “together” in nature. There are cognitive reasons since our mind actually works that way [object oriented]. I believe there is also “reality” reasons for this process in what I call harmonics. The rules of structuring related processes are naturally found in harmonics. Harmonics is the tuning of the universe - not as music is tuned but objectively [in more than one dimension]. The rules are based on some [kine of] logic for this to work at all. The first rule is that there must not be a structured reason for the particular situation [there are structured things out there]. Like, the owner planted that tree there. Sometimes a particular structured solution can be overruled by degrees of freedom uncertainty. You can’t get to all the trees in the woods. Also, isolation often means the structural possibilities are muted - part of the isolation. And, placement and position by the harmonic rule is always random [in some ways or maybe just one way], but, also, they are from specific available options [random but specific is a choker for science - God does throw dice but the possibilities are always defined - somewhere in the harmonics].
Psalm 148
Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Nature
Psalm 148
King James Version
148?1?Praise ye the?Lord. Praise ye the?Lord?from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
2?Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
3?Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
4?Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
5?Let them praise the name of the?Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.
6?He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
7?Praise the?Lord?from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
8?Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
9?Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
10?Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:
11?Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:
12?Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children:
13?Let them praise the name of the?Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
14?He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the?Lord.
The Meaning of Science
The problem here is that there is no “meaning” in abstract science; since the patterns of science are all abstract, as needed for science. Abstraction cannot be the basis if meaning. These are well thought out as a basis to manufacture a world of abstract patterns, but those patterns of science are ultimately just abstract. It is something that can only?hold?meaningful patterns.?Science, itself, was never meant to be the pattern [That is what abstraction and generalization is all about.].?But when it was made into our philosophy by the Three Stooges, they were caught in this problem. It was a grand scheme to make something so bold as science the basis for our philosophy, but led to meaninglessness when it became the singular basis for philosophy; since science, as developed [and what is correct for the use of “science”], was a container to hold meaning, but was not and could not be meaning.
So the fight over meaning, and over whether there are patterns in the universe, is a fight to keep science as our only basis [Newton Only] for philosophy, while people are “screaming” for meaning. And they don’t really want just dissatisfaction with meaninglessness as meaning. That is an excuse for the failure of science here, not a reason to believe. The mirror back from the “leap of faith” is still the same context free and meaningless abstract garbage of science. We kid ourselves to think that now the meaninglessness is gone. So we burn down Minneapolis - and what for? That proves what ”love” is in scientific terms. Then science is not only "not meaningful" - it is “anti-meaningful".
Genesis 1
King James Version
Sitz im Leben:?I see a priest, perhaps around the time of winter solstice, that might take the families in his community out for a camp out, to a camp grounds or something like a camp grounds, or to a public park. Then he would set up a group of murals that could be held up by the fire light. He needed to bring some small lights for a light show of the 3rd verse. He would then recite the verses in the darkness, using the camp fire to light the murals, that were raised near the bonfire with the verse that applied; but so everyone could see them.
1?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2?And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3?And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4?And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5?And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6?And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7?And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8?And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9?And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10?And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11?And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12?And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13?And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14?And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15?And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16?And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17?And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18?And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19?And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20?And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21?And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22?And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23?And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24?And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25?And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26?And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27?So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28?And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29?And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30?And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31?And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
King James Version?(KJV)
Public Domain
After the reading, the priest would then have everyone gather around the bonfire and eat barbecued sausages with bread, and in those days some wine.
The verses themselves are a good description of creating the universe with harmonic [object oriented] constraints. The building blocks of that universe are the constraints on the "system". Notice the results of this construction are?objects?that are the things that appear [are born] and fill this universe. The objects are built from the container of the system that they are in, by constraints. This set of verses are an embarrassment to the structured mind that can only conjecture a big bing construction of a structured universe. It seems any other construction violates the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. In the Genesis version the universe is built be feeding on itself under the constraints set by God.
Psalm 149
King James Version
149?1?Praise ye the?Lord. Sing unto the?Lord?a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.
2?Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.
3?Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
领英推荐
4?For the?Lord?taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
5?Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
6?Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;
7?To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
8?To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
9?To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the?Lord.
What is happening. here?
The key issues, here, is with the three stooges leaving us with a philosophy based on scientific abstraction. Philosophy was heading that way . . . they were just hurrying it along. The words up front may not specifically say this; but the reality was that everyone knew this was happening and were cheering it on. Newton's special work on simple physics was understood as an example of how physics was studied, but it should not be the basis for a clan of physicists who insist on Newton Only meaning all physics must be measured, and tested, and studied, reported through the understanding of such a physical process; and if is was to be physics, it would be based on one input, one output, and a singular process. In other words, a physics processes was totally singular or it was not physics. That is the viewpoint now, but as Jung was developing object oriented programming, as the minds method of operation, the view of what science was, was quite closed but not quite the total modern narrowness of today.
Now as Kant was developing this philosophical base he wrote a very famous [or infamous] book - "The Critique of Pure Reason". Simply put it proved all the more important and popular philosophies of the time were at best inadequate [actually just plain wrong]. Ouch!
