# Square Root of Eight Dead Children

BillJanie@aol.com
Sun, 17 Mar 1996 13:02:27 -0500

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.478.mail06.827085745
Content-ID: <0_478_827085745@mail06.6058>
Content-type: text/plain

Attach square.

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.478.mail06.827085745
Content-ID: <0_478_827085745@mail06.6059>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="SQUARE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lois,
=0D
The square root of eight dead children is
incommensurable with the bandwagon. =

The bandwagon's strength rests in its =

packaging people into units. The units (little
people) are assumed to add up to the
leaders, who see themselves as the crown
of PCP creation. This is an old game.
Democritus attempted to explain everything
by reference to basic units, like fire, air,
water and earth. The advantage of reducing
complex beings, like children, to composites
of elements is that the generation of complex
being becomes purely mechanical.
=0D
Mechanical manipulation (efficient cause)
is much easier than inter-personal relationship.
The atomists assumed that there elements
were indivisible units, just as the user of rating
scales assumes his seven-point scales are
composed of indivisible units. To some extent
this atomization is useful. It anchors causation =

in motion. Being is reduced to quanititative flows
of forces acting on indivisible units. We get the
impression that we explain more of the variance
in nature. The problem comes when we consider
the absurdity of reducing very complex beings to
mere sums of elements. People are more than
the sum of their traits. There is a gestalt function
that enters the equation and with it comes the
issue of incommensurables. The number 8 has =

no square root that can be expressed as a
indivisible unit. This was a point made by =

Socrates in the Meno and it heralded the eclipse
of atomism.
=0D
It is true that all grids require abstraction. =

I am not completely against abstraction. =

Certainly the methods I have recommended
use abstraction. But abstractions should be
chosen so that they do not create an
imbalance in the equilibriation of assimilation =

and accomodation, to use Piaget's definition
of intelligence. If we have to pretend that people
can be reduced to atomistic traits, then we
have to face the problem of incommensurables,
as long as there is someone to bring up the
issue. The fact that the atomistic view of a =

dead child or the career of a dissenting voice
do not translate well into bandwagon geometry,
makes for an incomensurable for the mechanical,
knew jerk dismissals. Any sensitive slave boy
could see this, with a proper education. =

=0D
Mathematics is perhaps the ulitmate in
abstraction. But when it is used wisely, =

it does not obscure reality. My point is that
we should use the best abstractions to
elaborate the person and his constructs. =

Mathematics that require reduction of a =

person to traits is less than optimal, even if
people are more than willing to accomodate
us in doing so. Mathematics that can
elaborate the traits that are implicit in whole
figure constructs, is , however, acceptable.
Such elaboration is not reduction. We do not
reduce the whole figure to the trait. We show
that the traits can be integrated in the =

superordinate whole figure construct. Traits are
formal causes, not The Cause of the Person. =

The being of the person introduces the gestalt
factor, without denying the existence of traits. =

=0D
Politically this is incovenient for the bandwagon.
It is much easier to dismiss real human beings
with a diagnosis (sophomoric equation), than it
is to understand them as persons. =

Is this so far from post moderism?
=0D
Concerning my use of attachments: I do not have
a university paying for my postings. I pay for this
by selling fire wood. I cut oak trees, with a power
saw and axe, in order to pay for the privilige of
conversing with scholars. I write my postings off line
and attach them as files, because these oak trees
are too hard and heavy to waste by composing on
the net.
=0D
Concerning my request for feedback: Asking you
what you agree with and do not agree with is not
unfair. If I do not know what you do not understand
and why, how can I better communicate. The fact
that I have twice posted explanations of correlation
polarization is relevant. If you do not understand or
have reason to disagree with the points I made in
"The Core" and other postings, then tell me =

specifically what you do not understand. Saying that
you are a post modernist does not tell me much. It
is a loose construct that may serve certain uretheral
personality needs (hence my reference to peeing
contests), but it does not necessarily improve
communication. If you are not familiar with Freud
and Fenichel you may be complaining right now that
Uretheral personality is meaningless. Well I guess
two can play the game. I have not read Wittgenstein.
Explain him to me and his relevance to the topic or
I will drop more names/concepts off my book =

shelves as well. We'll both look so erudite- to us both.
=0D
Lois, in as much as you are presenting yourself as
one who would understand me, it is not unreasonable =

for me to ask you to explain what you do and do not
agree with. This would be consisent with the credulous
approach. Within my game what do you agree or
disagree with. I will allow you the right to dismiss what
I am saying as just a game, after the credulous approach
is dropped. You may dismiss me with a diagnosis. Or =

just with a laugh and a "Won't see you at the next vacation
conference." But while we are playing the game of =

understanding, let's play by the rules. In medieval
times their disputations required that the parties first
state the others point of view to the satisfaction of the =

other, before contesting the points. We could learn
from those folks. Specifically, what do you not
understand, in what I am saying? What do you not =