|Read in full||Link to paper|
|Author(s)||Marvin Eli Kirsh|
|Keywords||motion, perception, science theory creation, []|
|No. of pages||4|
Read the full paper here
This article is about orientation in the conceptual construction and exploration of the world. Orientations that fail to include a satisfactory definition of self as a vital component in ideas of explanation, compulsively leaning towards excessive analytical description(partism)) and resulting in increased numbers of empirically found exceptions to theoretical ideas, also fail to include adequate notions of motion and change. In the science of cognition a three part picture usually results, rather than a two component one in which the extraneous component functions as a compensation from the initial vagueness in ideas. Though this can seem to be a reasonable approach, to proceed from vagueness, to conjecture, empirical test/comparison, a false order in all components of a final theory will continuously result, and ultimately, in one to one correspondence, equate with a separate topic and not with the original. A compulsive and strict adherence to common sense, though not seeming to supply adequate explanation and strained for lingual description/expression, is the only possible route to adequate explanation. In cognition, the perennial stumbling is always at the division between the ethereal and the tangible. It is such an inhibitory obstacle, that in the construction of ideas, language falters to result in the continual construction of new words to "describe" rather than to connect. Though I believe "describe" is also the real ultimate goal, a real connection is never established.