14 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2024
    1. When D. T. Suzuki came to this country later, he said he had a great realization contemplating the Japanese expression, “The elbow does not bend backwards.” The idea is that the elbow only bends inward, bends one way. Is that a limitation of the elbow? Is it a defect? That a really good elbow would bend both ways? Is it a design flaw that we’re stuck with? Instead, it’s a matter of seeing the particular irony in what we would think of as a limitation rather, as a definition, a part of what we intrinsically are, and freedom is not a question of being able to do something, to do anything whatsoever, but to fully function within our design and our capacity.

      for - quote - The Elbow does not bend backwards - Dasietz Suzuki - contradiction - the finite and infinite in one being - meme - to be or not to be, that is the question - to be AND not to be, that is the answer

      quote - The Elbow does not bend backwards - Dasietz Suzuki - Barry Magid - When D. T. Suzuki came to this country later, he said he had a great realization contemplating the Japanese expression, “The elbow does not bend backwards.” - The idea is that the elbow only bends inward, bends one way. Is that a limitation of the elbow? Is it a defect? That a really good elbow would bend both ways? Is it a design flaw that we’re stuck with? Instead, - it’s a matter of seeing the particular irony in - what we would think of as a limitation rather, as a definition, a part of what we intrinsically are, and - freedom is not a question of being able to do something, to do anything whatsoever, - but to fully function within our design and our capacity. - The full freedom of the functioning of the elbow takes place in bending inward, not outward.

      comment - the contradiction of our life is that - the infinite and the finite exist in the same mortal coil - this consciousness which is capable of unlimited imagination - is housed in a fragile, time-limited body - Yet all life exists in the concrete form of living / dying individual's housed in bounded, albeit dynamic bodies - Each of us takes on a unique and specific morphological form, determined by the genetic material passed on to us intergenerationally - Each individual belongs to a unique species, a unique replicable template that is unique - And yet, all life derives from the same reality - So each species, and all individuals belonging to each species, have unique bounded bodies - While that universal wisdom articulates itself uniquely in each species and each individual of a species, it is nonetheless a universal wisdom behind it all - So the elbow does not bend backwards in the human - and the wings flutter only one way in birds - and the fins only project one way in fish - etc, etc.... - Can we trace ourselves from the perceived limited - all the way back to the unlimited infinite? - To be or not to be, that is the question - To be AND not to be, that is the answer

  2. Nov 2024
  3. Sep 2024
  4. Aug 2024
    1. how do you know if, if, and when you are part of a larger cognitive system, right?

      for - question - how do you know when you are part of a larger cognitive system? - answer - adjacency - synchronicity - lower level example - two neurons talking to each other - Michael Levin - Mark Solms foundation theory of affect

      question - how do you know when you are part of a larger cognitive system? - answer - adjacency - synchronicity - lower level example - two neurons talking to each other - Michael Levin - Mark Solms foundation theory of affect

      adjacency - between - answer - synchronicity - lower level example - two neurons talking to each other - Michael Levin - Mark Solms foundational theory of affect - adjacency relationship - This is a very interesting question and Michael Levin provides a very interesting answer - First, it is very interesting that Mark Solms points out that affect is foundational to cognition - This is evident once we begin to think of the fundamental goals of any individual of any species is to optimize survival - The positive or negative affects that we feel are a feedback signal that measures how successful we are in our efforts to survive - Hence, it is more accurate to ask: - How do you know if and when you are part of a larger affective-cognitive system? - Levin illustrates the multi-level nature of simultaneous consciousness by looking at two neurons "in dialogue" with each other, and potentially speculating about a "higher level of consciousness", which is in fact, the level you and I operate at and take for granted - This speculative question is very important for it also can be generalized to the next layer up, - Do collectives of humans, each one experiencing itself a unified, cohesive inner perspective, constitute a higher level "collective consciousness"? - If we humans experience feelings and thinking whilst we have a well defined physical body, then - what does a society feel and think whilst not having such a well defined physical body?

    2. I have no idea. But what I do know is that it's not a, um, this is not a philosophical, uh, thing that we can decide arguing in an armchair. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. No, you have to do experiments and then you find out.

      for - question - does the world have agency? <br /> - answer - don't know - but it's not philosophical - it's scientific - do experiments to determine answer - Michael Levin

  5. Jun 2024
  6. Feb 2024
  7. Dec 2023
    1. well I'll start with two extremely optimistic points
      • for: answer to above question

      • answer : two answers

        • first, the elite have the majority of
          • wealth
          • control of setting policies
          • control of the media
          • and they work really hard at controlling policy and media
          • and the people
            • hate the system
            • generally hate them
        • second, social tipping points occur. Something happened in over place, then it spreads to other places
  8. Mar 2021
  9. Aug 2020
  10. Nov 2019
  11. Oct 2019
    1. Let's make the example even easier. function convertDate<T extends string | undefined>(isoDate?: string): T { return undefined } 'undefined' is assignable to the constraint of type 'T' Means: What you return in the function (undefined), matches the constraints of your generic type parameter T (extends string | undefined). , but 'T' could be instantiated with a different subtype of constraint 'string | undefined'. Means: TypeScript does not consider that as safe. What if you defined your function like this at compile time: // expects string return type according to generics // but you return undefined in function body const res = convertDate<string>("2019-08-16T16:48:33Z") Then according to your signature, you expect the return type to be string. But at runtime that is not the case! This discrepancy that T can be instantiated with a different subtype (here string) than you return in the function (undefined) is expressed with the TypeScript error.