Here are some things that I wrote.
Project “Project”
[Here I am describing an intention to focus activities by categories defined as projects].
A project can be anything and there can be any number, but practical considerations will double as reasonable constraints in both those instances. A study of a range is not necessary at the moment since I am interested in those projects offering relevance within the short-term. I will proceed by associations and will begin from a currently dominant project.
I am reading The Nature of Consciousness by Pierro Scaruffi, whilst handwriting notes as I read, mind mapping (based largely on those notes), and digitally journalling thoughts and summaries. It is easy to defend this project. It serves a range of my interests, in terms of subject matter (viz. consciousness) and fields of study (e.g. philosophy, neuroscience). The content of this book is wide-ranging with relatively sufficient detail, as well as erudite whilst maintaining a foundational character. It feels like this study will provide me with a framework is both elaborate and powerful enough to serve as an intellectual cornerstone.
“The Nature” places me at the intersection of science and humanities, with obvious tendrils passing into philosophy and neuroscience. This observation argues against any additional studies within philosophy or neuroscience. But that is not a final argument. Even if it were, there could be exceptions. For instance, these lines do not dispute a choice to study something at a lower tier of intensity, i.e. since any effort there has no bearing on “higher tiers” or vice versa (e.g. reading both “Critique of Pure Reason” and “The German Enlightenment: A Very Short Introduction” – note that the latter is (a.) relatively casual and so too its reading mode, and (b.) describes a phenomenon along the same hierarchical chain but at a “relatively-significantly” different paradigm).
But is there anything that meets those terms of exclusion (i.e. between the posts of philosophy and of neuroscience)? Only partly, but first I want to rephrase those terms: I am interested in studying modules with a particular breadth, and serving an ethos that whilst intellectual avoids myopia in favour of exploration.
Within the range of philosophy (i.e. the label, its associated learnings, and more so the correlates of the act we recognize, adumbrated by Socrates’ form as it were), there are terms that suggest to me some studies (i.e. “legitimate” within this framework). First-most in my mind is the project (viz. codenamed) Philosopher Briefs. The parameters of this project are within the boundaries roughly-described above: Perusal of the study material is (a.) simple and relatively brief (i.e. via on-line philosophy encyclopaedias [SEP and IEP]), and (b.) is aimed at a map that outlines a history of Western philosophy (cf. the Philosophy Timeline – i.e. note what this represents, and consider holistic implications).
What else? Further topics, titles, or trends within the aforementioned fields? Nothing comes to mind within the two streams. I can instead refer to the negative space, and remind myself that I am choosing to not study particular domains and texts of interest. For example, while studying the book by Scaruffi I prefer not to immerse myself in Hegel. Similarly, I prefer to delay a study of the framework of neuroscience to the appearance of that topic within the Scaruffi textbook. These comments exemplify the decision to study only a single major work within the realm of philosophy/neuroscience, despite and with regard to the fact that this domain is delineated by the selected text (i.e. “philosophy/neuroscience” is not the only category, and overlaps with other potential categories for study).
There is no absolute rule to explain the choice of those two projects (viz. The Nature of Consciousness, Philosopher Briefs), although it may be explained by arbitrary descriptions. For example, these two projects represent an interest in theoretical paradigms (e.g. defined by their use for exploring modes and the targets of perception). If this representation is assumed as given, then its alternative can be described and its contents investigated. A viable description is that the other side of the didactic coin concerns practical matters; issues whose study permits improved activities. Obviously, this covers a virtually unlimited set of subjects, and my selection from amongst its members proceeds from the starting point of predicates of interest (i.e. and not from recognition of this “set of practical members”).
I already carry a motivation for studying some type of computer programming. If I am to conduct myself within that motivation then I must, by practical necessity, refine my selection. The means for selecting studies within this discipline involves complicated and elaborate considerations and referral to advice (i.e. found online). This is not the time/place for mapping that particular discourse, and instead, I will offer a few pithy recommendations by which I make a decision (cf. tentative decision). For example, one of the fundamental units of advice I’ve seen repeatedly is that whatever path one selects for oneself, no progress will be made without practise programming. In that sense, it matters less what language one chooses initially since within reason that choice is irrelevant to the longer-term perspective by which any (reasonable) language permits the dominant lesson qua practise programming.
While acknowledging that principle, I have been investigating the popular languages, and have decided that it is in my best interest / most interesting to learn the language Java (i.e. at least as a primary step). The next detail to be clarified is how to proceed to study Java, or what tools and texts can serve that project.
