Recently concluded that am a meta innovator, which can help explain recent idea directions, and meta means self-referential. So yeah, I like to focus on the why of why I do things, like why talk entertainment now?
Talking entertainment as have been frustrated with things that missed the mark for me, and especially with bad endings, where I had a functional definition for science already. So why not figure out a science of entertainment?
So why did I have a functional definition of science?
Because I was frustrated with discussions around climate change, while have been a bit with talk about science before, but felt a more pressing need. Remarkably having my own functional definition of science makes it MUCH easier for me to talk subject of climate science, when I do so, in political arenas.
But how did I know how to do a functional definition of science?
Because decades ago started working on old math problems deemed difficult though relatively simple to express in order to exercise my mind. Idea was that with little likelihood of solving them could work on them indefinitely, like a dog gnawing on a bone. But instead felt I had solved a few but started asking myself, how did I know for sure?
So I defined mathematical proof in a functional way so that I could tell if a mathematical argument was true or not, as I went looking at dictionary definitions and found that going from them to actual mathematical arguments of mine I was studying, I still didn't know.
So my first formal functional definition was for mathematical proof, then for science, and then for entertainment. Functional definitions let you know if you have the thing defined.
And that is the chain of how I ended up defining entertainment functionally.
Turns out it's about lots of frustration really.
My feeling though? If I need something and it isn't there already with ideas, have no problems now with figuring something out.
And I want better entertainment. See? It's not complicated when it's all laid out I think.
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment