If the Wizard is a Wizard who will serve.
Then I’m sure to get a brain; a heart; a home; the nerve!
From the film The Wizard of Oz
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Only_Had_a_Brain
[*8.124]
<>
The 4-H Club Pledge
I pledge my head to clearer thinking,
My heart to greater loyalty,
My hands to larger service,
and my health to better living,
for my club, my community, my country, and my world.
— From the 4-H Pledge
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-H
Further reading:
Also see Metropolis: “The Mediator between the head and hands must be the heart!”
[*7.14, *7.22]
<>
The Fantastic Four
Fire, Aire, Earth, Water, all the Opposites
That strove in Chaos, powrefull Love unites;
And from their Discord drew this Harmonie,
Which smiles in Nature.
– From Sandy’s translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1632)
All fours are fantastic, but especially this superhero team! I hear that a reboot of the movie franchise is on the way.
N
ote they are close to being elementals, after the Four Elements. Paracelsus associated different spirits with each element.
Gnome: spirit of earth (industrious)
Undine: spirit of water (inspired)
Sylph: spirit of air (curious)
Salamander: spirit of fire (changeable)
Notes:
Her name is now the Invisible Woman, instead of the Invisible Girl.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_elements_in_popular_culture
http://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/sandys/contents.htm
[*7.12, *8.96]
<>
Wave-Particle Duality
Is the fundamental nature of light and matter more like a wave or is it more like a particle? After hundreds of years of scientific research the answer is … Yes! Light and matter have aspects of both: sometimes one and sometimes the other. Kind of like that duck-rabbit illusion where the drawing flips back and forth between a duck or a rabbit.
Now that we have the irreconcilable duality of wave and particle, can we add to the confusion and enlarge it into a four-fold? Two additional aspects (from physics) come to mind: motions, as in the motions of particles, and fields, as in electric and magnetic fields.
We immediately can see this four-fold as a play of dimensions: (idealized) particles have 0 dimensions, motions have 1 (along a path), waves have 2 (or more), fields have 3 (or more).
We can also see this four-fold in a weak analogy with the Four Elements: particles for earth, waves for water, motions for fire, and fields for air (or space). Also compare to the four-fold for Lucretius!
Should fields above be replaced with wave-functions? I guess a wave-function is a kind of field of probabilities of existence over space and time, so perhaps it makes no difference!
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2811288&picked=formats
Charis Anastopoulos / Particle or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics
Notes:
I like Forces or Speeds better than Motions. Atoms better than Particles at top?
[*7.152, *8.32]
<>
Reasons Things Happen
What kind of reasons do we give for things happening? In physics, we call the reasons causes and the things that happen are called effects. One way that these causes can be divided into two is by distinguishing between chances and necessities: causes that can happen and those that must happen. In contrast, in describing reasons why we as agents do things, we merely call the reasons reasons, or reasons for actions. One way these reasons can be divided into two is by distinguishing between choices and plans: the reasons for making a choice and the explanations for planning a goal.
If we cannot understand the reasons that something happened, we might claim that it was just random or it was just fate. We might come to believe that there is an agent we know that is responsible for the thing happening by either a choice they have made or a goal they have planned. Or we might even think that there is an agent or institution hidden from our knowledge that might be responsible, with hidden choices and plans. This is not the same as the world operating by chance and necessity.
If we cannot understand the reasons why an agent does what they do, their behavior appears random or even insane. If we can understand the reasons for their actions, their behavior may be justified to us, but it can still be considered good or bad. Of course, our good actions may be ineffectual against the world’s chances and necessities, in which case we are not responsible for outcomes. Even so, our bad actions and our plans and goals may still be scrutinized in a normative way. If an agent’s actions or plans appear to be contrary to our goals or society’s goals, that agent is at odds with us or society.
Ordinarily what is called free will consists of the freedom to make choices and plans and to attempt to carry them out. What is free will free from? Is it free from physical laws, or the energy and matter of our brains and bodies? That doesn’t make much sense to me. Is it the same as chance? That isn’t a freedom worth wanting, as Daniel Dennett says. If we do something that doesn’t make sense to us, various experiments have determined that we then construct reasons for ourselves that we can understand and believe that explain our actions. Are they the real reasons or have we just lied to ourselves?
Regardless whether free will exists, the explanations given by choices and plans are required for our understanding of each other’s actions and goals. 
However, these must not be confused with the chances and necessities of the world when and where they apply.
