Hello Justin,
Having now read some Kant from the link you provided, I think he's a very
clever person, but I think it could be debated forever.

I see parallels between OO and eastern philosophy/spiritualism and now I see
parallels between Kant and OO.

I don't like how Kant seems to be proofing people against Transcendental
Knowledge and negating it. If he requires the proof of its existence he
should provide the proof of its non-existence. It's not the Transcendentals
fault that science isn't advanced enough to provide the proof one way or
another.

I think I'll keep out the philosophical aspects Smalltalk if I can.

Regards,
Gary
(Not wishing to offend you).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency


> Gary!
> There is only one mode of thinking with three separate functions or three
> processes, common to all people. It is not unlike the digestive system, or
a
> photographic process.
>
> Imagination:
> This faculty, like a camera, scans continously and automatically , taking
> stereo frames via two "a priori" intuitive lenses (time and space).
>
> Understanding:
> This faculty with the aid of a schema (structure: small and flexible in
> children, large and rigid in aged) tries to create a "unity" of the
> "manifold" of incoming data (physical objects). This unity takes the form
of
> principles or concepts.
> Understandings operation is mainly serial. The process is hypothetical and
> the keyword is IF.
>
> Reason:
> This faculty uses "a priori" Ideas to assist the Understanding in
> contruction of concepts.
> Reasons job is to provide the "systematic unity" in the form of the
schema.
> The process is deductive. It functions "as if" it were absolute. The
keyword
> is LET.
>
> The sum of all the different objects in this process constitutes the point
> of view.
>
> I hope that I have not corrupted Kants point of view. Check for yourself,
> (scan the attachment on the quoted words).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Joyce" <daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
> >
> >
> > > I think the reason most programmers have problems with concurrency is
> that
> > > they are raised on languages that stress linear thinking, and
sequential
> > > processing.
> > >
> > > Someone who learned LISP first tends to see everything as functions,
and
> > > recursion.
> > >
> > > Someone who learned C sees everything as sequential ( you can do some
> > > concurrent programming in it, but it's a PAIN, even the 'simple'
> cases ).
> > >
> > > > - Stephen
> > >
> > >
> > I've recently been discussing something similar recently, and I don't
> think
> > it is just programmers. A lot of people tend to think sequentially
> naturally
> > and it takes a lot for some people to move into a another mode of
> thinking.
> > Some oriental spiritualists try to break out by practising various
> > techniques.
> >
> > Inherent in the meaning of programming is 'serial' and OO is something
> > different. (but I won't try to redefine :-))
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gary
> > (My opinions based on casual observation)
> >
> >
> >
>