Gvildenu | Mintys / MichaelKazanjian

Yra lygtis: Gyvenimas tai Dievo gerumas, o amžinas gyvenimas, tai Dievo ir gerumo atskyrimas. Kaip tai susieti su Michael Kazanjian sandara?

Let us consider four statements from social philosophy, written in English. What would be the mathematical equivalent. This would be so that we can "teach" math or acquaint students and adults with math, who are math-phobic, or hate math. I am somewhat math phobic, though I do not hate it. Math is simply not my forte.

# 1 The state is all. The state is not a function of citizen. Dictatorship. Big Brother. This is applied monism; one substance exists. The set is alone. Extreme communitarianism.
# 2 The state is a function of citizen. Democracy. This is applied phenomenology or a continuum of two sets intersecting. State and citizens intersect, influence each other. Modified communitarianism.
# 3 The state is a set distinct from the citizen. Caste system; Royalty or kingdom. This is applied dualism. Two sets exist, mutually exclusive.
#4 The state is purely a function of the citizen. Anarchy, libertarianism. This is applied existentialism, also Contract Theory. Only the set of citizens exists. Government is reducible to the people.

I hope I am stating the statements above correctly. I see the metaphysical views of monism, phenomenology (mind is embodied), dualism, and existentialism, and I sense that in monism the one substance is not a function of anything; in phenomenology the mind appears to be continuous with and is something of a "function" of the body; in existentialism, the individual or self is alone, and there is no standard substance functioning with the self.

This taxonomy from monism through existentialism is applicable to epistemology, art and science, teleology, ethics, and a hundred applied themes or taxonomies. For example, science alone, science as function of art, science distinct from art (Snow rebels against the Two Cultures), and art or humanities alone.

Michael

Vasario 18 d., 2012 m. My aim in this "math expressions for English (etc.) statements is interdisciplinary. I wish to bring together the arts and sciences, literally. The liberal arts are traditionally brought together more or less juxtapositionally. That is, by Theme Courses not divided into disciplines, or the juxtaposing of scientific and artistic (broadly speaking) disciplines. This approach perhaps "works" as opposed to "fails." My aim is this. There appears to be a language or concept equivalent between math and all other disciplines. In any discipline, or conversation we typically say "my activities tonight depend on, or are a function of, my available time, my money, etc." We also might say "my activities, or something, do not depend on anything." We can also say, "church are state are separate." Are these translatable as two distinct, nonintersecting sets? These statement seem equivalent to a math formula that my activities tonight are or are not a function ("F") of something else. Thus, students who hate or fear math, or see it as something distinct from normal human thought, would see that a typical statement can be translated into math.

Consider the following. Any language can be translated or interpreted in other languages, ethnically speaking. German is translated into French, Russian, Greek, Armenian. Polish can be translated into Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. Suppose we can "translate" any of these ethnic, national, or geographic languages into a mathematic formula? Math, then, might be another language. Also, math may be then "unfying" the arts and sciences. This could be approach to resolving the Two Cultures of Snow. One word of advice. I am not advocating logical positivism. I am not attempting to eliminate alphabetical language. That may be impossible, but clearly it appears inappropriate, unethical, and the like.

Vasario mėn. 20d., 2012 m. Thank you. I need to read and reread this since math is not my field, hence my reaching out to mathematicians. I have a feeling you understand what I am asking. Your last words, dealing with science and art, are a bit confusing but only because I do not, again, know the math. I must reread them.

Yes, mathematicians have suggested its tightness and quantitativeness to me. I need to clarify "state," "citizen," their relations, non-relations, etc.

More later. Thanks for the helpful questions and comments. Keep them coming.

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/1400 | Kovo mėn. 4 d., 2012 m.]] Thank you for your interest. Let me try to explain. Liberal arts and sciences, or general education, attempt to teach students the unity of knowledge, of nonquantitative "art" and quantitative "science." Most liberal arts programs do this through giving students unrelated courses in the disciplines: physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, English, math, psychology, and the like. Some colleges and universities do team teaching; there is the learning community program; many colleges and universities attempt "thematic" core courses where the course is not in terms of a specific, traditional discipline.

