Is it a Mystery?
 
I was looking for a mystery poem to go with this tune, when I found this.
It was in a Humanities Core lesson at an edu. I don't have much practice at poetry,
but I am going to try to run with it...
I hope it works. :-)
Have a great day!
 
 
 
A Glimpse Through The Looking Glass
 
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined;
Who went to see the animal,
(Though all of them were blind),
-That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
 
The first approached the animal
And happening to fall,
Against its broad and sturdy side
And at once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the animal's very like a wall!”
 
The second, feeling of the tooth...
Cried, “Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an animal's very like a spear!
 
The third approached the animal
And happened to take-
The squirming nose within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see,” quoth he, “the animal's very like a snake!
 
:The fourth reached out an eager hand
And felt about the knee;
“What most this wondrous beast is like-
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
" 'Tis clear enough, the animal's very like a tree!"
 
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “Even the blindest man-
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an animal's very like a fan!"
 
The sixth no sooner had begun,
About the beast to grope;
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,“I see,”
quoth he, “the animal's very like a rope!"
 
And so these men of Indostan,
Disputed loud and long;
Each in his own opinion,
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
 
This argument they pursue:
" 'Tis a glimpse into the night...
So, it cannot be known,
Who is or isn't right?"
 
Indeed, it is a mystery,
Awesome to behold.
But can it not be known
As we are so often told?
 
If we make abstract thought,
Our stock-in-trade;
Do we use inductive
or deductive reasoning,
to attempt to make our case?
 
My friend, it is neither,
as 'tis not a philosophy we pursue;
But logic oriented analylics,
that we will peruse to subdue..
 
For the purpose of study is to continue on around the elephant....
 
Science does not mean "to know..." that is philosphical term. Science means "to comprhend." We must define first, what we attempt to comprehend.
 
A computing environment is "Integration of thought in a static structure, creating 'Virtual Environment'." -software driven static hardware. By analogy, the natural world is "Context Driven Dynamic Architecture Integrated to Automation..." -software driven dynamic hardware.
 
The context is embedded in the interdependencies of the Integrated Whole... The context drives the interdependencies that enable the integrated whole. To entangle is to hinder... to integrate is to enable. "It is in the learning of the thing, that we understand its requirements.
 
The context of an integrated computing environment of a PC is much more than the OS. It is only because Intel and Microsoft Engineers pre-integrated a number of hardware/software interdependencies that make the OS useable and the enablement of the integrated whole possible.
 
The context of a living entity is much more than the genetic database. It is only because of the pre-integrated interdependencies i.e. hormone/receptor sites, that the database useable and the enablement of the integrated whole possible. The context drives the interdependencies that enable the environment.
 
If one is studying Particle Physics and doesn't understand "threshold enablement", one will never extract gravity and thermodynamics from the lens of particle physics...the biologist or geneticist trying to interpret through a "cause and effect" lens, will never understand "genetic extraction/transcription/fold".
 
The Grand Unified Theory will never be an option, as the Grand Unified Theory is really "The Lens of The Integrated Whole." It is the Science of Context- the context driving the interdependencies that enable the integrated environment to  interdependent functions, purpose or automation.
 
Any integration is only possible because of 'Integration of thought to application or purpose.'
 
The Evolution Narrative attempts only to replace the biblical narrative of plot-who did it, when it was done and why it was done and attempts to present itself as a narrative of Science. That is an oxymoron. Science does not address questions of plot. Those are questions of philosphy, world view and religion. The Lens of Science is technical-composition, schematical interdependencies and integral dynamics. What is it made of? How does it fit together? How does it work?
 
Science does not promote plot oriented narratives, but Science can validate or invalidate any plot oriented narrative brought to the floor through use of the litmus test-cross-examination of the hypothesis by an opponent of the narrative...
 
The conceptual thesis when applied must work.
 
Integration cannot be randomly generated and does not operate by cause and effect. All integration is context driven and the interdendencies must be pre-integrated to enable the integrated whole.
 
Science  [personified] is analytic, anchored to the given known and has no politically or socially correct receptors.
 
-This is something so hard to say as I love Academics and Academic Environments. Professors and students alike are awesome. It is the external mandates from the Social Controllers that has destroyed  Academics from being all it could have been. -
 
 
Have a great day! 
 
 
 

Have a great day!
 


Loading, Please Wait...