Quoteworthy
...quaecumque sunt vera, quaecumque pudica, quaecumque justa, quaecumque sancta, quaecumque amabilia, quaecumque bonae famae, si qua virtus, si qua laus disciplinae, haec cogitate.
-- Phil. 4:8
Delightfully Lost and Human
Caesius
Sidetracked
Connections
Now, imagine this colossal tree of word hierarchy, its branches numerous, branching to finer branches still down and below. I always wonder, what is at the top of this tree? In other words, the ultimate hypernym, the word that include every possible meaning?
The answer is probably different for every person, but to me almost everything can be summarised as 'connections' and 'information':
Language is a means of transmitting information, connecting a person with another.
Science is the study of the laws governing observed systems. Information gathering; connecting hypotheses and observations.
( Basically all -ologies are all about 'information' or more appropriately, knowledge, since the etymology itself suggests logos [λόγος] )
Philosophy is literally 'love of wisdom', which means it is about, again, 'information'. It goes without saying that epistemology, which is a subset of philosophy, is also all about 'information' or knowledge.
Love is all about relationships, people say. Love itself is already a massive hypernym, considering its vast meaning. But then, 'connections' is still a bigger one.
Metaphors are all about drawing parallels; making connections. More about that here.
If you think about it, it is only natural for everything to be distilled into knowledge and relationships. Our brains themselves are networks of information, linked in numerous permutations. Our memory is triggered by things associated to that particular memory.
The worldwide web itself has garnered the current level of success because it's all about connections and information, acting like a global brain, each of us its neuron. Note all the hyperlinks on this page, enabling you to view related pages with a click.
Update: There is a really nice diagram to see: The Internet. It is also good to depict the aforementioned colossal tree of the word hierarchy.
And now, when the world is more interconnected than ever, it is important to make use of it. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown talked about confronting "the challenges of poverty, security, climate change and the economy" in the recent TEDGlobal2009. Watch it; and be aware of what we can do that was impossible only several years back.
Six Degrees of Separation
I read somewhere that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people. Six degrees of separation between us and everyone else on this planet. The President of the United States, a gondolier in Venice, just fill in the names. I find that extremely comforting, that we're so close, but I also find it like Chinese water torture that we're so close because you have to find the right six people to make the connection. It's not just big names—it's anyone. A native in a rain forest, a Tierra del Fuegan, an Eskimo. I am bound—you are bound—to everyone on this planet by a trail of six people. It's a profound thought: how Paul found us; how to find the man whose son he claims to be, or perhaps is, although I doubt it. How everyone is a new door, opening into other worlds.
-- John Guare, Six Degrees of Separation
I'm just a single voice
What can I do to erase
All this misunderstanding
All this anarchy
Six degrees of separation
Sometimes it's so hard to see
That we are not alone in this
-- Corrinne May, Free
When I ponder on why people find this concept appealing, I think it can be summarised concisely as thus: the notion of shrinking 6.5 odd billion people to 6 degrees -- what a dwindle! Our enormous globe, suddenly implodes to network of no more than six connections between the nodes. This big shrink, this oversimplification can be understood without taxing the minds. There is no need to imagine how do billions of people crowded together look like, like the spell of dizziness when you look up at the vast expanse of the sky, whose boundaries you cannot fathom.
However, while offering a concept even a child can understand, it is also almost impossible to prove or disprove this notion.
Let's scrutinise this concept closely:
As of 2006, the estimate for the global population stands at 6.53 billion. Now, let us assume one-way network. This means we zoom at one person and view the network of acquaintances around him. If we let average numbers of a person's acquaintances to be n, then
n^6 = 6.53 x 10^9
Solving for n, we get roughly 43. So, on average, a person only needs to know 43 people for the whole world to be interconnected. So few?
We have to take a look at some assumptions:
Firstly, this assumes that there is no social barriers. Anybody is free to mix around with anybody. With the current globalisation era, the reality is becoming closer to the assumption. Still, special circumstances like cultural isolation, geographical restraint, language barriers, etc. may come into play here.
Secondly, society is dynamic. Relationships are broken, created, renewed; and we are always moving about, geographically or otherwise, as in births and deaths. The figure 6.53 billion is a frame freeze, which vacillates across space and time. While it is true that statistically speaking population size doesn't vary that much, we are talking about the dynamism of the exchanges of communication, which cannot be easily included in the equation.
