Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
(Just an organizational note: the forum's spam filter caught Poemworld's latest reply (a false positive), so panini's immediate reply, which appears to have just followed it, was written before it was approved and visible.)
I think you've made it clear that you are not interested in reasoned discussion, so we have no common ground. It's up to Daniel to decide whether there is any value in letting this forum be a platform for incomprehensible jargon with no discernible relation to linguistics.
panini: Daniel has suggested that I take up your further challenge as productive to our mutual ends of discussion, understanding, and constructive criticism. I'm not going to restrict myself to word counts, but will aim for brevity and clarity, if not the soul of wit.
I have a challenge. Can you summarize the central claim in a paragraph of fewer than 75 words? The follow-up question would be to explain the concepts that the claim relies on in no more than 5 paragraphs of 50 words each. You see the potential for recursion in this process, but that's not the plan. I really just want to understand the most basic logic of the claim.

Value and Being, characterized by 0 and 1, are metaphysical transnatural limits of knowledge. Their intersection is Integrity, life. This corresponds to mind ∩ body = memory. They're the basis of an evo-devo phenomenological cycle/circuit, which includes qualities, meanings; substances, forms; and signs/symbols. This may be "folded" into a cube, producing four iterations supporting dual recursions with a switch, and with signs/symbols permits reading from/writing to memory, hence I-language and cognition.

I'm a methodological naturalist, like Chomsky. I'm obviously an architectonic philosopher, a system builder, like Peirce. I'm fancy myself an organismic process philosopher, like Whitehead. These are clues to what I like and am like, and what to expect of and from me.

Metaphysics is understood as Aristotle's "first philosophy", disentangling it from the name his editors gave it by putting it "after physics". Transnatural is understood as exactly that, moving from nonexistent essence, Value, to nonessential existence, Being, spanning nature. Their characteristic numbers, 0 and 1, thus fall out naturally. As Cantor demonstrated, the unit line segment is as transfinite as an infinite line, hence a minimal yet rich structure, capable of mapping the entire cosmos and its evolution over time with room to spare. Further, without 0, there's no modern mathematics. 0 is central and essential to maths, as clearly shown by Cartesian coordinates. Poetically speaking, 0 is the "king" of numbers, and 1 is the "queen", as shown by its ability to create the rest of the natural numbers by, you guessed it, recursion. Being poses a natural limit to discoverable knowledge while Value promises an unbounded natural locus for the creation of knowledge. To paraphrase Wilhelm von Humboldt on language, Value makes infinite use of the finite means of Being. In a way, western philosophy hasn't quite known what to make of Value, and as a result, is like pre-zero mathematics: primitive, unfocused, incomplete. Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, has Taoism, a nontheistic value system, to which I'm indebted. The Tao Te Ching, or book of the way of virtue, is essentially a process philosophy. Thus, this work is, indeed, a "theory of everything", and further, a "theory of anything", but it's rather ordinary, prosaic, quotidian, humble, and homely, as well as the basis for what's to come: Integrity. I'll stop there for the time being.

Hey y'all, I'm back. Let's try again, shall we?

First, some salutary words from British literary theorist, critic, and elegant Marxist Terry Eagleton, from "The Task of the Critic", his dialogue with Matthew Beaumont:
I'm sure that if I published a work announcing my conversion to royalism and free market economics, conservative periodicals like the TLS would find some way of savaging it. There are reviewers in Ireland who pride themselves on their liberal pluralism, but who are actually so virulently sectarian that they would be pathologically incapable of passing a favourable comment on anything written by an Irish Republican. Even if they agreed with it, they just wouldn't be capable of bringing themselves to say so. I must say I find this deeply depressing. It belongs to intellectual integrity to try to meet one's antagonist's case at its most fruitful and persuasive--Perry Anderson's work is an excellent example of this--and I fear this is now a dying habit in an increasingly soundbite, partisan culture. Dawkins and Hitchens on religion is one example of this gradual death of disinterestedness--a virtue, incidentally, which the postmodernists obtusely mistake for a God's-eye view of the world, whereas what it really means is to attend for a moment to someone else's interests rather than your own. Then, once you've got what they believe right, you can put the boot in if you choose. I've tried myself in my work to give as dispassionate an account as possible of cases I disagree with. p.272
Outside of the box / Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Last post by waive15 on May 27, 2020, 05:51:36 AM »
Hi there,

You know Miloš Forman - the film director:

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Hair (1979)

Amadeus (1984)

The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)

Man on the Moon (1999)


On ACM (TV channel) there is something where famous film directors TALK. I like that.

