"Procedure" and "Data Structure" - A Distinction without a Difference

"The inner coming-to-be or genesis of substance is an unbroken transition into outer existence, into being-for-another, and conversely, the genesis of existence is how existence is by itself taken back into essence."
- Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit (paragraph 42)

What happens in computer programs?

Classically, an algorithm is a well-defined procedure that takes input and returns output. The input is some piece of data. You know, a number; or string. The procedure turns this number into another number; or a string into a number. Or whatever.

Literarily, a crystallized objective object comes in. Upon it acts the action of a thousand rapid hands too quick to see. Finally, fresh out of the fire, the result pops out, separate from its furnace, like a piece of toast from the maw of the toaster.

Briefly, Data. Process. Data.

We didn't come out of the womb knowing this pattern though. We had to be taught. A teacher had to guide our hands, pointing, "Look! Those numbers! That's data. That sentence! It's data too." Then we saw the process of the data's transformation. It changed from this data, to that data. And this change, our teacher called, "Procedure." And we saw the names, that they were very good.

And so we learned a pattern. To call this or that, a "data structure" or a "procedure." We followed our teacher in not calling a number a "procedure." Otherwise, we would really confuse things. And we would get a slap on the wrist ... for being wrong about the pattern we have learned.

Once we recognize that we were taught these things, that we entered into a pattern, we might begin to wonder whether we should take our pattern with the upmost seriousness. Shall we step out of our pattern to see what is real in it and what is mere habit?

And so we invite ourselves to consider our concepts as they are, uncommitted to where our results may lead us (say lead us to a slap on the wrist), and our old rules have left our mind for the moment. Uncommitted inquiry.

In other words, let us enter into the world of philosophy.

Let's look at something very "obviously" a piece of data: the number five. What is it to a computer? ( Really, what is it to a programmer? Computers don't really regard things. )

Five is something such that if it is next to a plus sign and another number, it returns the sum.

We might as well have the following.

def 5 (op, summand):
     if(op == '+'):
           if(summand == 1):
                 return 6
           if(summand == 2):
                 return 7
      .
      .
      .

The same goes for multiplication and other operations that the processor is designed to do when it "sees five."

And this procedural knowledge, "what to do," is the entirety of the number five to a computer program.

The same goes for all numbers. And the same for all data. For a computer has to know what to do with the data. But it needs the data to tell us what precisely this is. And so data itself tells the computer what to do. Thus data is procedure.

On the reverse side, "what to do" must be stored someplace in a computer. That is, a procedure is also a thing within a computer program. A piece of hard data.

Thus data and procedures don't seem all that different. The shocking thing occurs when we consider a description of an algorithm with this insight, "Data is processed into data." The "data" part processes the "is processed into" part. And the result is a process. Movement upon movement! This is enough to make one's head spin. Each part seems the mover and the moved simultaneously. And we realize we can no longer look at the computer program from the world of computer programming. For computer programming has static things which are acted upon.

And we come down from this wild experience, tired; our movement and thought we ease -- we make for ourselves an arrest in our experience. But with wonder at how vast our world is; how limited the world of computer programming is. But we like our old game, and we enter into it again, but with the awareness that procedures and data are merely distinctions without a difference.

Nietzsche on Churchianity

'At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?' 

Matthew 12:1-5

'Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil.'

- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Keep those quote in mind.

Let’s think of the smarmy boy in your elementary school class. You know, the one that would tattle on you for breaking a small rule. He would do this to be spiteful. Or because he felt slavish towards the rules. Maybe get back at you for something. Your mom might have told you that he was acting that way because he was jealous. Nevertheless, the kid’s not wrong. You broke a rule and you will get punished for it. And the kid will certainly feel smug. Even if your mom is right, that he acts out of insecurity, the kid will feel smug.

And what did you really want to do? You wanted, I’m sure, to call him out on all his bullshit. But probably, you were a bit timid, were a bit confused, and didn’t yell at the kid in front of the class and show him for what he was. You defaulted to the easy path: a good boy; and let him get away with his antics. And you were left feeling dissatisfied.

Well, Nietzsche took another path: a cleverer one. For him, the tattle tell is christians as a collective. And he does call them out.

Let’s look again at the the spiteful boy. He uses the “rules” and “goodness” in a funny way. He might put on airs of goodness, like give the teacher a big, innocent simile as he devilishly prepares your destruction. He doesn’t really believe it, it seems. There’s something weak about his attitude. Destructive, yes ... but afraid too ... uncommitted to life or something … In any case -- there you are, you are called “wrong,” or “evil” and you do not do what you really feel you ought to do because you want to have the protection of being “good.” But now … you are being just as cowardly as your enemy … It’s unsatisfactory.

Using masks of righteousness, purity, and knowing the right things … hmmm …

What Pharisees does this remind you of?

Let us stay away from this attitude. Be bold. Love.

Let us follow King David. Let us follow Christ. And go beyond “good” and “evil.”

New Blog

Now I'm co-authoring at Gene Callahan's blog. So please be diverted over there for more divertissement.

Rendering Unto Caesar: Christianity and the State?

When Christ said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God's what is God's," he gave a non-answer. For the question for us is "what is Caesar's and what is God's?" But the answer for the religious person is simple: all is God's. So then, what is Caesar's?

In this post, I make an attempt to adumbrate my already hazy vision of Christianity's current relation to the state in the West. So the content of this post is a shadow of a shadow. But this sketch shall serve as a benchmark for my grappling with this enormous issue, a benchmark that should reveal how little I know at the moment.

By state I will restrict myself to what we normally mean by government and the functions it provides. So I speak of laws, the execution of those laws, and the people who execute them.

Christianity in the recent West has largely distanced itself, I believe, from an active role in the shaping of this institution. This is very curious: for religion is bound to law in the strictest sense. Religion and law are about what ought to be proper behavior. The appearance of this curiosity seems to be due to the belief that what is God's is the spiritual; and what is Caesar's is the worldly. These realms are thought to be separate.

To define things as they are thought, it seems to me, further: What is spiritual is soteriological knowledge. What is worldly: everything irrelevant to the salvation of man. Again, the vision of Christ, the correct understanding and rehearsal of Christian doctrine, the fact that our actions demonstrate correct knowledge of these doctrines: all this belongs to the realm of Christianity. And to the world, the realm of government, is delegated the responsibilities that get in the way of this sacred path.

In short, as things seem to be for the majority, Christianity is the rough-beaten path to the sun; Government is the task force that cleans the path, not moving along it.

There have been many thinkers who have challenged this conception; T.S. Eliot and Dostoevsky are the foremost in my mind. And it is with these I currently stand, and it is for the reason I gave in the beginning of this essay; but the answer of where we go is hazy.

How Do We Better Things?

No one can expect to, by his will alone, effect social change in a group. Each man's will is not the will of any other individual; and so, no one has ultimate power over the direction of a group. It is important at the outset to realize that this is how things are. In order to have any hope of positive change, we must understand what we can change for the better.

But neither can a man expect to effect change in his own will. For how can a will will what it will not? It is a contradiction. Thus, neither our own will nor the will of our neighbor can we change.

What then are we to do? The good news: not everything is will. As conscious persons, we have much in our world that we have to work with besides "self-improvement". In that world, we have a lot to pay attention to. It seems that by paying attention to what we see as good now, leads to the development of good in the future. Conversely, refusing to enjoy the good, we refuse the only thing that will bring happiness to us.

Thus, our attitude toward affecting change should be one of gratitude towards the good we now experience. It is one that cultivates what we have, and it does not seek to go beyond and do things it cannot. We can't give ourselves new material to work with, we have to do with what we've been given. And so we should do what we can: "do whatever our hand finds to do."

New Project: The State of Christianity

It has been said, by Charles Williams, I believe, that Christianity always seems to be dying, but somehow it keeps coming back with ever new vigor. Today, the idea of its dying, is at the forefront of my mind. To encourage it to either die faithfully or live wholesomely, is a task that not only may help others who find the situation bewildering: but also will help me understand too.

Among the concerns of mine are
- the church's organization in the current political climate
- our understanding of theology after the scientific revolution
- christianity's teachings to young men and women after the sexual revolution

A major focus of this blog will be to analyze the state of Christianity throughout the world and then (perhaps) to give my take on what it could do to improve. In this way, I realize that I will be criticizing many who are better than me; that I am a drop in an endless sea of opinion; and that (hence) the only chance of good work is by great personal growth and by divine blessing.

But it is to be an honest attempt, and if it helps me and others understand our current situation and what to do about it just a little better, then it is worth it.

New Project: Programming in Everyday Life

Currently, I'm reading The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It makes the following claim:

Educators, generals, dieticians, psychologists, and parents program. Armies, students, and some societies are programmed. An assault on large problems employs a succession of programs, most of which spring into existence en route. These programs are rife with issues that appear to be particular to the problem at hand. To appreciate programming as an intellectual activity in its own right you must turn to computer programming; you must read and write computer programs--many of them. 

The authors turn from our encounter with these patterns in everyday life to the theoretical study of these patterns in computer science. I'm going to reverse the movement they're making here. I'll note down their theoretical considerations, then I'll suggest practical conclusions we may draw from programs.

EAIM: Modes of Experience

"You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together."
- Deuteronomy 22:11

Your sense of sight is color and form. Your sense of hearing is sound.  Though they both inform you about the nature of your world of experience, we can't thereby say, "I am hearing the color blue." It's a confused idea. The world of hearing has nothing to do with the world of sight. They are separate worlds of experience.

While this much is obvious, Michael Oakeshott clarifies other, less obvious, kinds of confusion. By the way he sees things, the worlds of Science, History, and Practice are towards each other like sight and hearing are towards each other.

The Rationalist is ... (paraphrased Oakeshott) ...