Thirdly, we assume that all relationships are on acquaintance level. In actuality, we have stronger and weaker relationships than that. You see, if we have strong relationship, say family, we tend to stick more to the stronger relationships, while the assumption suggests that you stroll in the park and make acquaintances to strangers along your way.
Fourthly, we assume that on average we have the same amiability level. In truth, there are introverts and extroverts and the spectrum in between. And this is of course related to the previous assumption. Our personalities influence on the combinations of strong or weak relationships that we have.
...
In the end, even with the assumptions laid bare, it is still impossible to see whether the fact that everyone is separated by at most 5 people in between, is true. In the end it is just romanticisation, an idealisation, like a pretty gift wrapped in fancy ribbons, but without utility whatsoever.
I believe what the world unity can not only be achieved by merely an ideal. When we get right down to it, we have to eliminate prejudice, promote equality, educate the people, help one another in need, play a joke on each other a little,
while keeping in mind that we are all tightly connected, every two of us having no more than five people in between.
Update: How about taking a look at the Internet itself to picture the complexity of connections? Wait patiently for it to load...
Context is all
The above question is one of the ten prescribed topics for TOK essay, IB Nov '07 session.
I don't know why but I have since regretted not picking this question for my TOK essay. It is one of the shortest -- it gives a lot of space of interpretation. That's the tantalising part. And the difficult part, too.
Enough wallowing in regret, then; let me try to tackle this, without the restriction of the mark scheme.
To comprehend such a statement, it is only appropriate for us to be acquainted with the context surrounding this statement.
This statement appears more than once in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Set in dystopian post-nuclear age , the novel gives a glimpse through the eyes of Offred, a handmaid. For Offred, what utterance of "context is all" could mean? I believe for the bulk of it, she demanded context to make sense of her surroundings. You see, Republic of Gilead where Offred lived in, was still in the midst of transforming to a dystopia. Offred could recall her life before in (presumably) the United States. The sudden change in situations confused her. Life didn't used to be like this, so what now? That is the state of mind Offred is in. When her old life, her 'context', has been snatched away, she needs a new one.
But, what exactly is context? We have the vague idea of it. A bigger picture, a larger body of knowledge, the plane on which we define things. Let's extend the metaphor about the picture a bit more. Say you have a jigsaw puzzle. Take a piece. Describe. Well, it has interesting shape and fancy colours, but otherwise it is a piece of crap. Assemble the whole thing and tadaa...! You've got yourself a clear picture (Disclaimer: depends on your jigsaw puzzle picture. If you bought an abstract picture then not my fault). Same thing with pixels: A pixel means nothing but with other pixels on the screen, then you have some meaning to it.
One way to look at it is to differentiate between two things that may make up a context: the laws and the facts (or truths, if you like, but that word is so philosophically loaded that one is reluctant to use). For example, let's look at Euclidean geometry. The "laws" are the five axioms postulated by Euclid. Those are the rules of the game. Now, restricted by these rules we can construct infinite geometrical shapes -- these are the "facts". So you see that the laws provide the plane of existence (pun on Euclidean plane geometry intended) on which it supported the existence of the objects, the facts. You could immediately see how this explanation makes perfect sense to mathematicians and scientists: Yes. Precisely because they deal with laws and objects governed by those.
Another way to look at what context really is, is back to our jigsaw puzzles. Coherence is the keyword. Mismatched jigsaw pieces can only mean that there are other pieces form other set contaminating yours (of course there alternatives like your or the manufacturer's stupidity, but well you don't want to consider them, do you?). This approach is clearly different from the previous one. Some facts that agree with each other can make up a larger body of knowledge. For instance, two facts: "A attended Dr. X's class yesterday" and "There was Dr. X's class yesterday". Coherent, isn't it? Let's say we change the second statement to "Dr. X's class was cancelled yesterday", then the first statement must be false; a mismatched jigsaw piece, or something else entirely.
To unify the above two approaches, picture it this way: there are laws which are the foundations of all truths. But these truths are interconnected in intricate way with one another, like a mesh; they are not beads neatly arranged on a plane; picture the beads in a kind of neural-level-intricacy network. Now, for convenience, sometimes it is easier to take a look at a bead by zooming at few beads surrounding the one being viewed. This is our jigsaw puzzle. Or look at the more fundamental, in the truest sense of the word: the laws. (To complicate matters, these laws are actually are layered cakes also. For example, in Euclidean geometry we have 5 axioms, then we still derive a whole lot of theorems, which in a sense, are also laws.)
