Object Oriented Patterns
Programming Style or Method 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. Thus you can evaluate each step on a true or false or as 1 or 2 level. One area this is commonly done is in cognitive skills. The idea is to analyze cognitive processes - one Newton Only step at a time and follow this through some kind of basic problem solving. The cognitive problem is broken down into single steps with one input and one output each and the scientist invents a test to show how the volunteer solves that specific part of the problem [one input and one output for the sake of isolating specific tests into testable and re-testable formats]. There are numerous processes in present cognitive theories, where there are steps that have not yielded a continuation of nearby cognitive processes. Several inline tests work - but then there is a net tet that defies analysis. Those studies, then, can not prove that there is a cognitive activity that would process this step [or some similar step] described as necessary in the theory; or even process according to the overall theory itself. Much of cognitive theory has these gaps.
[Note: the answer to each inquiry in the series of tests is true or false. There is no deciding what the meaning is but only: is this cognitive test is true or is it false. Now meanings can be implied in side relationships, and that is the context. The meaning or context is often assumed and apparently obvious. ]
?Neurons and Connectivity
The point is that the Newton Only methodology is science as "we [scientists]" have conceived it. This kind of study and testing was a way of avoiding some entrepreneur claiming a solution [without scientific proof] and selling some gadget or method that was a quack. In one high school science class we all assigned to send in to some quack advertisement from a cheap [actually they are often free] magazine. The teacher brought in plenty of magazines we could use. The scientific method was meant to protect us from hoaxes; but in many areas the science is getting nowhere. People are not listening. So quacks prevailed and often succeed.
Health Quacks
Jung and the Object Oriented Mind
But Jung has developed a different concept of how the mind works, than the structured [Newton Only] cognitive theories. Archetypes are not operating as a singular processes. Archetypes are just a part of an object oriented mind - that implies an object oriented real world. Yes there are some singular steps, but the whole structure and the ultimate methods of processing are polymorphic.
Object oriented processing looks like this:
{Natural like Mandala developed from: Moonlight Sonata - Beethoven - Cymatics.?*** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv9UMJbU1kI }
It uses an Archetype based set of linked lists to process and store information. The Shadow processes new information into new Archetype polymorph. The data is analyzed through comparison with many polymorphs available to the Shadow immediately. Since so much data is available the process is similar to Peek-A-Boo methodology. Saving of data is like using hide in Hide and Seek. Retrieving is like seeking in that game. Shadow establishes the data and 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 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 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].
Brain Waves
On some theories of cognitive skills there is the "theoretic" need for an extra input, at some specific step. You recognize that you need some specific information that is not apparent in the input. That is because the only input to each 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 - 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]. Also, thinking Jung concepts through; the polymorphic structure of the mind, according to Jung, could support processing multiple inputs and outputs at certain steps. But that is part of our Peek a Boo and Hide and Seek for recognition and save and retrieve.
So there may be some "scientific or just real [but not Newton Only]" processes that do not follow one input one output. That 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 groups of entities [usually we are talking about molecules] that move [together] under some kind of rule that is imposed by the circumstances of a system [The Context].
A Huge Shorebreaker 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 see 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.].
- Click the Huge Wave Picture for the video. This is excellent video of wave action. They must have given some local photographers the ability to take this video, here. Pipeline is just down the road from here, and a center for very high quality surfing and wave video. Note that the front of the waves hit and "bounce" since they are hitting sand underneath a thin layer of water [the previous wave 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 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 accomplish this]. When I describe it that way, I just realized that the structured method was specifically meant to put totally Newton Only as the rule, in order to force Newton Only physics for work on solving systems analysis problems.
It was a grand scheme but it actually was too simple and theoretical to match most things we were programming about. So, to begin with, to do most 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 lack of context in the process was like poison. But lucky for us the poison just put us to sleep. It could not kill us because 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 and came back without context. So like the wicked queen we fooled ourselves that we and our solutions were "the best" - now that we saw in the reflection that our problem was meaningfulness and we were dissatisfied with that.
But the mirror image we viewed was still just science and the context 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. 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 Jung], is dangerous. The whole school is tattling on Jung.
[Note the things structured did right: The 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 when they get to that data they are not sure where it 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. But 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 = everyone else is ugly and stupid.
