Could it be that Consciousness Itself is the Perpetual Beginner?
I mean, is there even a thinker (of the mind) who thinks, or is there just thought itself?
The philosopher is the perpetual beginner. It is disheartening to come face to face (or brain to brain) with academic mathematicians who make one feel as though it would take decades of training to be able to penetrate their "mysterious subject."
I really prefer the attitude of Alexander Stepanov, where he attempts to bring attention to the mathematical foundations of computer programming.
I really am at a loss to discover what is most worthy of my conscious attention.
From the thread on
Generic Programming:
Our attempts to cut close to the bone might be appreciated by "archeologists of our current communication medium" in the near future, when we (consciousness) are no more than dust in the wind.
I never claimed to be an academic nor a professional, and certainly never an expert; that is, I am only holding my own in these realms inside our human heads. You will feel you are in an ocean of incomprehensible gibberish, perhaps; but your interest in horror might protect your mind from being overwhelmed or devoured by imagined incomprehensibility.
Do not fear madness. I have lost my mind many times, and good riddens I say.
It's ok to allow a New Beginner's Mind to dwell in that tired carcass once in a while. Take it slow.
I may start having to introduce current consciousness to previous consciousness. While it may seem unlikely to you, Holden, that my little ego could be crushed over a lifetime of thinking about mathematics, I can sympathize with HP Lovecraft being intimidated by the sheer volume of existing (as well as potential) mathematics.
In fact, even as you praise my run at formal education, you also acknowledge that, after a certain age, many will view such education as worse than useless. It can be a challenge to maintain any kind of gumption whatsoever. One might even become paralyzed, losing interest simply for not knowing how to focus, and not being able to decide which concepts and ideas are worthy of our attention. Also, we want to maintain our authenticity.
Is authenticity even possible in the academic mathematics community?
If one is too honest about one's ignorance on some concept, there is a sense of "not being in THAT elite indoctrinated priesthood."
Could it be that in pursuing understanding and mastery of skill in such disciplines, we are setting ourselves up to be ridiculed as amateurs or autodidacts?
When I get into a funk like this, I do not care what I eat or when I eat. When there is no passion for learning, I lose my will to eat.
I read on
reddit that, "Highly creative people crave novelty and theoretical concepts."
What drew me to Rational trigonometry (Wildberger's theory) was the sheer novelty of it, and yet I had applications in mind, that is, I really wanted to see the theory in action. Unfortunately, I lack the confidence to tackle exercises all by my lonesome. Nor do I wish to sit in front of a computer watching videos.
I prefer working through exercises, working through a text, basically rewriting it simply because that's the way I go about studying. I want to keep myself honest. The thing is, without a genuine interest in the material, without other human beings engaging with the text, I'm afraid that, like most everything else, it would be an endeavor not worth the effort.
It's bad enough that most people I will encounter will not be very interested in the fundamentals of mathematics nor the foundations of computer science, but to study Rational trigonometry in isolation would put me in the rings of Saturn.
I will have to content myself with simply being me, that is, a half-crazy nobody who is still a little interested in gaining deeper understanding, not just of the nature of our existence itself, but of some of the abstract concepts as well.
It is always tempting to get a bottle of booze and live the life of the protagonist in some dark nihilistic novel.