However, all the richest people are not the product of formal education but what is the higher level concept that they both share? It seems to me that making choices, the best choices toward the goal of making money. Making choices is always the choosing between two or more alternatives. Sequentially selecting best choices always lead to the best possible outcome in hindsight by definition. But that is history and easy to see when results are fixed on a time line and we can go back to the point where those that did not become rich made a less than best choice toward the goal of becoming rich. It may have become the best choice however toward a different goal. Not a goal of "not becoming rich in terms of money" but something else instead.
Unrestricted freedom of choice is fundamental to making choices. That is self evident. A human right of choice.
Choices in the conceptual world are always between two or more candidates for choice. Each candidate is a structural product of of supporting relationships. Which to choose after narrowing the choice down to two alternatives is binary. There may be compromise with some of the conceptual structural differences at lower levels but one choice dominates overall as the best influencing course of action direction to go in or with.
Each candidate for choice got to its final selection point as a result of its prior competition in a choice producing system. Standing on that system of prior choice it is presented for choice by an individual. The individual stands on its own history of making relative value judgment choices that has produced a current decision making engine as a model to be applied to the current decision to be made. The extent to which prior decisions that formed the decision making model of a choosing individual match the conceptual structure product of each alternative as well as its inherent structure determines the binary decision an individual will make for a future outcome.
A person's belief is their conceptual decision making tool. The quality of that tool is a function of the investment that went into building it proved by its prior application in fact or theory. Fact always being the application of theory. An individuals decision making tool is a cumulative product of facts proven by the application of theory.
Given the prior statement is an individuals decision making tool a theory model or a fact model? An extrapolation of historical fact to a theory of application that says that time will prove a current choice to be with some degree of relative certainty more right than wrong? Perhaps equal in outcome?
At this point of wrapping myself up in a conundrum with no choice as to where to go from here I choose to go to Google to find something to help me make a choice. Some high level conceptual structure of the "Theory of Choice" that I do not have to re-invent. I should not have to reinvent the whole world just to brush my teeth.
The Wikipedia description of choice theory does not even meet wikipedia's minimum requirement for an adequate conceptual supporting structure as documented by Wikipedia's big warning at the beginning:
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
Ooops! Seeking structured thought at Wikipedia and I did not find it there. Maybe I will have to reinvent the world! Fortunately there are good people in this crowd sourced knowledge base that will take up that task.
Wikipedia "Choice Theory" is a place to start:
Choice Theory posits that behavior is central to our existence and is driven by five genetically driven needs, similar to those of Abraham Maslow:
- Survival (food, clothing, shelter, breathing, personal safety and others)
Choice Theory posits the existence of a "Quality World." The phrase "Quality World" represents a person's total outlook and understanding of the world around them as it relates to people, possessions, beliefs, etc. Starting from birth and continuing throughout our lives, we place the people who are important to us, things we prize, and systems of belief (religion, cultural values, and icons, etc.) within the framework of our "Quality World." Glasser also posits a "Comparing Place" in which we compare and contrast our real world experiences against our Quality World perspective. We behave to achieve as best we can a real world experience consistent with our Quality World.
I have looked at Glasser's model once before. It is ground that I have covered in the building of my decision making tool but interesting to revisit since I have learned more since the last visit many years ago. My current choice model is at a higher level of design now.
What is that higher level model?
Conceptual object choices and their relationships are a trinity of Logic, Language and Structure. I wrote about that in a prior blog entry. A conceptual model of the essence of choice called Computational Tinitarianism.
The doctrine of computational trinitarianism holds that computation manifests itself in three forms: proofs of propositions, programs of a type, and mappings between structures. These three aspects give rise to three sects of worship: Logic, which gives primacy to proofs and propositions; Languages, which gives primacy to programs and types; Categories, which gives primacy to mappings and structures.
Those who formulate the best computational trinitarianism model through formal and informal education are the most successful in application of the model to any problem domain of their choice.
Unfortunately, Education is a business. It has therefore preempted the general concept of education to serve its business objectives and branded the general social concept of education, its value, means of acquisition as well as its methods and ultimately its application. Business application of education are institutional: Education itself as a specific business institution and the general social institutions of Business, Religion and Politics. All of which can be viewed as businesses sub-structure models of the higher level model of social institutions they serve and often serve to sub-optimize individually or in combination.
That is a complex structural system to organize in my head unless I have some fundamental conceptual tool to apply to them. The problem domain is that in applying that fundamental tool to understanding all these conceptual structures I find that they are the current product of relatively poor or outright wrong historical choices contributing to their current structure and its function.
Our Conceptual Institutions have not failed us. They are a crumbling infra structure that was the best we could build at the time. They now need redesign and rebuilding in view of prior construction errors, some being fundamental, and our current improved ability to do much better.
Time is change and time is speeding up if it is viewed as a product of change, not a universal constant of wave physics. Social time vs speed of light time. Change is our challenge to meet and control or be dominated by it as it moves on to make something better in accordance with its laws of evolution and our inability to adapt.
Creationism defies the theory of evolution. Creationism is fixed and unchanging. Truth is a work in progress. Hey, great thought! Creationism is not worth thinking about, at least the creationist believers think that. It is a given. The Fact Book containing the few Truths told them so.
I believe in the truth of the previously presented concept of computational trinitarianism, until something better comes along. I also believe in the object oriented conceptual model as our best expression implementation of computational trinitarianism.
Object Oriented Philosophy as presented here by Graham Harman has been extremely difficult for me to comprehend. I can however see it as a personally intuitive reduction to the concept of computational trinistarianism. Beats me how I would actually go about reducing it to that simple relationship. I am not that smart to take all the reduction steps but I believe in my intuitive result....
Computional trinitarianism looks like a great place to start to rebuild our conceptual infra structure. In application it has already given us the Information Age and the Knowledge Commons.
Education is a business. Knowledge Commons is a collective conceptual structure that belongs to us. The raw material to feed into our computational trinitarianism engine machine to make decisions relating logic to structure with language to restructure and rebuild our social structure applications that serve what we want them to do with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment