The why by which one approaches life determines one’s how, which in turn articulates the what.
*
Qualities articulate categories. Categories provide the abstraction necessary to quantify. This is the principle of individuation.
*
Some mythical hearsay:
In the Greek pantheon, Apollo was (among other things) the god of surfaces and of individuation.
Myth tells us that Apollo fell in love with the Nymph Daphne. Daphne did not return his love. He chased her and tried to rape her. Daphne prayed to Mother Earth for help. She was transformed into the laurel tree.
This is when Apollo adopted his philosophy of moderation. The laurel was made sacred to his followers, and among the inscriptions on his temple in Delphi appear two sayings:
Know Thyself.
Nothing in Excess.
*
There are no two of anything, not strictly speaking. Only instances of a category can be counted.
Some categories are unavoidably perceived. Some are far more artificial than we realize. If society as a whole stopped seeing them, they’d no longer have reality.
But make no mistake, categories originate in us.
*
The notion that the quantifiable is more real than that which resists quantification — even in areas where qualities are vastly more important than quantities — is a why firmly reinforced by prodedural hows resulting in a pretty hideous what.
This does not mean we don’t attempt to quantify wherever we can. It means that we start from the fullness of reality and humbly quantify as much of it as we can and respect the remaining unquantifiable reality as both real and as the wellspring of value.
*
The protest “but how do we measure that?” … that “but” signifies illegitimacy of the yet-unmeasurable and the ultimately unmeasurable.
Measure it and then it can be considered part of reality. Until then it is imaginary, arbitrary, merely subjective.
Can we measure this claim that only the measurable can be considered valid? If not, can we consider this standard valid?
I recall having said “the true measure of the brilliance of an intellect is it’s immeasurability”.
Sorry I haven’t commented in a while I’ve life’s been a bit chaotic, but things are coming together now :)
I think you might appreciate this, it’s not acceptable according to formalist logic because it bypasses the law of the excluded middle, but tracing the history of formalist logic back to the Brower-Hillbert controversy
which ended in the disappearance of the intuitionist school of logic and mathematics, it becomes apparent that it has it’s merits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma
x
-x
Both x and -x
Neither x nor -x
I am soo sorry for not directly addressing this post, here let me say: “But measurable and the Valid are not interchangeable”. And the standard? is only what’s been agreed upon, and for what? some boon that it be weighed and balanced? An empty evidence that is when measurement has yet to be measured. Even the speed of light is no longer a constant…we have no constant, we have no measure of measurement.
it’s nothing more than “faith in the repetition of the same”. that’s measurement because we have nothing else to base our trust in it upon.