If reasoning with so-called "material" information is so extensively formalized by logic and mathematics in general, why do we shirk from doing the same with so-called "emotional" information?
There are so many things in history which we could not have anticipated a "formal theory" of. Yet we did it anyways.
First, we understand it intuitively. Often, people who understand it well enough are seen as incredibly wise, smart, "emotionally intelligent". Then, we start naming things, and build a vocabulary for it. Finally, the words themselves paint a picture as the underlying structure projects itself upon these words, and you end up with a grammar, a language. And once you have a language, the theories are just a step away.
I like to think of it as there being this deep, vast sea with complicated currents moving under the surface. If you were to take a submarine down there, you might get the lay of the land and begin to understand the currents.
But perhaps an easier way to understand them would be to sink some weighted floaty things beneath the surface, and have little colored flags poking out. This is akin to building a vocabulary. And once you've done this, the rest takes care of itself: the currents under the surface move the flags and you can at once see the "structure" of the currents without diving down. The structure builds itself -- it's what you might call a homorphism between the underlying currents beneath the surface to the arrangements of the colored flags above the surface.
-Need to return to this and add examples, can only think of the "idea" of it atm but no concrete examples
No comments:
Post a Comment