On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do I want to learn to program? > I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the > opposite. I've said that I wasn't sure.
Hmmmm... i'd say you'll make very good business applications analyst. In fact i'd hazard to say you can make it to CIO. Recommended reading: * PERL for dummies by: Paul Hoffman * Crime & Punishment by: Fyodor Dostoyevsky With your natural philosophical talent, and just a little more supplementary knowledge you would Pwn & ruLZ! Just... pls... dont do programming... and Never do Python. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm amazed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of knowledge I'm > not able to discuss some of them. I've been inspecting the stuff about > rewriting and that drew my attention to my first intuition of Python being > economic. Maybe could it support my impression about a thing thats behind > the language and got to do with condensing expressions until their end > point is reached. I'll absolutely read the book you recommended, coz looks > perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks perfect too. Then again > something that was discussed here about Python being economic or not and > how or in which sense also threw some light on my first impression about > the language. Everything here is interesting and illustrative. Anyway, I > think that maybe I'm missing the point and I'm not being capable of > expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I'm here. I thought that the > most convenient thing to do is trying to keep myself attached to the > natural language I master (so to speak) and answer the a set of questions > that has been formulated. Maybe with this I'm helping myself. > > Towards what purpose I'm just inspecting Python's environment? > Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess' environment. > Eventually, I could end up playing; but that isn't told yet. > > Do I want to learn to program? > I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the opposite. > I've said that I wasn't sure. And I said that because it's true. I'm not > sure. Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looking > to know. I'm looking to understand this something called Python. I've came > here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a number of > topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I sometimes > have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a fancy way and > "realize" a great deal of things, is that I use a lot the verb "realize". > These constant instantiations of mine are like well done objects of real > true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a method called > "understanding" from the class that corresponds and apply to any number of > memorized_data_objects that were previously instantiated in my mind coming > from my senses. For me this seems to look like what follows: > > >>> understanding(combination(a_set_of _memorized_data_objects)) > > >>> def real_knowledge > >>> understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects) # How does this > look? > > I'm positive about that being told all the time about everything is pretty > much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment saves > money, but at the cost of not playing with real knowledge that's verified > by each self (checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn't developed our actual > brains just by being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomena, > that now we humans are talking about. > > If not, then why do I care about Python programming? > In part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about > one or another thing that one could be looking for, I've taken a look to > Ruby and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that really > matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be somehow > as a serpent. Don't forget that I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now > I'm not trying to follow the path of what's told but acting like the monkey > and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake. Could be the case > that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of me. If that's the > case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method are the first > ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Python also must > be an entity that's able to swallow, doesn't matter that it's chicken > object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that's interesting > and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding method. Then I > realize that what's stated above implies that I can feed Python, and (here > starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws back by its tail. Then > I'll approach to smell any possible profit. > > What do I aim to get out of this exercise? > Since actually I'm not running for programmer, my reason for understanding > Python must be sui generis and it is. > > What do I think "Python's core" means? > More than thinking I'm just trying to guess what Python's core must be. > Any phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is > almost all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered with > skin? Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and nothing > but its truth (that's to say thinking it without all its optionals) I tend > to look at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe a > core in itself. > > One color note is that in the serpent class there's no attachment method. > Serpents are unemotional, they use to drop their eggs here and there > without a care. Serpent class lacks of empathy method. > > What do I mean by "global definition"? > I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself. > > What's an "entity"? > It could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the > attention to it, even if I'm still not in the position of label the > phenomena in a correct manner nor conceptualize it at all. > > Why do my affirmation pre-suppose that exists something *more fundamental* > to programming that Python is for? > With this I don't mean more important but fundamental, that comes from > foundation, that's to say something meta or previous. > > Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a > screwdriver? > Aside the use that materialistic marketing tends to include in its eternal > propaganda, there's another use of whatever tool that I, the monkey, am > able to manipulate. My hand and my thought are engaged in the closest > relationship one can ever imagine. Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains, > foo that doesn't set the just listening to what someone would tell_about. > The case is I'm not able to get my material hands over Python, but that > doesn't mean that I must merely observe it as if it were non material. I'm > trying at least to emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling > something that could be called object_manipulation in order to understand > sounds crazy and maybe it is, it's paradoxical too, at the same time sounds > logic. > > > For my purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that I single > it out in this way? > Using the command line I'm setting myself closer to what I'm trying to > understand. That doesn't seem to be what one would consider doing wrong. > > Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn't just like > non-interactive mode? > It seems that there are tiny differences between typing on the command > line and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that being > economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the tiny > differences. > > Why do I insist on the fact that "I must prevent myself from knowing too > much about a subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gaps, > mostly, using intuition? > This is an important question that I've tried to answer close to the start. > > Why do I believe that intuition isn't greatly over-rated, and that most of > the time, isn't just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoid > understanding? > This is another good question that I've already tried to answer. > > What do I think "to know" means? What do I think "to understand" means? > I've already tried to answer this. > > What do I think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did I come to > that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python? > I'm coping with this, as I've already stated, as if Python and Chess > inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of > phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called > board, that's to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and > serves as its basic constant. With "axiomatic parameters" I've tried to > illustrate this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or > boundary, and even if all of those labels denote a limit, all of them, > unless for me, sound like... static. To think about Python in terms of > something that's static seems incorrect. "Axiomatic parameters" looked like > an initial limit that one can set, it just sounded accurate for a Python's > kind of thing. > > Why do I maintain that Python could be something like chess. > From the "trying to understand" point of view, everything can be > considered a game. In my opinion even science could be considered a game > that could be played in solitary mode. > > Am I getting closer to the point? > > > 2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> > >> Hi, >> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original >> purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At >> this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to >> Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of >> view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an >> "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication >> about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in >> the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about >> Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity >> it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result >> one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I >> roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic >> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer >> types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed >> it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for >> example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears >> between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but >> expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the >> apostrophes). >> >> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that >> mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the >> most shortened expression of that data? >> >> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that >> programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the >> lowest level of it's existence. >> >> Thanks a lot for your time. >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ¿Has leído «Las Novelas Prohibidas» <http://lasnovelasprohibidas.com/>? > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > >
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
