Your opening sentiment is what I believe to be the fundamental truth - but as much as I want to ask how you got there, I believe that would be cutting up the bird to find the song.

“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comforted.” How can I work on comforting and disturbing the person in front of me in a way that elevates the both of us?

If one is engaged in appreciating, They probably aren’t judging? Sounds nice - maybe

"cutting up the bird to find the song"

That is such a good phrase, is it a quote from somewhere?

Seems like the original quote is from "Materialized Apparitions: If Not Beings from Another Life, What Are They" written in 1885 by Edward Augustus Brackett.

"Science may wrangle over the supposed movements of molecules and atoms, and the correlation of forces; may dissect the bird to find its song; but love alone shall set the boundaries of knowledge."

I believe in your theory. I wrote about it recently as it’s been a long-standing challenge for me to balance different creative/literary/social aspects of my self with those emphasized by programming all day.

http://www.pcmaffey.com/how-programming-shapes-the-mind

Great essay, thanks for sharing. In particular, the section you've entitled "The Bad" describes quite precisely that odd type of "brain fog" I sometimes get after spending hours at a computer with a mentally challenging task, even creative writing (especially when I'm stuck somewhere -- or decide to give up and call it a day).

I wish more engineers would look into mathematical constructions of systems. Take something like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and apply it to your own thought process - it shows that it is fallible. The recognition that you can be wrong, and that you might not be able to see how you are wrong, to me provokes a careful, thoughtful scepticism of self.

We still need to face reality, so the sceptic can’t take over the asylum, but we shouldn’t act as if the patients monopolise faulty logic. Just the act of listening and trying to really understand what is being communicated, informationally but also emotionally, is also a view we get of ourselves from outside our local system.

Empathy is a lot like that. Understanding that others have had different circumstances, which led them to different thought processes, which we should try to understand and validate. There’s richness to be found in those differences as well. Deep understanding of another allows directness, vulnerability, and passion to shine phosphorescent.

Honestly, anyone whose precision of knowledge is limited only by Godel's incompleteness theorem deserves to be a little bit arrogant. But no such person exists. Looking back on one's life tends to reveal many errors, blunders, and utterly moronic misconceptions. Plenty of material to provoke humility there.

I should say that none of this means there's no such thing as objective reality. There (probably) is some kind of objective reality underlying all of this. But we don't have access to that. All we have access to are the incomplete, quirky, partially-wrong realities that live in each of our heads.

The point of bringing up Gödel was for analogy rather than as a theory of knowledge. I agree there are many germination points for humility, self-sceptism, and general reflection - we’ve together mentioned a few.

I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness theorems have anything to do with this. After all, they don't show that any system of reasoning is inconsistent - just that it can't prove its own consistency and that there are statements that can be neither true nor false. Even then, it only applies when your system is able to express arithmetic - for basic syllogisms (like "all men are mortal. socrates is a man. therefore socrates is mortal.") this doesn't apply, as far as I understand.

Also, the field of formal methods exists, and is successfully used to develop ultra-low-defect software. The Incompleteness Theorem doesn't stop it dead.

What was being trying drawn was a parallel from “A numerical system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways” to “A human system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways”. Recognising this is part of accepting ones own limits. Gödel in no way proves this, as you note, and my wording should have made it more clear that I understand that. The essence of his result is easily analogised, though.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

A logically robust statement would be "We can not say what is right, only what is least likely to be wrong".

As we can see, you won't impress most people with it, they prefer someone who exudes confidence. If he is right or wrong does not matter much it seems.

I like this idea about needing to cultivate empathy, subjectivity and aesthetic. Are you suggesting cultivating these qualities inside or outside of programming?