First principles… for fun and prophet.

[Template]

There is no spoon.

You must slurp your soup directly from the bowl.

[Requia ☣]

That First Principles don't exist, basically.

Or we just made them up.

[LMNO]

Or we just made them up.

But who made them up first?

[MMIX]

LMNO your first post quoted a piece from the Chao Te Ching and it struck me that I hadn't been following its progress as well as I should. So I Googled it and after a couple hits on the magnum opus was an obit for
Edward Ching-Te Chao. I love serendipitous finds and as the headline was Edward Chao Rock star of Geology read it http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803834.html

theres a nice quote that seems relevant to some of the recent discussions on the forum

More of a practical scientist than a theorist, Dr. Chao was known for his field work and meticulous collection of evidence and documentation.

"I've been involved in controversial studies during my whole career," Dr. Chao told the Reston Times newspaper in 1992 after an asteroid was named for him. "People don't believe, but you do your hard work. It takes time to gradually convince them. You always have to find new, better evidence."

[Verbal Mike]

I'd saint him just over his name, but he actually sounds dreadfully boring.
Still, whatever, sainted.
"St. Chao?"
"St. Dr. (!!) Chao!!!"

[LMNO]

Heh.

For a more direct link, it's still in progress at: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=Sacred_Chao_Te_Ching

[MMIX]

Heh.

For a more direct link, it's still in progress at: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=Sacred_Chao_Te_Ching

Cool Thanks

[Captain Utopia]

I'd saint him just over his name, but he actually sounds dreadfully boring.

Boring? The field holds no real interest to me personally, but the way he went about it suggests a touch of class - evidence before ego:

Goresy, who was at the lecture in which Dr. Chao reported that the Ries Crater, thought to be volcanic, was born 15 million years ago when a meteor struck the Earth. "It was, in fact, a shock for all of us," Goresy said. "I still remember . . . a German scientist stood up and said: 'I have been working on Ries my entire career, for 30 years, and have turned over every rock. Here comes an American who's been there two days.' . . . [Dr. Chao] said 'Here is the evidence.' "

[Verbal Mike]

Okay, fair enough, I can see a golden apple when I read it. But he's already a saint, and I'm not about to canonize him again!

[Captain Utopia]

No one is saying that you NEED to, only that such a map or model is simply non-existent. You may want to read some Jean Baudrillard, I think he does a good job of covering the concept:

Not as detailed as his books, but here's a bit of his view: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html

It's going to take me a while to chew through that, but thanks for the link.

Keep in mind, Jean is arguing that the map has 'replaced' the territory in modern society... the simulation has replaced the actual. However, his argument works well to flesh out the whole map/territory dichotomy.

This has been a firefox tab I've come back to every few days since. I have to confess that I can't get that far into it. To me he comes across as a bit of a one-handed writer, and I can't follow the logical steps because to do so requires setting aside any pretence at requiring first principles and instead embarking on a journey of logical leaps which I can only assume is self-referential in conclusion. If his writing is itself supposed to be a simulacrum, then how is that different from any other cleverly constructed tautology?

Sorry - I tried and failed!