Object Oriented Programming
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. What was really happening in the real processes, and how can we describe that in language that could be converted to code that does the same thing. This is not another efficiency study with stop watches and mirrors. This actually was an attempt to provide a new language [and ultimately computer language] that would explain what was actually going on; but not just in the processes but in the things themselves.
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 played a part in how object oriented programs worked. The developers of object oriented programming did consult these cryptic 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 processing that copies the descriptions of Jung {in his more cryptic writings - in fact they could be used for an object oriented textbook - but you need to scrub his description of the processes using mythological stories}]. 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.
[The attempt to see how the world works, asy, when you are drawing pictures, actually captured something in how the world works for this development group. They were sensing that this way of breaking down structures of things and activities {and parallels in the 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 related to the fact that indicated its necessary relationship to how the real world works. The brain had to recognize or reflect the real world or we were all lost. So Jung added philosophy to the practicar processing the group was strong in. And Jung provides a psychological base for the work. Ultimately the programmer needs to recognize the psychology of 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 - and 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. The real world works this way, rather than like the scientific modules of structured programming, 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 was not working. Science, in fact, was too generalized to actually completely match reality.
This is the Universe
An important side of these ideas - and more on the pragmatic side - is pages like:?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 [true] 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.
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 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.
Through the Looking Glass
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 and, here in this work, greater visibility of our mental processing.
We use hermeneutics to define the dimensions of the looking glass context calculus. Thus we 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 [in general terms] was ultimately what had to be abstracted out to get the science abstraction. The context would interfere with a good science test. It is not much different from the collapse of a wave equation due to testing problem. But in physical science it was much less obvious.
These philosophical discussions 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 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. That is a direct interpretation of Jung. I also mention, here, the fact that I now consider the world as highly likely being 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 - just don’t eat those poisoned apples].
We are then continuing with the assumption that the process itself [that our program is going to be copying] is, or was meant to be, object oriented. The meant to be, is 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 be a justification for an object oriented worldview. Such a worldview questioned the generality of myth. 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.
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. 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 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. 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] 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.
So our minds fit the world that is out there [meaning object oriented]; if we can just learn to use our capabilities correctly. This object oriented is 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 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. 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.
This is 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 in 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 missed. It resolves the frayed edges.
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 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.
Where do we Find Object Oriented Processes
Definitely if there is human activity the processes used will take on some object process characteristics. This would be at different levels of object orientation depending on backgrounds and training of the people involved. There is a tendency by people to structure things in an object oriented way - some training improves, and standardizes, the result. Others have had training in other abstraction techniques that could interfere with object orientation. But the science training instead of object orientation did have a purpose.
There are other 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. 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.
There are object oriented lessons everywhere in living things. But there are 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 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. 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].
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 there is no science to it. It is a different abstraction. But this is part of reality and must and will be seen as “together” in nature. There is 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. Like the owner planted that tree there. Sometimes a particular structured solution can be over-ruled 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, aso, from specific 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
The Meaning of Science
The problem here is that there is no “meaning” in science.The patterns of science are all abstract, as needed for science. These are well thought out as a basis to manufacture a world of abstract patterns, but those patterns of science are just abstract. It is something that can only hold meaningful patterns. Science 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 “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 garbage. 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".
领英推荐
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 with the verse that applied near the bonfire; 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.
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.
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 was not 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 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 is, was quite closed but not quite the total narrowness 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 this book [probably without mentioning the book] are used by existential gurus to show how there is no meaning. The effort is more disgusting since the new science is Newton Only. Newton Only was developed to make it totally unbiased which means it cannot be the basis for meaning. Science is supposed to be unbiased; and scientist know that they are not unbiased; so they have agreed to standards for "limiting" bias checking to 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 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]. 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 [that cloud covers everything], we grab a"philosophy" and now "You [this is gnosticism since you are refuting the god or gods of this earth and choosing god from some other list] - Are God!" 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 mythe 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 already hewn to prove something and it could be used to clear up or even prove this 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 understood the object oriented world for how it changed the way things were abstracted to a totally different way. And they could learn that from him. 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 many of his co-workers used; who liked to use it to allow more creativity in the work. The problem with Campbell was Jung had moved his worldview from abstraction science, to abstraction 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 he 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 Possible [can be done]; But that does not include every Conceivable category. Check that out.
