Monday, October 1, 2007

the Deepest Grey


12:37 pm, today is becoming more & more unstable


5:17 pm, Do i believe that all human activity can be fully described & understood through some combination of P, C, S, & A?
if yes to 1. but no to 2.- explain why i dissagree, be specific.
if yes to 1. and yes to 2. the demonstate through 3-5 examples.
if no to 1.- why dont i understand, explain.

*Oct. 11th- quiz on definitions

In answer to the question asked above, I feel I do understand the four definitions of P, C, S, & A. I would have to disagree that ALL human activity can be explained through one, or a combination of, the four categories. I feel that though every action I have analyzed so far may be explained in this manner, ALL of human activity is a very large concept. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but philosophically speaking, ill only be able to say “maybe” because I may never know ALL of human activity.

Though to contradict myself, one can argue that all human activity can be classified as science upon the first time performing that act. As it’s a step outside behavior and could be called experimentation or exploration, then after the first time performing the act, every time after may be considered craft. As it’s repeating the steps learned to achieve the same outcome. So in a sense, ALL human activity can be explained with at least two of the four.

*Some interesting points made today
// *To paint a house, then to "paint" a house, we go from craft to art because we paint the physicality of a house.
If we don’t have standard symbols we cant communicate with other people. *Visual is better for specifics, but verbal is better for general.

*We have two kinds of experience. 1. "Conventional", agreed upon, an ordinary understanding EX: bagels are with the bread, but I don’t think to ask why. / Lexical definition

*Science- examination of physical world, intellectual/ disciplined mental activity *Practical/ practice doing things
EX. Making the first bulb is science, making the same bulb over for a use is craft
*Science is not the bulb; science is the act of making the bulb, a process of examination

*Phil.- the examination of self-exploration
EX. I can understand "light" with phil.(imagination), but not science, yet.

*P-A *A-S *C-S
*P-C *A-C

*the practical use of science is basically craft

The act I have decided to explore today is Cleaning. Cleaning is Mostly craft, I say this because you know what tools to use to get the object or room clean and you know what pattern of steps it takes to get it to that level. Cleaning can also be art in the sense that a clean living space or work area is an expression of self-organization, or an expression of self-conduction. Science can be employed a number of ways, through the chemicals used to clean the area, or on a more heightened level, the first time you use a new tool or you try a new pattern of cleaning you are exploring and using science. The only category that falls short here is philosophy, it has its presence, but in a more subtle sense. The thought or idea to have a clean environment can lead to a better frame of mind, as where a dirty area can induce a poor feeling.

-MAC

1 comment:

M E Achtermann said...

The main question before us at this point is what is the relationship between the self, the outer world (that is, the non-self), and philosophy, art, craft, and science.

If philosophy, art, craft, and science are all operations of the self, then we can move on to another question, which is whether any part of the human experience falls outside of these categories.

I think briefly, I am inclined to find that while not all of the operations of philosophy, art, craft, and science are within the self purely, this is their source.

Clearly, we cannot make absolute statements about all human activity.

It may be that in the desire to "fit" actions to philosophy, art, craft, science, I have been willing to "stretch" the definitions of these four so that all can fit. So, we come back to the basic problem of definition.