>
> ****GK: My trusty old Webster defines "idee fixe" as "fixed idea".
I agree. I don't particularly care about the opinions of those
groups who have developed and are developing a new vocabulary of
political correctness. Unfortunately some of their "accomplishments"
have been translated into legal constraints. Usually preceded by
moral constraints.I wouldn't want to contribute to the process. So
I'll stick to my view about "idee fixe". And continue to criticize
those "idees fixes" I think are wrong, whenever I feel like doing
it.****
>
Those that have tried defining functions by recursion, either
theoretically in math, or practically on computers know the
regression has to stop somewhere, in a 'zero case'. The same in
scholastic philosophy, that's why they came up with the idea of
identifying God as the 'primus movens' or 'prima causa'. It is a
practical necessity. The trick to be able to change one's idea of
what is the 'primus movens'/'prima causa'. But that requires
references to a set of rules outside the set of rules etc, again
with the risk of of an infinite regress. Similarly in the science of
politics, most states have a constition or Grundgesetz, ie. a law
setting out the rules of how to change laws etc. But what rules
define the proper way of changing the constitution? Etc. It's really
not so simple.
And then there's the issue not seeming to be obsessive about other
people's obsessions.
And on and on.
Which reminds me of an experience Douglas Lenat related about his AI
program 'Eurisko' which was meant to invent from scratch simple
numeric math (building from ZF set theory), using in lieu of proof
(that was too creative) the concept of success (if an idea turned
out to reach interesting results, the numerical (0-999) 'Worth'
property of the object representing the idea was incremented).
Turned out every time he ran the program, the same idea with a Worth
of 999 appeared in the result. He checked and discovered that the
idea it represented was 'I (this idea) am the cause of everything
successful'. Therefore everytime something succeeded, this idea got
its Worth incremented. The language Lenat had chosen to represent
ideas was so powerful that the only way stop the idea from appearing
was a specific ban on it (in practice he removed it manually).
So I wrote Douglas Hofstadter (Gödel - Escher - Bach) and pointed
out to him that this corresponded to Mao-Tse-Tung thought, or
similar systems. Once you are able to form the thought, it will
appear. And it will probably derive corrolaries which prevent
iteself from being excised, like any self-preserving meme.
Thought virus/cancer'?
Torsten