I wonder how much of this categorization is a result of language. As in, before we had language, was our internal representaion more fluid?
I guess we still needed categories to interact with nature (e.g. run from a lion and run after a pig, although both are bun-buns), but I imagine the pattern recognition might be less defined if it results in an action vs. wording
Interesting bit of an echo between your concepts post here and one I dropped yesterday called Maps Within Maps (https://frontiers.psychotopology.com/p/maps-within-maps). I break our internal maps -- concepts -- down into entities, relationships and contexts. Maybe it'll add some grist to the mill for your post on more abstract concepts next week!
As information about our universe keeps spilling into our consciousness and we recognize that if an atom was the size of a baseball field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of salt. In other words, everything is almost nothing. I hope you encourage Milo to call everything he likes "bun buns". He may be closer to the truth than those whose minds have been poisoned by conventional thinking.
I think the key to understanding our modern era is that the intelligentsia began to see conceptual groupings of humans (for example - race, gender) as being a conspiracy to oppress certain people, which was an interesting turn of events. These concepts are seen as invalid, not because they are not useful, but rather because they are (allegedly) "social constructs" created to maintain systems of power. The annulment of these concepts and denial of group differences has led to all kinds of strange consequences.
What will it take to get you to finally admit the truth? EVERYTHING IS BUN-BUN! Even a baby can see that!
How could I have been so blind...
(Shaking my head in disbelief before sadly turning away.)
I’m thinking this is an online essay … 😀
Can’t wait for Milo to meet our Bun-bun!
(Yup, that’s my take away)
You seriously need to compile this stuff into a book. Epistemology for Everyone (?) Please, and thank you :)
Hah, something like that has crossed my mind. We'll see
This post is good and pertinent, if somewhat trodden ground for a linguist like me. Also humorous. Love it.
Thank you!
I wonder how much of this categorization is a result of language. As in, before we had language, was our internal representaion more fluid?
I guess we still needed categories to interact with nature (e.g. run from a lion and run after a pig, although both are bun-buns), but I imagine the pattern recognition might be less defined if it results in an action vs. wording
Yes and no. See, e.g., an animal communication system distinguishing "danger from above" (eagle) and "danger from below" (snake).
Interesting bit of an echo between your concepts post here and one I dropped yesterday called Maps Within Maps (https://frontiers.psychotopology.com/p/maps-within-maps). I break our internal maps -- concepts -- down into entities, relationships and contexts. Maybe it'll add some grist to the mill for your post on more abstract concepts next week!
As information about our universe keeps spilling into our consciousness and we recognize that if an atom was the size of a baseball field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of salt. In other words, everything is almost nothing. I hope you encourage Milo to call everything he likes "bun buns". He may be closer to the truth than those whose minds have been poisoned by conventional thinking.
I think the key to understanding our modern era is that the intelligentsia began to see conceptual groupings of humans (for example - race, gender) as being a conspiracy to oppress certain people, which was an interesting turn of events. These concepts are seen as invalid, not because they are not useful, but rather because they are (allegedly) "social constructs" created to maintain systems of power. The annulment of these concepts and denial of group differences has led to all kinds of strange consequences.