I always listen to Milos Forman. At the end of the interview he said ( I paraphrase):

"Look, you have to tell the truth. But try not to be boring. BECAUSE TRUTH IS BORING."


First 4 minutes of the following lecture are the essence:

" ... But when these ideas first saw the light of ???day???, when they was first invented, when they was first discovered they were messy, confusing, inelegant, incoherent, disorganized, even sometimes self contradictory. ???You could think about Bohr model??? ### consistent. ... I say this because you are captivated only by the elegant and ???formalistic??? side of physics - the best that you can achieve is that you become an A+ student. You will not become a physicist engaged in process of creation. So the word of warning is not to let this lecture drive you only into this little corner of physics. You must develop an interest, a liking and skills for the more messy side of physics if you ever want to participate in the process of creating new physics doing research..."
/some words I couldn't catch or misinterpreted/

Substitute "physics" with whatever you like.

Prof. Kenneth Young on "A Special Lecture: Principle of Least Action"


One shouldn't be afraid of this 2 hour lecture. There is a very little math there (one could skip integrals and differentials without missing the point). The rest is the philosophy of scientific thinking.

Newtons mechanics, Einstein's theories, Quantum mechanics are explained out of Principle of Least Action.


Consciousness is not a big problem.  Maybe it has already been solved.

Thank you and have a nice day.
Outside of the box / Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Last post by waive15 on May 25, 2020, 08:16:01 AM »
Hi, panini,

I missed your cool reasoning/healthy suspicion.

Let's pretend for the sake of simplicity that I wrote that "paper". And I start answering questions:

"... For example, you seem to have two fundamental concepts, “things” and “connections”."

Yes. These are undefined terms. Thing and Connection/Space have not a Definition - they are Primal.
/this means that I don't know what Thing is or what Connection/Space is. One is made that way(as a machine) "to operate with"/"see" Things and Connections. One "thinks" Things and Connections/Spaces (Inst. case); Connections are different types (Static): Equivalence, Connection_without_order, Genitive_is, Genitive_has, Non_Genitive_is(?Non_Genitive_has?) + Connection_over_1 (Quality) + Thing.

One fails to see aforementioned Connections as examples of 0d space and fails to see 1d space, 2d space and 3d space as Connections.
* Why did I write it?

I went to/in school. And went out with more questions than I entered. The worst language classes were on "my own language". I couldn't stand it.

I needed a grammar to understand English tenses and Russian grammatical cases. I did not need "a true grammar", I needed a good grammar - short and simple.

* What does it mean?

Grammarians use graphs, maybe they must try spaces. The Observer/The Speaker has to be in the structure of the Sentence. Equivalence between Observer/Speaker and the Verb/Connection is a move to achieve that ( Equivalence as a connection). Then the Grammatical Mood makes sense.

* Is it true?

Nothing I believe is true.

* Why is it in that format(handwritten and messy, and incomplete and so on)

I use it but someone has to prove it.   


Let's take as example [Apple is red].

[Apple is red] is a "Simple sentence" which is a Name (which consists of Names) which is a Thing. "Simple sentences" are just encodings made by some rules (different rules of encoding means the different languages that people speak). "Apple" is a name of a Thing, "is" is a Name of a Quality (Connection_over_1 thing) and "red" is a Quality too. In some languages "is" is missed, in other languages the verb ending of "is" is attached to "red". But everyone has just one "mental picture" of a red apple (the Meaning. By the way the Meaning is the place where most interesting events/"processes" take place. And a lot of naming goes on too).
The Simple sentence(is just "to top of the pyramid")(the Event: Apple is red) consists of the Observer/Speaker which is Equivalent to a Connection (Non_Genitive_is or Connection_without_order) which consists of the Meaning ("the mental picture of the red apple"(which is placed appropriately in 1d space or 0d space (Time) - many embeddings/events are here)) and "Apple is red" (the Name/"Simple sentence").
And everything above is made of Things and different Connections.

