Irreducible Quotes

Authors: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Categories: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
in-my-work-i-wanted-something-irreducible-absence-gimmicky-clever-isamu-noguchi
Should you operate upon your clients as objects, you risk reducing them to less than human. Following the culture of appropriation and mastery your clients become a kind of extension of yourself, of your ego. In the appropriation and objectification mode, your clients' well-being and success in treatment reflect well upon you. You 'did' something to them, you made them well. You acted upon them and can take the credit for successful therapy or treatment. Conversely, if your clients flounder or regress, that reflects poorly on you. On this side of things the culture of appropriation and mastery says that you are not doing enough. You are not exerting enough influence, technique or therapeutic force. What anxiety this can breed for some clinicians! DBT offers a framework and tools for a treatment that allows clients to retain their full humanity. Through the practice of mindfulness, you can learn to cultivate a fuller presence to the moments of your life, and even with your clients and your work with them. This presence potentiates an encounter between two irreducible human beings, meeting professionally, of course, and meeting humanly. The dialectical framework, which embraces contradictions and gives you a way of seeing that life is pregnant with creative tensions, allows for your discovery of your limits and possibilities, gives you a way of seeing the dynamic nature of reality that is anything but sitting still; shows you that your identity grows from relationship with others, including those you help, that you are an irreducible human being encountering other irreducible human beings who exert influence upon you, even as you exert your own upon them. Even without clinical contrivance.

Scott E. Spradlin
should-you-operate-upon-your-clients-as-objects-you-risk-reducing-them-to-less-than-human-following-culture-appropriation-mastery-your-clients-become-kind-extension-yourself-your
the-facile-economic-psychological-debunking-theoretical-life-cannot-do-away-with-its-irreducible-beauties-allan-bloom
one-irreducible-residual-of-38-years-in-the-business-is-the-number-of-lasting-loving-friendships-i-have-made
absurd-irreducible-nothingnot-even-profound-secret-delirium-naturecould-explain-tree-root-jeanpaul-sartre
i-thought-irreducible-requirements-republicanism-were-being-for-life-small-government-strong-national-defense
the-belief-that-personality-is-mysterious-irreducible-has-no-scientific-warrant-is-accepted-chiefly-because-it-is-flattering-to-our-human-self-esteem-bertrand-russell
a-moral-society-will-not-set-standards-for-becoming-parent-but-it-will-establish-irreducible-minimums-for-maintaining-that-sacred-status-andrew-vachss
there-has-been-no-progress-in-60000-years-in-reducing-psychedelic-experience-to-known-quantity-it-is-as-terrifying-as-awesome-as-ecstatic-as-terence-mckenna
by-confronting-us-with-irreducible-mysteries-that-stretch-our-daily-vision-to-include-infinity-nature-opens-inviting-guiding-path-toward-spiritual-thomas-more
theres-release-in-knowing-truth-no-matter-how-anguishing-it-is-you-come-finally-to-irreducible-thing-theres-nothing-left-to-do-but-pick-it-up-hold-it-then-at-last-you-can-enter-s
we-open-halves-miracle-clotting-acids-brims-into-starry-divisions-creations-original-juices-irreducible-changeless-alive-freshness-lives-on-pablo-neruda
all-evolutionary-biologists-know-that-variation-itself-is-natures-only-irreducible-essence-i-had-to-place-myself-amidst-variation
because-politics-rests-on-an-irreducible-measure-of-coercion-it-can-never-become-a-perfect-realm-of-perfect-love-and-justice
you-will-never-get-to-irreducible-definition-anything-because-you-will-never-be-able-to-explain-why-you-want-to-explain-on-the-system-will-gobble-itself-up-alan-w-watts
the-scientificreligious-conflict-ultimately-is-conflict-between-allegiance-to-this-method-allegiance-to-even-irreducible-minimum-belief-fixed-in-john-dewey
a-society-coming-apart-at-top-bottom-passing-over-into-another-form-contains-just-as-many-possibilities-for-revelation-as-society-running-along-smoothly-in-its-own-rut-the-indivi
Darwin singled out the eye as posing a particularly challenging problem: 'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' Creationists gleefully quote this sentence again and again. Needless to say, they never quote what follows. Darwin's fulsomely free confession turned out to be a rhetorical device. He was drawing his opponents towards him so that his punch, when it came, struck the harder. The punch, of course, was Darwin's effortless explanation of exactly how the eye evolved by gradual degrees. Darwin may not have used the phrase 'irreducible complexity', or 'the smooth gradient up Mount Improbable', but he clearly understood the principle of both. 'What is the use of half an eye?' and 'What is the use of half a wing?' are both instances of the argument from 'irreducible complexity'. A functioning unit is said to be irreducibly complex if the removal of one of its parts causes the whole to cease functioning. This has been assumed to be self-evident for both eyes and wings. But as soon as we give these assumptions a moment's thought, we immediately see the fallacy. A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can't see clear images without glasses, but can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff. Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly better than no wing at all. Half a wing could save your life by easing your fall from a tree of a certain height. And 51 per cent of a wing could save you if you fall from a slightly taller tree. Whatever fraction of a wing you have, there is a fall from which it will save your life where a slightly smaller winglet would not. The thought experiment of trees of different height, from which one might fall, is just one way to see, in theory, that there must be a smooth gradient of advantage all the way from 1 per cent of a wing to 100 per cent. The forests are replete with gliding or parachuting animals illustrating, in practice, every step of the way up that particular slope of Mount Improbable. By analogy with the trees of different height, it is easy to imagine situations in which half an eye would save the life of an animal where 49 per cent of an eye would not. Smooth gradients are provided by variations in lighting conditions, variations in the distance at which you catch sight of your prey-or your predators. And, as with wings and flight surfaces, plausible intermediates are not only easy to imagine: they are abundant all around the animal kingdom. A flatworm has an eye that, by any sensible measure, is less than half a human eye. Nautilus (and perhaps its extinct ammonite cousins who dominated Paleozoic and Mesozoic seas) has an eye that is intermediate in quality between flatworm and human. Unlike the flatworm eye, which can detect light and shade but see no image, the Nautilus 'pinhole camera' eye makes a real image; but it is a blurred and dim image compared to ours. It would be spurious precision to put numbers on the improvement, but nobody could sanely deny that these invertebrate eyes, and many others, are all better than no eye at all, and all lie on a continuous and shallow slope up Mount Improbable, with our eyes near a peak-not the highest peak but a high one.

