Well as after waxing on Dickens’s quote from “Tail of Two Cities”, I had promised to re-wax (yes, can just hear the Karate Kid wise cracks out there; wax On, Wax Off) on the topic of “rightness”, what it means and why along with a bit more. Yesterday we explored the “yin & yang” of Charles words and I have to say “words” themselves are amazing things as they have so much power especially when assembled into a “collective” which calls out a reflective, yet recursive idea which spins into infinity.
Yet you still have to ask about what got me here, well it is a good question as while in the Netherlands a few days back, a colleague and I headed out from Den Haag for the manufacturing city of Eindhoven for a business meeting. To get there the colleague fired up his new fangled GPS and we were off, however why do I call this a “new fangled device” as while I have one [GPS], it’s about 4 years old and we all know what that means technologically right?
As my older unit does a good job of getting me from point “A” to “B” which is the right answer as I’m “somewhere” and the goal is to get somewhere “else” and the orange line appears and I follow the nagging voice. Yet in the end, if I’ve selected all the right “stuff” then at the conclusion of the journey I will be at or, at least near the intended destination. So in essence the GPS was right, as it got me there however was it really right? As how many times have you used a GPS on your home turf per-say and noticed it took you way out of the way, or routed you though an unsafe area and so on? So the question is, while it was “right”, how right in fact was it?
This is where the colleagues GPS struck me as interesting as it provided three options, based on the data it had been given such as traffic (remember it was a new fangled one), stops and road speed. In short it could present a “righter” answer then my age worn battle axe of a unit could. So both units would be “right”, however his unit has a chance at being “righter” about the answer which is a basic “proof” that “rightness” is in actuality subjective and not objective.
Whoa you say what does all this mean then? Well (guys) when you head out and get lost and the wife is nagging at you for not asking directions, because you forgot the GPS in the other car, you can now with a straight face tell her you in fact are still right. Alright let me explain, as we call upon “Ontology” to save us in this debate as this calls forward the concept of can we categorize things so if we were to take all “existing things” and sort them into categories how many would we have?
So pause the tape here for a minute and get your pencil and paper (no calculators please) out and figure the answer on your own, when done please restart the tape.
Ok, welcome back and what answer did you arrive at? If it was 1: infinity then your right as the 1 is the group of “all existing things” and the “infinity” is the resolution. What you say, well you will have to check back tomorrow and I will explain…