I am trying to answer some questions i have had for a while, but they were raised and clarified in my post of 4/30/10. The main question is about the centrality/pervasiveness of intuition and imagination. How much of thought depends on these things? How are the borders of our thought drawn by the limitations on our imagination? How does it function intuitively? How does tacit theory define the limits of it?
I think the post is pretty strong.
I am going to say this right now: please read it and tell me what you think.
I need help. No one really reads these things and I want more comments. I need more help. I am going to get Mr. Gleason to read it. But a call to all, give me your comments if you feel the time or interest. I am afraid of what I write and I need help making sense of it.
Lol, this one is a doozy though.
After my post of 4/30/10 I wasn't sure what my next large topic would be. What issue would I be able to explicate at such length and complexity next?
This seems to be the next one in line.
It is going to contain some of my most complex claims about Michel Foucault. I discuss quite a lot of other authors. For 30 pages, actually. Foucault is all I have to write now. I anticipate between 5 and 10 pages on Foucault. Maybe more its tough to say. But i am going to work at 3 and will try to write it tonight when I get back. But the main thing exciting me about the Foucault aspect is that I think I am now able to take an extremely pragmatic view of Foucault's work, and that I can communicate its potential usefulness very clearly.
I think Foucault is trying to tell us how to transform our thoughts. I think I can explain 1. how the thinks we should do it, and 2. how/why it would work.
Simulation theory of mind, neuroscience, its all got a part to play. Buddhism and stuff. Intuition needs to be central.
Signing off. Just wanted to make a preliminary statement regarding this soon to be published entry.