The methods of that book [probably without mentioning the book] are used by existentialist gurus to show how there is no meaning. The effort is more disgusting because of the new science of Newton Only. Newton Only was developed to make science totally unbiased, but that means it cannot hold any basis for meaning.
Science is supposed to be unbiased; but scientist know that they are not unbiased; so they have agreed to standards for "limiting" bias by checking into certain processes and procedures; then other scientists can sign off on it being unbiased. They needed something that would hold water but these agreements are like a leaky sponge. But it gives some basis for claiming "I have followed the bias rules". I also had to do this for my dissertation.
So trashing "all philosophy" is easier, since most students are being taught the Newton Only [unbiased but meaningless science basis]. So then they are given the choice to reverse that by claiming meaningfulness, personally. Out of some cloud, that must be beyond the region proved all wrong by this philosophical approach [but that cloud really covers everything], we grab a"philosophy" and now “You - Are God [this is simple gnosticism since you are refuting the god or gods of this earth {based on a specific distortion of science}and choosing a god from some other list - that does not exist]!” - by default!
I go through all this to show where we are in our culture. When Jung wrote we were not that far along [but close - when Jung taught these things about object orientation]. If you published, you published science or you were out of the circle. So Jung dared to propose a mind that was object oriented because the universe was object oriented. Then he defined how this works and how this is true with stories from myth which was a common way of getting people to understand something different. Experts in these fields often used myth in this way because myth had stories that were already hewn to prove this or that and it could be used to clear up or even prove a new idea. Jung absolutely did not mean that object oriented programming was mythical; which was the new myth that destroyed his whole concept of the mind. Lucky for him that some capable programmers, who wanted to develop an object oriented language, saw that he had defined just such a language. And he had recognized the object oriented world for how it changed the way things were abstracted in a totally different way than abstraction through science. So they could learn that from him. And, of course - this type of thing - is what post-structuralism is looking for.
Campbell knew myth because he probably used it in his own work. But he saw Jung's work, and this is partly true, as trashing science with myth. He ultimately was trashing science but not by myth. The myth stories are a language used by many of his co-workers; who liked to use it to allow more creativity in the work. The problem with Campbell was Jung had moved his worldview from abstraction by science, to abstraction by object orientation. These are just slightly different in many ways; but we cannot have someone trash science for another world view. He would destroy the whole scientific community. So Jung was black-balled.
Polymorphic and Object Oriented
My thesis here is that world that we are dealing with, in front of us, is polymorphic and therefore object oriented.
There is an infinite number of these categories, that are Possible [can be done]; But that does not include every conceivable category. Some abstractions are just not Possible. Check that out.
Psalm 139
Psalm 139
King James Version
139?1?O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2?Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3?Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4?For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O?Lord, thou knowest it altogether.
5?Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6?Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7?Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8?If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9?If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10?Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11?If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12?Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13?For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14?I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15?My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16?Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17?How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18?If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19?Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20?For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21?Do not I hate them, O?Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22?I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23?Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24?And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
King James Version?(KJV)
Public Domain
Programming Method and Newton Only
So, since the real world is object oriented, or so we feel; then obviously, Newton Only is not the do-all and end-all for everything. Now some object methods will look like Newton Only singular processing - often only for the short term - and only if you are pointed to the right object. But most of the hard work in object oriented programming involves objects [many] conversing [like Turkey Day talk story, but involved with the program processes]. And the conversations are hard to duplicate in singular logic because they communicate a lot of context as well as content. I think in such a conversation there is more context than language.
Maybe even our intelligence is buried in the context [whatever - without debates and open discussion a school has zero intelligence {average IQ for the whole school - ZERO}.]
Turing suggested that intelligence is based on or maybe even?is?conversation. Our modern university seems to have forgotten that when they invented political correctness; which hampers conversation, itself. So what do I want in a university: a commitment to intelligent conversation [open conversation = intelligence according to Turing; rather than strictly holding to the script from the front main office Gestapo = ignorance.]. My strong belief is, where there is political correctness, you are able to force Newton Only; but then you cannot have intelligence. Note that the very nature of object oriented, order and organization, is totally against the narrow thinking of political correctness. You can't "shun" any important object because that shuts the whole thing down. For an object conversation that is really an object conversation it must be open, Closing out whole sections of reference [even if they might only be used for context] makes the conversation medieval.
Meaning as the Basis of Philosophy
We are back to my earlier proposal. Our corporate love affair with truth and scientific truth has led to a disaster. You can continue to forge our “love” based on heavy-handed methods and maybe burn down St. Paul this time. But, after all, Newton Only science needs to be fair that way; you can't just burn down Minneapolis. The point is that the truth?you?are working with is obviously more about hate than love. Ultimately we will have to have another war, another riot, another plague . . . and we blame somebody or some group and burn down their homes or their businesses. This is Newton Only science - and truth philosophy! You prove your truth is truth by destroying, shunning, or killing enough people. Then it is just 1917 all over again. Do we make it different if you say you are love and then burn down Minneapolis. You don’t have love because it is obvious that your truth is cold and hard and inflexible. And, you do know it is not really “truth".
