3 ms·

This is both cool and unusual! I have a question: did you ever get a feeling of what I can only describe as "numinous vertigo" when thinking about software sy

This is both cool and unusual! I have a question: did you ever get a feeling of what I can only describe as "numinous vertigo" when thinking about software systems? I sometimes get the sense that I'm peering into some basic universal structure, especially if the work has strong ties to theoretical CS or mathematics. It's as if I'm looking at something so fundamental and so meaningful that it ends being an emotional experience. At times, it's even been somewhat overpowering; it reminds me of Stendhal Syndrome in its quality [0]. Most people think it quite strange to have this kind of reaction to software, but computer science isn't really about computers in exactly the same way that geometry isn't about measuring the earth. In both cases, it feels like there's a divine essence. At any rate, I'm curious if your sense of calling in any way resembles this, or if this feeling is familiar to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome

angrygoat 5y ago
Awesome question. I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a long time ago), but I think I know what you're getting at. My answer is yes – I had a particular experience on a silent retreat which I think falls into this category. There's a 15th century text by Nicholas of Cusa that I think you might enjoy and which I think speaks to what you've raised. It's a fairly hard slog, especially if you haven't read anything similar – but I hadn't when I first read it, and I made it through. The title is De Visione Dei[0]. Cusa starts out with an Icon (a sacred image) which is omnivoyant: like the Mona Lisa, it gives the impression that it looks at each observer. Cusa builds a fairly complex mathematical argument, building on the observations of monks who process around the icon, reporting to each other their observations. From this Cusa builds a descriptive idea of the divine; but as the argument progresses, this breaks down. This, however, is not a failure – Cusa has rather wonderfully brought the scholastic, reasoned, philosophical approach into dialogue with the apophatic, negative, approach. I won't spoil the ending for you. Cusa's drawing on theology from the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and also on theology from Islam. These big existential questions that fascinate me. To get a bit Kierkegaard, I think he's right in that it's what's real, it's what ought to ultimately draw our attention. One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. I used to think about everything in terms of software, and sometimes startle people; now I often think about things in terms of texts like Cusa; which also startles people :-) [0] https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf (a reputable, scholarly translation)
- omginternets 5y ago
  Thank you so much for this. I can already tell we're on the same wavelength, and I'm looking forward to a lazy Sunday afternoon of reading. >One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. Believe it or not, I come from a literary background (my B.A. was in literature and I switched to a STEM field afterwards) so I know exactly what you mean. There's always a tension between picking the metaphor that's most fitting and the metaphor that your audience will understand. On a related note, have you ever read Leibniz's Monadology [0]? It's an attempt at a bottom-up, constructive approach to proving the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, it fails at this task, but I've always been fascinated by how close he gets, at least on the surface. You have to think very hard to see where the proof breaks down; I had to look it up. [0] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...
  - angrygoat 5y ago
    Cheers :) I haven't, but it sounds fascinating – thanks for the Sunday afternoon read in return!

angrygoat 5y ago

Awesome question. I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a long time ago), but I think I know what you're getting at. My answer is yes – I had a particular experience on a silent retreat which I think falls into this category. There's a 15th century text by Nicholas of Cusa that I think you might enjoy and which I think speaks to what you've raised. It's a fairly hard slog, especially if you haven't read anything similar – but I hadn't when I first read it, and I made it through. The title is De Visione Dei[0]. Cusa starts out with an Icon (a sacred image) which is omnivoyant: like the Mona Lisa, it gives the impression that it looks at each observer. Cusa builds a fairly complex mathematical argument, building on the observations of monks who process around the icon, reporting to each other their observations. From this Cusa builds a descriptive idea of the divine; but as the argument progresses, this breaks down. This, however, is not a failure – Cusa has rather wonderfully brought the scholastic, reasoned, philosophical approach into dialogue with the apophatic, negative, approach. I won't spoil the ending for you. Cusa's drawing on theology from the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and also on theology from Islam. These big existential questions that fascinate me. To get a bit Kierkegaard, I think he's right in that it's what's real, it's what ought to ultimately draw our attention. One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. I used to think about everything in terms of software, and sometimes startle people; now I often think about things in terms of texts like Cusa; which also startles people :-) [0] https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf (a reputable, scholarly translation)

omginternets 5y ago
Thank you so much for this. I can already tell we're on the same wavelength, and I'm looking forward to a lazy Sunday afternoon of reading. >One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. Believe it or not, I come from a literary background (my B.A. was in literature and I switched to a STEM field afterwards) so I know exactly what you mean. There's always a tension between picking the metaphor that's most fitting and the metaphor that your audience will understand. On a related note, have you ever read Leibniz's Monadology [0]? It's an attempt at a bottom-up, constructive approach to proving the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, it fails at this task, but I've always been fascinated by how close he gets, at least on the surface. You have to think very hard to see where the proof breaks down; I had to look it up. [0] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...
- angrygoat 5y ago
  Cheers :) I haven't, but it sounds fascinating – thanks for the Sunday afternoon read in return!