CP Snow has said we have fragmented disciplines from each other, but especially on the larger scale of science from humanities. I have been attempting to do a philosophy book (with a colleague), where one version is the traditional view, but another would mean something new: a book, in English, but with an added touch. That is, in English, we use phrase such as "my activities tonight will depend on my available money." Thus, my activities "depend on" or are "a function of" my money. That sounds mathematical. Or, what we do tomorrow depends on the weather: thus, our activities tomorrow are a function of the weather. Very mathematical.

I have concluded that philosophy has sufficiently broad positions including structure or monism (structure is not a function of the self or human existence), phenomenology (structure of objectivity is a function of subjectivity or existence), dualism (object and subject are unrelatedl, or two disjoint sets where the object is not a function of a separate set called subjectivity), and existentialism and the like (structure or objectivity is merely a function of subjectivity). We find this four fold paradigm in social science (state alone, state as a function of citizens, state and citizens are two discrete classes, state is a mere function of the citizen as in libertarianism or anarchy). Or again, science is not a function of art but rather art is reducible to science; science is a function of art; science and art are disjoint sets as CP Snow warns against; science is a merely function of art.

If we can find math symbols such as function or sets in which describe philosophical and art/science disciplinary ideas, this would show how to bring together arts and sciences through common four fold themes, but also express these in math symbols. This could help overcome math phobia, but also show that any ethnic language (German, English, Italian, etc.) is not only translatable into every other ethnic language, but also how math and ethnic languages can be translated into each other. At the least, it would show how ethnic languages can be translated into math, or math symbols.

I hope I have somewhat explained my point.

Kovo mėn. 5 d. My interest in the mathematical symbols expressing philosophical statements, indeed extends throughout parallel statements from all disciplines. This four fold (later, perhaps more) taxonomy involves the isomorphic/homologic foundations of interdisciplinarity.

My example thus far has been science and art, and state and citizen. Additional ones include singular (science, art), plural (sciences, arts), and the like. For instance, analytic philosophy alone, analysis as function of existential thinking, analysis-existential dualism (disjoint sets), and analytic reducible to existential thinking (almost zero analytic, almost all poetry). More: lab work alone, lab work as a function of classroom thinking, lab and classroom as disjoint sets, and labs reducible to and not dependent on classroom work. Data as no function of theory, data as function of theory, data and theory as disjoint sets, and data as mere function of theory (no data). Manual work as no function of thinking, manual as function of thinking, manual labor and thinking as disjoint sets, and manual work as mere function of thinking (no manual work). God as no function of history (pantheism), God as function of history (theism, historical God), God and history as disjoint sets, God as sum of history (atheism?). Specialization as no functiion of general education, specialization as function of general education, specialization and liberal arts as disjoint sets, and specialization as sum of liberal arts (no specialization). Internships as function of campus study or book learning, internships as function of book learning, internships and book learning as disjoint sets, and internships as mere function of book learning.

You can tell there are always dualities, or dual themes. That, per se, is excluisive of the math part. The math part is simply my having discerned the phrase "function of" or "depends on," and a way of mathematically expressing the dual relations. By seeing the four fold (for now) isomorphs throughout the arts and sciences, we can learn an isomorph and see basic structures of each discipline. This is akin to systems thinking and Boulding, etc. Physics, theology, history, sociology, econ, political science, philosophy, are not inherently distinct disciplines, but rest on certain homologies.

Balandžio 26 d., 2012 m. Thanks for this insight. As soon as I have some time, I hope to present my statements to a mathematician I know, to see what she can do with the statements.

The insight you present is most intriguing. I need to think about it, and it shows how a dual theme can manipulate each of the two ideas