..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Ian Livingston]

Coupla items here.

> a space is something you can usefully define for a a variety of uses,
> and I suppose (although I'm not big on competition per se) there's a
> gentle contention among the usages for being taken up and utilized...

This is a move from the general idea of space as theoretical,
intangible, necessary for defining reality, and the question of the
mappability of multidimensional space. A space, as you introduce here,
is more like an unoccupied area. This is a useful subset of the
original question as regards ways of discussing limited unmapped
areas, but leaves the greater question unaddressed. Also, this is the
more utilitarian path of discussion of space, the other is, well,
airy.

Not taking exception, just sayin'.

Then,

> I generally start out thinking about the
> Edenic activity of naming things and how then that develops into
> combining names into thoughts and how even a batch of thought that
> contains things demonstrably wrong can be worth perusing, with my
> primary evidence being fiction (which I think I did say at the
> time)...
>

Thought I'd take this opportunity to plug an exceptional book by I
recently read, Looking For Spinoza, by Antonio Damasio. It is an
excellent discussion of the neurological workings of how the brain
goes about linking feeling, emotion, and idea to formulate maps of
reality. Damasio manages to discuss all this with consummate skill,
leading the poor doltish layman along through the systems by which our
brains process information in the way they do. I think the topic of
space and multidimensionality in general, gets a sort of lateral
treatment in the section on the mind / brain question and how the
physical systems move from relative grounding in the senses to the
abstracts of purely mental ideation. A very worthy read in which I
think someone like you, Michael, might find great pleasure. I say that
knowing we share a number of interests.


On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Michael Bailey
<michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> now that I'm a bit emotionally invested in this thread...
>
>
> which harkens back to something I said in a thread a few years ago
> about occult systems of knowledge and how I sort of enjoy reading up
> on theosophy and orgonomics and heck, even dianetics, and I remember
> writing "I'm glad those notions have to compete with calculus" which
> malignd picked up and responded to as if I were ranking them as
> equally valid and useful - to which he took vigorous exception, and I
> never found a really fitting reply, since I don't disagree with that
> per se, and have turned it over in my mind every so often...
>
> still don't really have one...I generally start out thinking about the
> Edenic activity of naming things and how then that develops into
> combining names into thoughts and how even a batch of thought that
> contains things demonstrably wrong can be worth perusing, with my
> primary evidence being fiction (which I think I did say at the
> time)...
>
> anyway, that's my two cents worth (another 2-space)



-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant