What you're talking about seems to be the exercise of composition and decomposition. While it's true that analysis (the cutting up) and synthesis (the clumping together) are necessary but insufficient in themselves, none of us actually ever do just one of them. I guess what the more analytically inclined mystics like Cantor come to is simply that 2nd order perspective, that the *practice* of both analysis and synthesis are necessary to any "large" insight. (We know Tarski, Gödel, and von Neumann understood this, too.)
So, to your questions: 1) No, because we all do this already. Any distinction between polymath and ordinary prole[⛧] is an artificial one. We, each one of us, are already gods. What people like Jobs (or Musk or Kardashian or whoever) accrete over time is the exogenous *attribution* of guru status. Why does it accrete? My guess is our co-evolutionary culture rewards particular traits. The Guru of Navel Gazing simply doesn't accrete so much attention. >8^D So, you're basically asking would there be practical value to enculturating a cadre of Gwyneth Paltrows? Yes, the practical value is to get rich. And we already do that ... unfortunately. I have a similar answer to (2). If "should" is a moral imperative, then no. We ought NOT encourage cults of celebrity ... gurus who sexually abuse their followers or make their workers sleep on cots near their workstations or hire expensive union-busting lawyers to avoid treating employees like humans [⛤]. But if "should" is (as I use it) "expected to obtain", then of course we expect celebrities and gurus to accrete status and exploit the world for their gain, because we've done so throughout history and continue to do so today. [⛧] I'm trying to decide if I want to stop using "plebe" and start using "prole" ... so many lovely words. [⛤] https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/03/05/week-long-boycott-of-amazon-planned-over-union-busting-attempts-in-alabama/ On 3/9/21 12:13 PM, Prof David West wrote: > A common thread — or imagined connection — in my recent reading concerns the > "unknowable." Examples include Cantor's Absolute, God, > Infinity/Infinitesimal, the Soul, Gnosticism; and somewhat related notions > like being a polymath or "genius." The latter comes from readings about Steve > Jobs. > > The genius/polymath connection is a state of mind where you can "see" > holistically but non consciously, a gestalt and from that 'point of view' > able to make correct/optimal/appropriate decisions based on incomplete and > conflicting information. > > The other 'unknowables' are also 'wholes' that can be > grasped/comprehended/known only as a whole. You cannot arrive at such an > understanding via the typical rational/scientific/logical positivist approach > to learning and knowing. Knowledge of such things comes only via "mysticism" > e.g. enlightenment. > > The assertions about how you might come to know such wholes are not > exclusively from mystics. Cantor, for example, seemed to believe (others know > him far better than I and might correct me here) that you could "know" the > Absolute, you just could not 'come to know' by accreting and integrating > parts into the whole - i.e. "rationally." > > A lot has been written about procedures to train yourself to be open to and > accepting of moments of holistic, mystical, insight/enlightenment. Other, > semi-practical, descriptions of 'pre-conditions' to be satisfied if one is to > be a Job's type 'genius' or what the business press calls a modern polymath — > i.e. conversant in multiple disciplines / areas of knowledge with variable > deep knowledge among several; all with a semi or non-conscious integrative > layer. > > It is also possible to find ideas philosophies of education that attempt to > focus on how to acquire / impart this kind of polymathic/integrative/holistic > mindset (state of mind). > > All this leads to some related questions: 1) would there be sufficient > practical value from having a large cadre of "modern polymaths" / inciteful > "geniuses" such that a significant portion of our educational system would be > devoted to the enculturation (not education) of that cadre; 2) should a role > in governance of any type at any level be restricted to members of that cadre > (variation of Plato's philosopher kings); and, could people be > guided/enculturated to have the ability to "know" "unknowable" things like > Cantor's Absolute? > > Idle raving on a Tuesday morning while I am supposed to be writing a book > chapter on software development. Excuse all the quotes and parends — > vocabulary is difficult for me in this realm. > > davew -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
