Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP Changework vs. Therapy and Coaching |
Posted by: | nj |
Date/Time: | 25/04/2003 18:24:42 |
Hello, JS. 1. You wrote, "In fact there is a 'philosophy of science' which attempts to handle this area already." How do Philosophers Of Science describe the understanding products of Science and Philosophy? 2. You wrote, "There are countless manifestos and aesthetic doctrines floating around..." Do any doctrines describe how to produce art, or describe what aesthetic criteria apply to art products, in such a way that people adopt those doctrines? 3. You wrote, "...what artists do, an artist of quality that is, is offer up representations, or possibilities of representation, that hadn't been imagined previously." That's a lot of pressure for the artist in training, to be an artist worth your salt. 4. You wrote, "They lead the codification process, and continually disrupt it." Maybe practitioners of art with an anarchic bent.... Modelers, researchers, and artists do not have to disrupt anything to produce art products. 5. You wrote, "One might say...that Impressionism was a necessary precursor to the flowering of atomic physics, though impressionist painters were mainly concerned with exploiting new knowledge about the rods and cones in the eye, and reacting to the development of photography." So there might be an Art Of Representations, if not a Science Of Representations, currently in development. Impressionist paintings could be learning tools for enhancing scientist creativity. 6. In post 23/04/2003 17:30:32 to this thread, you wrote, "I don't consider aesthetics a form of pure gratuity or entertainment, but as path of knowledge akin to philosphy and science, though obviously under-appreciated in this role. Perhaps a science of representations, which are the foundation of our understanding. " If you pointed to the future with your statement, I see the Science Of Representations at the end of your finger. 7. You wrote, "Note: reading comprehension is a good skill to develop." but in post 24/04/2003 06:34:32, Dr. Grinder wrote, "Readers John S is pointing at the future." to which I replied, "Technology and it's products don't happen to researchers. Researchers can create future technologies by those researchers choosing what they want the future to include." OK? -nj |