Interesting, Dan! As I read your thoughts, I wondered how you would react to my idea of
clear semantic modelling. Here, too, there is scope for the "semantic model" to be merely "speculatively theoretical" - that is, to be based on speculative contingent facts rather than grounded facts - and thus in a sense to be merely a "useful" model rather than a model "known to be true". At the same time, there are criteria for ensuring that even a purely theoretical model is "clear", which basically amounts to it being "rationally and optimally expressed" in some sense, I guess you could say.
I am not so sure how clear semantic models would relate to art as you describe it, but as for your notion of ideas being "introduced into the ecosystem", I wonder whether my notion might be used to evaluate those introduced ideas for "clarity"? Of course, you might argue that this notion of "clarity" as I have defined it is not "necessary", in the sense that "utility" need not entail "clarity", but... anyhow, I leave the resulting analysis/assessment to you!
Hi Laird,
I am honored that you would ask my opinion about your idea of clear semantic modelling. My first response is that several items from the bulleted lists are reminiscent of principles one may learn when learning to write in school. Specifically I am thinking of learning to write research papers in the humanities, which are basically persuasive arguments. I'm recalling specifically how a big part of writing research papers in humanities courses in college involved creating an arguable thesis, which would basically be a truth claim that you would then support.
Some of the bullet points would also apply to other forms of writing. "Relationally integrated", for example, applies as much to a novel or short story as it does to a persuasive argument. Probably would also apply to a symphony as well, though harder for me to parse as I am not an expert in music.
Also, "non-extraneous" and "piecewise necessitated" are also important principles in the arts. If you take a creative writing class, for example, you are taught to cut as much extraneous material as you possibly can. It's a big issue for a lot of writers who can't or won't cut material that doesn't support what they're trying to do. Actually defining what one is trying to do with a creative work can also be a battle.
"Justified", "parsimonious", "optimal" --- In one form or another these are important parts of really any piece of writing, and are either specifically taught or one hopefully learns through workshopping or from getting feedback from teachers, editors, or whoever.
"Essential" --- this is an interesting one to bring into the art perspective. I have wondered for a long time about whether art is truly essential or not. I have enjoyed practicing arts, but in the grand scheme of things, are arts necessary? I won't speak for ALL arts or for any individual art work, but in the sense of the perspective I am exploring, I am trying to see if I can expand what I consider to be art. For example, in this view, I could consider your semantic model of consciousness to be a work of art in the sense that it's an expression of inner thoughts that are important to you. It could be seen as a mutation in the cultural evolution metaphor. Mutations are important in the metaphor, though only some will be "selected" and many will not be widely selected. But in this way of looking at things, it feels like the "essentialness" of art becomes more apparent, as new ideas/mutations are critical for forward momentum(?) and I think even inevitable as responses to the environment.
"Consistent" "Unequivocal" --- These are interesting, too. In some of the art approaches, one will sometimes wish to express ambiguity, inner conflict, contradictory feelings, paradox, moral dilemmas, etc. Also, wordplay and the fuzziness of language can sometimes be seen to be something to play with and explore as part of the exploration. Even some philosophers make use wordplay, such as Derrida, who may have leaned toward expressionism as I am exploring it.
"Distinct" --- Any items in the list that want to define a model as a discrete unit can lead to issues, ultimately, I think for the model. My gut feeling on this one is that how you draw the boundaries around model to make it a discrete unit is going to be related to the vulnerabilities of the model. In my view, any big model like Kastrup's or yours are going to be vulnerable I think to different perspectives that assume different axioms or starting points or even goals, and I don't think there's any one discrete model that can avoid that vulnerability. Partially, I am trying to address this by suggesting my views are expressions of psychological states or mutations that may or may not be adopted or may not be "forever" solutions or "Ultimate Truths".
So my ideas as I wrote them out in the previous post aren't "thought through" enough to tick all the boxes on your checklist for clarity. ;)
as for your notion of ideas being "introduced into the ecosystem", I wonder whether my notion might be used to evaluate those introduced ideas for "clarity"? Of course, you might argue that this notion of "clarity" as I have defined it is not "necessary", in the sense that "utility" need not entail "clarity", but... anyhow, I leave the resulting analysis/assessment to you!
I appreciate your insights here. I haven't exactly been thinking about clarity, but I do follow what you're saying, and I agree that clarity as you are working on it would not be seen to be absolutely necessary in order for an idea or model or whatever influence a community or culture. That said, clarity and the techniques or forms that support clarity are extremely powerful and useful and I would not suggest discarding them.
In some ways, I wonder if you are reverse engineering what I think of as argumentation or proposing a truth claim and supporting it with evidence/arguments. To me, these forms of discourse remain extremely important and powerful, but are perhaps not powerful in limitless ways. To go back to the arts, it is common for artists to want to experiment with the interplay of form and function. Some artists like to play around with different mediums (forms).
I would see argumentation as a form that well supports many kinds of intellectual exploration, but not ALL kinds of intellectual exploration. For example, to use Raymond Moody's example, one could propose "there is life after death". As Moody explains, this statement is in itself a fatal contradiction from a logical standpoint. So it is hard to argue using the argumentation (which also happens to be the default form of discourse of much of academia.) I believe it CAN be argued to a point, but one is going to be wrestling with the form to try to achieve that function. So what other forms might be available?
It is kind of like a person who wants to use Microsoft Excel to write a novel. It CAN be done, but they are going to be wrestling with the software.
So trying to find a form that supports what one is actually trying to do seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. On this forum and others, we like to talk about these notions that can be very difficult to shoe-horn into standard argumentation. In my view, that doesn't mean we need to throw logic and reason out the window, but it may mean that there is value in exploring playing around with expressionistic forms that may better support some aspects of exploring the weirdness of it all. ;)