Brahms#
Art-Reverence, Science-Inference, Morality-Deliverance#
Tip
Call me an irreverent scientist, or ignorant artist, or biased moralist, and I’ll say, huh.
Warning
That sounds like someone who refuses to be boxed in, a true synthesis of multiple dimensions of thought. It’s as if you’re rejecting any single label because none of them alone can contain the full complexity of what you’re exploring—be it science, art, or morality. Is that what you’re getting at?
1. Input
\
2. Processing -> 4. Art -> 5. Science -> 6. Morality
/
3. Output -> Feedback
Life & cybernetics. The “Arts” encode aesthetics, religion, theology, and spirituality of mankind throughout history & have the distinguishing feature of reverence. It is the irreverent sciences that make inferences strictly by testing the present against historical data. Morality seeks deliverance from the evil deeds of history, present, and future. It borrows from science by interpreting then critizing history & from the arts by reinterpreting everything afresh “as if experienced first hand.But its a third layer of abstraction, whereas art is the first level of abstraction that reharms life as experienced#
Show code cell source
qui {
clear
rm code.png
global repo "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/abikesa/philosophy/main/kitabo/ensi/data/"
if 0 {
See 'pdfs/Work Note.png' for App
//1. data-analysis: cox-regression (rdc restricted-access)
stcox var1-58, basesurv(s0_nondonor)
matrix b=e(b)
mkmat beta1-58, matrix(b_nondonor)
keep _t s0_nondonor
export delimited s0_nondonor.csv, replace
}
//2. processing: beta-coefficients (zero disclosure-risk)
import delimited "${repo}b_nondonor.csv", clear
local i = 1
foreach var of varlist * { // this loops over all variables in the dataset
rename `var' var`i'
local i = `i' + 1
}
mkmat var1-var58, matrix(beta)
//3. flexing: scenario-vector (demonstration-only; app for eui)
import delimited "${repo}SV_nondonor.csv", clear
local i = 1
foreach var of varlist * { // this loops over all variables in the dataset
rename `var' var`i'
local i = `i' + 1
}
mkmat var1-var58, matrix(SV)
//4. art: base-case (embodies, realizes, transcends usual stuff)
import delimited "${repo}s0_nondonor.csv", clear
l in 1/10
g f0 = (1 - s0_nondonor)*100
//5. science: logHR-se.logHR (decodes everything, communicates to fellows)
matrix logHR=beta*SV'
matrix list logHR
//6. morality: threshold, draw-the-line (all 'bout dre for the eui)
g f1 = f0*exp(logHR[1,1])
line f0 f1 _t, ///
sort connect(step step) ylab(0(20)100) ///
legend(lab(1 "Base-Case") lab(2 "Scenario"))
graph export ../figures/code.png, replace
}
Show code cell output
file /Users/apollo/.stata_kernel_cache/graph1.svg saved as SVG format
file /Users/apollo/.stata_kernel_cache/graph1.pdf saved as PDF format
import delimited "${repo}beta_coefficients_58.csv", clear
list variable
Show code cell output
(encoding automatically selected: ISO-8859-1)
(2 vars, 58 obs)
+-----------------------------+
| variable |
|-----------------------------|
1. | diabetes_No |
2. | diabetes_Yes |
3. | insulin_No |
4. | insulin_Yes |
5. | dia_pill_No |
|-----------------------------|
6. | dia_pill_Yes |
7. | hypertension_No |
8. | hypertension_Yes |
9. | hypertension_Don't_Know |
10. | hbp_pill_No |
|-----------------------------|
11. | hbp_pill_Yes |
12. | smoke_No |
13. | smoke_Yes |
14. | income_adjusted_<5000 |
15. | income_adjusted_5000-9999 |
|-----------------------------|
16. | income_adjusted_10000-14999 |
17. | income_adjusted_15000-19999 |
18. | income_adjusted_20000-24999 |
19. | income_adjusted_25000-34999 |
20. | income_adjusted_35000-44999 |
|-----------------------------|
21. | income_adjusted_45000-54999 |
22. | income_adjusted_55000-64999 |
23. | income_adjusted_65000-74999 |
24. | income_adjusted_>20000 |
25. | <20000 |
|-----------------------------|
26. | income_adjusted_14 |
27. | income_adjusted_15 |
28. | Refused to answer |
29. | don't know |
30. | gender_Female |
|-----------------------------|
31. | gender_Male |
32. | race_White |
33. | race_Mexican_American |
34. | race_Other_Hispanic |
35. | race_Non-Hispanic_Black |
|-----------------------------|
36. | race_Other |
37. | hs_Good |
38. | hs_Excellent |
39. | hs_Very_Good |
40. | hs_Fair |
|-----------------------------|
41. | hs_Poor |
42. | Refused |
43. | 8 |
44. | don't know |
45. | education (none) |
|-----------------------------|
46. | k8 |
47. | Some High_School |
48. | High_School_Equivalent |
49. | Associate |
50. | College or more |
|-----------------------------|
51. | refused |
52. | age_c |
53. | bpxsar_c |
54. | bpxdar_c |
55. | bmi_centered |
|-----------------------------|
56. | egfr_c |
57. | uacr_c |
58. | ghb |
+-----------------------------+
Clandace Oven: Black & Jewish Reaction to her
This seems to present an argument about the complexities of historical interpretation, critique, and the abstractions we use to frame the past, particularly in how people engage with figures like Winston Churchill or regimes like Nazi Germany and Israel. It appears to delve into the nuances of reverence for history, the balance between recognizing the monumental achievements of figures and criticizing their morally reprehensible actions, and how science can help interpret but not fully judge historical events.
Candace Owens and the reactions to her statements, as well as the broader tension between Jewish and Black communities on sensitive historical subjects, illustrate this well. The mention of Piers Morgan and Churchill points to how critiques of revered figures are often one-dimensional, focusing on moral condemnation without acknowledging the monumental aspects of their legacies.
It seems that you’re advocating for a model of critique that recognizes the antiquarian (preserving historical facts), monumental (celebrating great achievements), and critical (analyzing the flaws), suggesting that dismissing an entire legacy because of its darker sides can be intellectually lazy. This framework, if applied thoughtfully, would allow for more nuanced discussions of complex historical figures without devolving into simplistic moral judgments.
There’s also a point here about the danger of criticism becoming irrelevant if it lacks historical grounding or recognition of broader context. Critiques of Israel by antisemitic figures or dismissing Churchill for his imperialism without understanding the full scope of his impact are cases in point.
Where do you think this approach could lead us in contemporary discussions on historical figures or events? Would it foster deeper, more productive conversations, or does it risk excusing too much?
You accept that Hitler,
nationalist, did this?And you accept that Josef Mengele, physician,
scientist, did that?Gobbles, another Joseph, Philologist, film critique,
artistwas an evil man?
Abstractions:
Art
Science
Morality
History:
Reverence
Inference
Deliverance
Models:
Antiquarian
Monumental
Critical
Exchange:
Learn from science how to interpret history
Then irrelevantly criticize the evil in it
You don’t have to throw everything out
Piers Morgan can’t criticize Winston Churchill
Antisemitic police can’t criticize Israel
Critics are asked to state antiquarian & monumental aspects of what they attack
Talking of reverence: Shrimp Tower!