ON A RELATED NOTE
As an example, Skye and I have been friends for a long time. And I am keenly aware that his ‘senses’ find different experiential perspectives ‘interesting’ in the same way I find first causes interesting. In many ways I find myself very similar to Skye, in this one way very different. I actually CANT empathize with the experiential models, which is why i am sure I learned to look for the unifying principles that are common between them. I’m just aware that these differences in senses assist us in developing a division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy.
How I interpret this difference is between the subjective understanding others, and objective understanding universal first causes. Is one superior to the other? I am more interested in the question whether it is easier to lie, decieve, and manipulate with one or the other. In the sense of suepriority these different ends of the spectrum are differeent tools for different purposes, and so neither is superior in sense of exploraiton and explanation.
But when it comes to falsifying (decidability) the first cause defeats the subjective understanding.
Individuals appreciate different aesthetic experiences, but as a group we must resolve differences by objective means (or rather we seem to prefer to, just as we prefer to have male craftsmen and bosses but female parents and peers.) We do so because understanding of the subjective experience of others helps us cooperate, and envison possibilities; and understanding of the objective content of the universe helps us act together to change that universe, and to resolve disputes between us.
This is the diference between creativity and decidability. Between justification and criticism. Beween imagination and truth.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-20 02:53:00 UTC