It is worth reiterating here that contexts come in different sizes. You choose how big or small it is according to practicality. Actually, we can classify people according to how they use the above two approaches. Natural scientists look at the physical laws that govern physical bodies. Human scientists limit their scope of context to society and history. Psychologists restrict it even more to human minds and interactions. Mathematicians also look at the fundamentals like natural scientists; but then they go and create their own contexts (e.g: imaginary plane).
By now you should have already understood that the word 'context' also carries hefty epistemological weight.
So: context is all. Without context, independent "truth" cannot be considered truth. There must be a framework surrounding it, supporting it, then the "truth" is construed. Here is a good example:
What is this? (Warning: trick question)
The answer? You've guessed it. Depends on the context.
To Greeks and physicists, it is clearly a lambda, as in λόγος 【logos】 isn't it?
But my Chinese friends beg to differ. It's rù as in 进入【jìnrù】 (enter; get into).
Who is correct? Both are correct in their respective contexts, aren't they?
Lastly, let's address that old philosophical question:
If a tree in the woods fells and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Assessing from utility and usefulness point of view, the answer is: it doesn't. Or more precisely: I don't give a damn, because it makes no difference whether it does -- there is no added value whatsoever. This sounds like a jest, but anthropocentric view like this is actually more common than what most people think. To simply limit one's context to what are useful to humans is certainly practical, but it is dangerous when one is unaware of it.
To a physicist, the answer is quite clear: it does. Sound waves travel through the medium of air. Our ears are just detectors of these sound waves. If there are no human ears around, then just use other kind of detectors to confirm the vibration in the air that is the sound wave.
Do you see how the above example make use of the different scopes of contexts?
Back to our heroine Offred. She desperately needed context: to construe things around her; to glean truths from lies.
I believe we also desperately do.
The Construction Site
About nearby construction site
slowly towering, gaining height, growing under the crane
been years
But it stopped.
The crane stopped moving, the construction halted
The monument standing in glory and silence
Is the fund not enough -
Are the workers on strike -
The contractor went bankrupt -
Ought to be, ought to be.
Apathy, slightly disdain-tinged
(Waste of resources, poor-planned...)
- Wait -
What if the progress continues inside?
No manifestation outside
but developing nonetheless
People judge by appearance
not heart
People see Goliath
not David
The magnificence of one's heart
is not readily at sight
obscured by the outside
Judging a book by its cover
is not getting very far
For it is the heart
that matters most.
Refrigerator
[hmmm...]seeking a night breeze
[hmmm...]here
[hmmm...]was a sweaty night
[hmmm...]with stuffy feeling in the air
[hmmm...]though not bad the quietness
[hmmm...]taking out a cold drink
[hmmm...]the sensation rushed in
[hmmm...]on the parched throat
[hmmm...]river flows on the Sahara
[hmmm...]Mind still
[hmmm...]being sorted out
[hmmm...]Considering
[hmmm...]Like those sudden moments
[hmmm...]when you are wondering
[hmmm...]why?
[hmmm...]what?
[hmmm...]who?
[hmmm...]am I here. am I doing. Am I really.
[hmmm...]no answer -as usual-
[hmmm...]like a spiral without end
[hmmm...]the train of thought
[hmmm...]continued nonetheless
[hmmm...]On and on
[hmmm...]and on
[hmmm...]for a while
[hmmm...]
[hmmm...]drowning --
[hmmm...]in the sea of thought
[hmmm...]
[hmmm...]
[Stop.] At that moment
I realise
that the silence is an illusion
The constant humming
had been there all along
droning in a monotone
now it's resting
till it repeats its chorus again
Has my life
been a drone?
Is the picture
a monochrome?
And would stop occasionally
to repeat the same monotony-
again and again and again?
Or is life
a take-for-granted?
that when it will have stopped
then the loss
will come rushing in
seep into hearts
of family, friends
acquaintances even
perhaps
depends on the life led itself
was it a good one
was it a bad one-
Whichever it is
I learn something
My life
would not be a repetition
not a monochrome nor a monotony
So that when
I stop humming
there would be no regrets
...