Richard Dawkins
darwin-singled-out-eye-as-posing-particularly-challenging-problem-to-suppose-that-eye-with-all-its-inimitable-contrivances-for-adjusting-focus-to-different-distances-for-admittin
What Kant took to be the necessary schemata of reality, ' says a modern Freudian, 'are really only the necessary schemata of repression.' And an experimental psychologist adds that 'a sense of time can only exist where there is submission to reality.' To see everything as out of mere succession is to behave like a man drugged or insane. Literature and history, as we know them, are not like that; they must submit, be repressed. It is characteristic of the stage we are now at, I think, that the question of how far this submission ought to go-or, to put it the other way, how far one may cultivate fictional patterns or paradigms-is one which is debated, under various forms, by existentialist philosophers, by novelists and anti-novelists, by all who condemn the myths of historiography. It is a debate of fundamental interest, I think, and I shall discuss it in my fifth talk. Certainly, it seems, there must, even when we have achieved a modern degree of clerical scepticism, be some submission to the fictive patterns. For one thing, a systematic submission of this kind is almost another way of describing what we call 'form.' 'An inter-connexion of parts all mutually implied'; a duration (rather than a space) organizing the moment in terms of the end, giving meaning to the interval between tick and tock because we humanly do not want it to be an indeterminate interval between the tick of birth and the tock of death. That is a way of speaking in temporal terms of literary form. One thinks again of the Bible: of a beginning and an end (denied by the physicist Aristotle to the world) but humanly acceptable (and allowed by him to plots). Revelation, which epitomizes the Bible, puts our fate into a book, and calls it the book of life, which is the holy city. Revelation answers the command, 'write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter'-'what is past and passing and to come'-and the command to make these things interdependent. Our novels do likewise. Biology and cultural adaptation require it; the End is a fact of life and a fact of the imagination, working out from the middle, the human crisis. As the theologians say, we 'live from the End, ' even if the world should be endless. We need ends and kairoi and the pleroma, even now when the history of the world has so terribly and so untidily expanded its endless successiveness. We re-create the horizons we have abolished, the structures that have collapsed; and we do so in terms of the old patterns, adapting them to our new worlds. Ends, for example, become a matter of images, figures for what does not exist except humanly. Our stories must recognize mere successiveness but not be merely successive; Ulysses, for example, may be said to unite the irreducible chronos of Dublin with the irreducible kairoi of Homer. In the middest, we look for a fullness of time, for beginning, middle, and end in concord. For concord or consonance really is the root of the matter, even in a world which thinks it can only be a fiction. The theologians revive typology, and are followed by the literary critics. We seek to repeat the performance of the New Testament, a book which rewrites and requites another book and achieves harmony with it rather than questioning its truth. One of the seminal remarks of modern literary thought was Eliot's observation that in the timeless order of literature this process is continued. Thus we secularize the principle which recurs from the New Testament through Alexandrian allegory and Renaissance Neo-Platonism to our own time. We achieve our secular concords of past and present and future, modifying the past and allowing for the future without falsifying our own moment of crisis. We need, and provide, fictions of concord.

Frank Kermode
what-kant-took-to-be-necessary-schemata-reality-says-modern-freudian-are-really-only-necessary-schemata-repression-and-experimental-psychologist-adds-that-sense-time-can-only-exi
?Earn cash when you save a quote by clicking
EARNED Load...
LEVEL : Load...