Jung developed that the real world was a world of pattern and meaning. He celebrated that by showing how the myth of the past described this kind of thing.?Myth had family resemblance to the object oriented world. To our scientific truth squad, that was unacceptable. We are required to speak only in their scientific "truth". To these short fused hate mongers - he was not saying the myth was true or that his object oriented view of the world justified myth as fact. He was just using the imagery of myth to describe a language and world that was new to us all. As an object oriented programmer, I understand the object oriented world. Just approaching problems from an object oriented methodology provides an understanding of what is going on, that science or other approaches cannot. It is that the inner issues of a problem are part of the definitions and processing inherent in the object oriented methodology.
Actually the language of the time and of scientific philosophy of the time could not understand this new world because the new philosophy required recognizing something "unscientific" as real [objects] - but these are real to our mind and are part of reality. There are patterns in the universe. And you will ultimately need to burn down every city in the world since people will see the patterns anyway. And the patterns are real and the patterns are ultimately meaningful. But having real [not abstract} patterns in the universe is meaning - so there is no need for this silly existentialism.
So you can burn down cities. You can teach your truth [but actually false] philosophy forever - and combine that with wars, and famines, and plagues, and burning down cities, to make your point about being truly love - but we can know the real message loud and clear - by their deeds you shall know them.
The Apocalyptic
Or we can try a system of thought and action and philosophy that is based on meaning. And meaning is what the new Jung World is all about; because meaning is based on the patterns of the real Object Oriented World that surrounds us. This does not solve all our problems, but it gives us a useful and meaningful way to approach solutions to our problems.?And it should solve our biggest problem - just how many cities are the liberals going to burn down before we realize how many “real” people they are hurting. I thought arson was illegal; but I guess it is not illegal in Wisconsin and Minnesota if you burn down things that belong to the deplorable.
Spooky Action at a Distance
Hurricane Michael - particularly notice when, except for the tail, the hurricane is no longer over water - that point is, at least, the "slit" of this "process".
[Another side on these ideas - and more on the pragmatic side - is a page: The Catalog of Design Patterns. The table on the left side of this page has guidance on finding other pages of this online work. The top selection advertises books on the subject that you could buy - see the top subject Premium Content. These folks {and there are a host of efforts in this area} are redesigning how we picture the universe - but mainly to write code. When you first step into it it is a little shocking {they have bent the pictures a different way}. But the patterns they are picturing are based on reality - and demonstrate reality better than the scientifically abstracted Structured Analysis and Design.
The basis of these patterns {and many like them by other authors} is the new metaphysics I am pointing to {and in order to envision the universe itself - not just write code} -?I am saying - if these kine of patterns are applied to all the universe, then "This is the Universe" - the new metaphysics.
Developing Design Patterns
Patterns for Interaction Design are a similar form of reusable pattern code. These are gimmicks that you use over and over as you build web pages [in an object oriented background code]. See:?PatternFly Pattern Library for Interaction Design.
Example - Login Page
How to Write a Good Design Pattern is for developing code, but the process can reveal how, such object oriented entities or activities, can be the basis for philosophical content [in an object oriented philosophy]; whether that is as an entity or as an activity. See. particularly:?Where do design patterns come from??A little polymorphic thinking is needed to translate the development of reusable code, into the development of philosophical descriptions of reality - but the two are quite parallel patterns.]
Dona nobis pacem (Knon mit Publicum)
"Dona Nobis Pacem” - 'Grant Us Peace'
?
Just a Wolf Song at Twilight
There is something about the wolf calls that matches the strong winter surf at Waimea Bay.
Journey . . . Apocalypse . . .allegro . . .?
?
Oceans and oceans,
The sea, the sea, the sea,
Great waves crashing against the shore.
My dreams rush to and fro,
Like the sea.
Tearing wildly at the shore,
Like the sea.
Reality is unmoved and still,
Like the land.
Unmoved by the storms of time,
For the land contains the sea,
Like reality.
And the sea shapes the land,
Like a dream.
For reality contains a man,
And dreams move a man.
For reality contains the dreams of men,
But the dreams of men can change the world.
And I am always on the shore,
Between dreams and reality,
Between sleep and awakening,
But both are a face of God.
I dream of understanding,
But the understanding is not mine.
I dream of freedom,
But we were always free.
The sun rises!
The mists of morning clear away.
The story of life is new.
One awakes!
One can barely see -?
The song of God at the edge of my dreams.
Apocalypse
coda
I am a song of God.
I am a song God is singing.
A melody in history,
A song that is part of destiny...
It may be forgotten in the strains of strife.
It may be lost in the symphony of life,
Like a ripple on the sea.
But God will sing the song of me,
For this melody is my melody:
It is only for me!
Not to be sung for any other,
Forever,?forever,?forever !
Jerome Heath . . . Journey
Coyotes Litany or Liturgy
Amazing Grace in Cherokee
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
?
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
The books are sold by Google - you need to have or to create a Google Login
HASHTAGS: #Jung #science #philosophy #meaning #patterns #truth #DesignPatterns #harmonics?#ObjectOriented #Psalms #KJV #structured #LookingGlass?#metaphysics