The peace now
seems real
though there may be
other hummings
I'm still oblivious of
A sweaty night, a stuffy air
Now back to sleep
Spectrum
The most prominent example would be good and evil. What about the grey areas? Most ethical issues are difficult to categorise into either one, if possible at all.
However, we often like to separate things into two polar opposites for convenience. In Secondary level Chemistry we are taught that three distinct types of bonds: ionic, covalent and metallic. But in tertiary education, we are taught that they are just the tips of three triangles, thus they are not distinct but a three-ended spectrum. For convenience, students are taught a simplified concept then the concept is built up.
But again, since everything can be considered a spectrum to some extent (if you understand, pardon the pun), that consideration can be abused. For example, I once heard a speaker talking about how everyone is crazy. Of course this was shocking, but once he explained that everyone is crazy to different degree, you understand that he is talking about sane-insane spectrum. Everyone is placed between the two ends and if you take the perspective from the insane end of course everyone is insane, right? So his statement was justified, but for what purpose? The only purpose is to make people realise that things lie in spectra but the talk that time had no such philosophical context. <*Sigh*> Context is all, Margaret Atwood says.
So I already give you two ends of a spectrum: one end is the ignorance that things are spectra and the other end is the full realisation that everything is a spectrum and overuse of this realisation.
So? Pick your place in that spectrum. Don't forget the advice of the wise - everything in moderation.
A Little More about Higher Dimensions
[This is related to my earlier post, Plato's Shadows and Higher Dimensions - please read that first...]
Flatland was a novel about dimensions. The narrator, a square, lives is 2-D world. Suddenly he got a visit from Lord Sphere from 3-D world. Lord Sphere showed him 1-D world in a dream. Square met the king of the 1-D world who do not believe in the existence of higher dimensions. Square tried to explain - to no avail - that there is another direction; that the world is not a single line but a flat plane. When Lord Sphere tried to explain 3-D world (space), Square was as stubborn and unbelieving as the king. Lord Sphere demonstrated things that can only be done in higher dimension: disappearing and reappearing, seeing the inside of Square, changing size (small to large circle as seen in 2-D world.) Then Lord Sphere reminded him to his experience with the king. Lord Sphere finally brought Square to space and finally Square believe Lord Sphere.
As mentioned above, Square is the reflection of us in the 3-D world. We may be unbelieving about existence of the higher dimension as Square was. Indeed Square rebuked Lord Sphere when the latter said that there is no higher dimension than 3. Looking at Square and Sphere we may be conceited and he looked ridiculous but there is a possibility that creatures of 4-D are looking at us the same way.
We can't say that fourth dimension does not exist because we cannot see it. [if we of 3-D world can see it, then it is not of 4-D world, duh...]
In a book titled 'Constants of Nature' (by John Barrow if I am not wrong...) it is said that our world that has 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is the most stable. Too high up or down, it will be unstable. Again, this is only a prediction of us in the 3-D world trying to perceive higher dimension. Can we imagine that there is another axis in our space beside x, y, z? Imagine you are a square and all your life you are moving along the x-y plane when out of the blue revelation comes and you are told that there is another direction: the z-axis.
Indeed it is hard to imagine the 4-D world. It is possible to predict the number of vertices and sides of objects of higher dimensions, though.
Let us consider a square of 2-D world.
In 1-D world it is a line.
In 3-D world it is a cube.
In 0-D world it is a dot.
Follow? Just remember casting shadow reduce dimension by one.
| Dimensions | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Vertices | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
|
| Sides | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
|
For number of vertices, the geometric pattern tells us that a 4-D 'cube' should have 16 vertices.
Likewise, the arithmetic pattern of number of sides tells us that a 4-D 'cube' (the proper term is tesseract or octachoron) has 8 sides.
I have difficulty imagining this: after all we live in 3-D space; but isn't it interesting to know?
Relationship
It's about this rope;
Well, may be steely wire for some
Others, fragile as spider thread
See the gradation of strength?
Binding like a chain,
Or loose like rubber string
Eros, Philia, Agape, Storge
See?
My own
is unusual
A bit of mix up
between those Love brothers
very tightly I hold to my end
the other end seems loose
See? - No you don't
Indeed,
A riddle for you and me
A riddle for humanity
...
And your answer?