Programming Method and Newton Only
So, since the real world is object oriented, or so we feel; then obviously, Newton Only is not the doall and endall for everything. Now some object methods will look like Newton Only singular processing - often only for a short term - and only if you are pointed to the right object. But most of the hard work in object oriented programming involves objects conversing [like Turkey Day tlk story, but involved with the program process]. And the conversations are hard to duplicate in singular logic because they communicate a lot of context as well as content.
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; that hampers just conversation, itself. So what do I want in a university: a commitment to intelligent conversation [open conversation = intelligence according to Turing; or strictly holding to the script from the front main office Gestapo = ignorance.]. My strong belief is, where there is political correctness, you might be able to have Newton Only; but you will not 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 and not shut 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 mighi only used for context] makes the conversation medieval.
Meaning as the Basis of Philosophy
We are back to my earlier proposal. Our love affair with truth and scientific truth has led to a disaster. We can continue to forge our “love” based on heavy-handed methods and maybe burn down St. Paul this time. But, after all, 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 more about hate than love. Ultimately we 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 science - and truth philosophy? You prove your truth is truth by destroying 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 your truth is cold and hard and inflexible. And, you 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. To our scientific truth squad, that was unacceptable. We must speak only in our 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. 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.
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 [and we can know the real message loud and clear - by their deeds you shall know them].
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.
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.
This does not solve all our problems, but it gives us a useful and meaningful way to approach solutions to our problems. But 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.
[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
Also see:?How to Write a Good Design Pattern. This 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.]
Spooky Action at a Distance
Hurricane Michael - notice where, except for the tail, the hurricane is no longer over water - that point is, at least, the "slit" of the "process".
Dona nobis pacem (Knon mit Publicum)
"Dona Nobis Pacem” - 'Grant Us Peace'
Give me that Old Time Religion
HASHTAGS: #Jung #science #philosophy #meaning #patterns #truth #harmonics?#ObjectOriented #structured #LookingGlass?#DesignPatterns
An Afterthought on Newton Only
Newton Only is also an attempt to make the intelligence of the educated community match the intelligence of the computer [that was the thinking way back when the computer was first introduced]. My take on that is - If the computer can do it and understand it, we will study it; but if the computer cannot do it or understand it, the computer makes that out of date, so we won’t study it.
The point is that the Newton Only test as meant to be a form of digital logic checker.
Computer logic [digital logic] is like this:
Philosophically this becomes:
So the logic of our Newton Only culture is strongly polarized. There is no middle ground for people who want their logic to be based on the likes of Newton Only; since, to them, this makes everything match the computer. But note in all this time the computer community has actually found ways to work around this problem, with particular computer processing [the computer is above this now - they had to solve this in the computer or the computer applications would be a mess - like philosophy is now]. This was solved mostly due to agile like processing during computer development [that allowed the users to insist on understandable apps] and the use of object oriented programming that carry a lot of context with each object so the polarization is muted toward reality-like talk story kine of processing logic. But the folks in the academic circles [who think object oriented programming is just another form of structured {Newton Only} programming {They just don’t understand!}] do like the silly and destructive polarization; since then, they do not have to debate their ideas. Instead they insist on the Newton Only digital-like logic results [so it makes them {they think} equivalent to a computer] and their opponents are: OFF, FALSE, BAD, and EVIL [add OUT OF DATE - but who are the ones that are OUT OF DATE {They just don’t understand!}].
This is easily the most narrow minded and selfish view of the world that anyone could have: The universe, and whatever is part of it, is singular; everything is polarized by the supposedly digital basis - there is only true and good, or false and evil; everything is absolutely simple or it doesn't actually exist; and there is no Sanity Clause. These are the most narrow minded and selfish people who ever lived on the face of earth.
The worst part about this is the total lack of forgiveness in the PC community and especially from their leaders. That is why I almost puke when they start their PC sermons at a supposedly Christian church. Christianity is forgiveness; PC means no forgiveness - ever. The two ultimately have NOTHING IN COMMON. If they believe in Political Correctness they cannot be Christian.