Notes:
This four-fold consisting of Choice, Chance, Fate, and Plan is inspired by the Modal Verbs: May, Can, Must, and Should. One might consider it as the double duality of internal or external and possibility or necessity.
Also consider changing “chance” to “luck”, and “choice” to “pick”.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/302/4persona.htm
[*8.116]
<>
Grid-group Cultural Theory
Looking over some old notes, I ran across something about the Grid-Group Cultural Theory. Also known as the Cultural Theory of Risk, it originated from the studies of anthropologist Mary Douglas and political scientist Aaron Wildavsky. Two dimensions of sociality are described, each with a low and high value (or a continuum): grid measures the differentiation between people, and group measures the cohesion or social bonds between people.
Individualist: Low group and low grid
Fatalist: Low group and high grid
Hierarchist: High group and high grid
Egalitarian: High group and low grid
Notes:
In the representation shown above, this arrangement reminds me significantly of the Archic Philosophers.
Sophists for Individualist
Democritus for Fatalist
Plato for Hierarchist
Aristotle for Egalitarian
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk
http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/grid-group_culture.htm
[*4.86, *8.112]
<>
The DISC Theory
William Moulton Marston, the creator of the DISC personality theory, has been in the media lately. The book “The Secret History of Wonder Woman” by Jill Lepore was released recently, and interestly enough, Marston created this super-hero as well as the psychological theory from which the DISC assessment was based. His life was indeed quite fascinating.
The basic four-fold of the DISC theory deals with an agent’s perception of her ability to act in relation to her enviroment. For the agent, she sees herself either more powerful or less powerful than the environment. For the environment, it is seen to be either favorable for her actions or unfavorable. Thus there are four combinations.
Inducement: More powerful than a favorable environment.
Dominance: More powerful than an unfavorable environment.
Submission: Less powerful than a favorable environment.
Compliance: Less powerful than an unfavorable environment.
It is fascinating that many brain function, behavioral, personality, and psychological schemas are based on a four-fold distinction. I have already briefly mentioned the Four Temperaments, but I hope to look at several more in the near future.
.
.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Moulton_Marston
[*8.90]
<>
Relative Time
For what more terrifying revelation can there be than that it is the present moment? That we survive the shock at all is only possible because the past shelters us on one side and the future on another.
— From Orlando, by Virgina Woolf
As we can see on the previous four-folds of space and time, all have a degree of conditioning to the location and orientation of an observer. In other words, there are no absolute frameworks of space or time. That does not mean that they are not useful conventional and conceptual tools.
What would a four-fold of Relative Time be like? Because time seems to be linear instead of two dimensional, relative time would be very different than relative directions. What if we contrast our understanding of what happened in time with what actually occurred? What if we compare our thoughts of an imagined future with what becomes realized?
One could contrast an individual’s notions of past and future with a group or society’s notions of past and future. Or one could contrast an individual’s or society’s recalled past and imagined future with the actual past and the realized future. Some might argue that there is no actual past, but only the past we think or recall that it is. Similarly, those or others might argue that there is no realized future, because once the future becomes the present it has already slipped into the past that we can now only recall.
As the future becomes realized, the imagined future is discarded or blended into it to become our recalled past. As we understand more about the real past, our recalled past may be discarded or blended into it to become our new recalled past. Or one can refuse that knowledge and believe whatever suits them.
[*8.99, *9.60]
<>
The Diurnal Cycle
Relative Directions
Here are four relative directions: Left, Front, Right, and Back. Perhaps I should have said “forward” and “backward” instead of “front” and “back”, but the words would have been substantially longer. So maybe I should have called this “relative sides”, but I like “relative directions” better. And perhaps I should have added “up” and “down”, but then it wouldn’t have been a four-fold! At any rate, for entities or observers bound by common gravity, up and down are fairly consistent. For all such beings, all down directions should converge to some idealized point in the center of the earth but all up directions should diverge in all directions like the light rays from the sun.
If you compare this four-fold to that of the Cardinal Directions, you can see that these directions are indeed relative to an observer, and depend on how the observer is turned. So they are fixed to the frame of reference of the observer. In comparison, the Cardinal Directions are fixed with respect to a location on the earth, but they vary from location to location, and so are relative to location and fixed for an observer at that location. For example the direction of North at New York City is different from North in Los Angeles, even though they converge at the same point on the earth, the North Pole.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_direction
[*8.74, *8.98]
<>
Equivalent Exchange 