... always standing for independence from all authority except 'reason'
... the enemy of mere tradition
... contentious against authority
... skeptical (for him, nothing is beyond the criticism of 'reason')
... optimistic (for him, 'reason' can always find any thing's value)
... fortified by the belief that 'reason' is universal in man
... an individualist
... finds it hard to believe that another "who thinks honestly and clearly
can think differently than himself"
... insistent that his own experience is foundational to his 'reason's' materials
... ready to reduce experience to principles
... without peace in unclarity
... domineering over experience
... without appreciation for the minutiae of experience
... gnostic
... uncomprehending of the dictum - Oportet Quaedam Nescire
... a well trained, but not educated, mind
... ambitious to be a "self-made-man," not to live as part of the experience of mankind
... preternaturally deliberate in his life plans
... not a passive experiencer
... not sure how humanity has survived without his 'reason'
... living every day as if it were his first
... of the opinion that habits are failures
... temperamentally distrustful of time, hungry for eternity
... nervous and irritable about anything topical and transitory

IQ and Wisdom

IQ is ... the rate which a person can correctly experience things.



Wisdom is ... the fear of ignoring what experience tells you to do.

EAIM: Truth and Reality

"... on Earth as it is in Heaven ..." - the Lord's prayer

Many a well-intentioned, open minded person, when seeing a way of thought differing from his own will cope with the adage, "we'll that's you're truth."

There are many relatable examples of this. Some good and some bad.

(i) In an unintentionally dismissive case, a "scientifically" minded person might say, "Yes, you're religion is a nice way to cope with the harsh struggle of reality: it is true in so far as it accords with the fact of survival mechanism in group solidarity; and this is your primitive way of expressing it." He says, "that's your truth" with emphasis on "that." For him, his whole world is made of facts, and whatever departs from a hard fact is a silly falsehood, either harmless, stupid, or dangerously wrong, but definitely ignorant. For him science is the means to ascertain what is definitely true and false. There is no grey area between facts and non-facts.

(ii) With a feeling of ease, not needing to be discriminating, a rich young hedonist spends all to experience all: bars, art-shows, sexual conquests. Each novelty excites him momentarily. And the moment is all that is lived for, without care. He, therefore, can especially enjoy whatever is around him, involves himself in that exact moment without past and future in mind. All is merely a show experienced to excite himself, and his own experience is all he cares about. If he actually momentarily recognizes the gleam of eternity in another's eye, a ray of religious light, he probably would brush it off with a, "we'll that's your truth," meaning, "don't bother my world of experiences; keep to your own."

(iii) A tourist in a foreign land, say, an American in rural Peru, realizes he does not comprehend the aesthetics of women wearing bowler hats, or of single houses taking generations to build, or the communal respect for the Catholicism particular to South America; and though he knows a little Spanish, he is far from fluent; nevertheless he accepts it as a way of life that could have a meaning to those who know it well, and he accepts it as a truth that has some place in his own, but cannot yet fathom it. And in the midst of all his travel, a curiosity pricks him to investigate. He says, "that's your truth," meaning, "I know something of what I'm seeing, but this world is so surprising and interesting, that I might have my whole world turned upside down by what I'm seeing. I had better pay attention."

Oakeshott would condemn the first and second for not living the the real world: the first does not care to take the responsibility of existence on his shoulders: he wants to live in the part that makes him comfortable; and the second arrogantly refuses to realize that the facts he knows are partial; they are partial because they are part of his truth, and his truth isn't the whole. He does not comprehend that science is a narrow world, that it only partially captures his experience: it could never explain to him the meaning of beauty or explain why the color red appears red. (Further, he does not even realize that science isn't all that an objective enquiry, free from passion, risk and error.)

The third gets it right. He acknowledges that his world of experience is his own, but he also sees that there is more to know. He does not believe that he knows nothing of reality at all. How else could he be excited to learn about the world around him? But he has a lot to learn, and his learning will change how he sees all things: his relation to beauty, to family, and to the meaning the word "God."

To live in the real world is to follow your truth where it leads. Our truth makes contact with reality when we follow where it leads. For we don't create the feeling of necessity that pushes us to know the world. No. This feeling is the calling of Reality for us to know it. Thus, as Oakeshott says, "Experience, truth and reality are inseparable." 

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling 

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring 
Will be to arrive where we started 
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover 
Is that which was the beginning; 
At the source of the longest river 
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for 
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always-- 
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded 
Into the crowned knot of fire 
And the fire and the rose are one. 

- T.S. Eliot in Liddle Gidding

The Purpose of Art

To believe that art exists for
a purpose is to be confused.
For those who do not see this,
I would ask you to ask yourself,

"What is the purpose of a landscape painting?"
And your inventing mind might invent a legitimate purpose
for that painting.

It could alleviate melancholy.
Maybe enchant the cubicled mind.
But to all these legitimate purposes we could add another:
our rectangular painting could serve as a dinner plate.

If you say that being a dinner plate is very different than being art,
I rest my case. For it is something like a prose article,
mascarading as a poem.

Humility

"And man, who is part of your creation, wishes to praise you, man who bears about within himself his mortality, who bears about within himself testimony to his sin and testimony that you resist the proud." - Augustine, Confessions

True humility is humility before the truth. Recognizing reality before us, we abandon our egos. To be deferential to any ego, is the opposite of humility.

"The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless." - T.S.Eliot, East Coker