Thank you and have a nice day.
Outside of the box / Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Last post by waive15 on May 25, 2020, 03:25:46 AM »
Hi, K2,

Elie Wiesel was born in the same year 1928 as my step grand mother. I am sorry that he had to live through these horrors. I read his thoughts in:

They reflect his perilous early life. I agree with him that “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Today we live more or less hedonistic life so "The People is brave but the people are coward." is more true. The vast majority is Neutral/indifferent.

I lived the 70-ies. I remember Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier and so on and so on up until now.

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”


  'No, an older one. Then a third, and a fourth ... I keep giving them change. And today I went to check the cash box, and there, instead of money - cut-up paper. They hit the buffet for a hundred and nine roubles.'       
  'Ai-yai-yai!' the artiste exclaimed. 'But can they have thought those were real bills? I can't admit the idea that they did it knowingly.'       
  The barman took a somehow hunched and anguished look around him, but said nothing.        'Can they be crooks?' the magician asked worriedly of his visitor.
  'Can there be crooks among the Muscovites?'       
  The barman smiled so bitterly in response that all doubts fell away: yes, there were crooks among the Muscovites.       
  'That is mean!' Woland was indignant. 'You're a poor man ... You are a poor man?'       
  The barman drew his head down between his shoulders, making it evident that he was a poor man.               'How much have you got in savings?'       
  The question was asked in a sympathetic tone, but even so such a question could not but be acknowledged as indelicate. The barman faltered.       
  'Two hundred and forty-nine thousand roubles in five savings banks,' a cracked voice responded from the neighbouring room, `and two hundred ten-rouble gold pieces at home under the floor.'       
  The barman became as if welded to his tabouret.       
  'Well, of course, that's not a great sum,' Woland said condescendingly to his visitor, 'though, as a matter of fact, you have no need of it anyway. When are you going to die?'       
  Here the barman became indignant.       
  'Nobody knows that and it's nobody's concern,' he replied.       
  'Sure nobody knows,' the same trashy voice came from the study. The binomial theorem, you might think! He's going to die in nine months, next February, of liver cancer, in the clinic of the First Moscow State University, in ward number four.'       
  The barman's face turned yellow.       
  'Nine months...' Woland calculated pensively. Two hundred and forty-nine thousand... rounding it off that comes to twenty-seven thousand a month... Not a lot, but enough for a modest life ... Plus those gold pieces... '       
  'He won't get to realize the gold pieces,' the same voice mixed in, turning the barman's heart to ice. 'On Andrei Fokich's demise, the house will immediately be torn down, and the gold will be sent to the State Bank.'       
  'And I wouldn't advise you to go to the clinic,' the artiste went on.


The Master and Margarita

page 98, CHAPTER 18. Hapless Visitors

We know who is who. That makes  the scene sarcastic. One of my favorite scenes.
The Master and Margarita is a book about POWER. On that book(and the film of 2005) I studied Russian.


I just wanted to understand English tenses and Russian grammatical cases. Nothing more. Then go to work. Instead Pandora's box opened.  Now I understand more than I can handle. I intentionally don't learn French nor German so I can watch TV without thoughts entering my head.

I am not a scientist, I don't care about truth, projects nor grants.


Condoleeza Rice: Maybe I will be able to give an interview in Russian, but it is very difficult without the practice. In your language you have these awful cases, they are so difficult. It's difficult to speak without mistakes, but thank you very much and thank you./rough translation, not mine/

Rice is smart. She has studied in good schools. And even there they haven't told her that English has the same Grammatical cases as Russian. English and Russian have the same grammar but people insist on different grammars.

I am sorry, I got "a little" carried away.

Thank you for the attention and I wish you a nice day.
waive15, thank you so much for your comments and the vidclip! I remember the movie. I'd been meaning to inbox you to see how you were doing and how the reading was going, but your reply indicates splendidly. Btw, Ferré wrote a trilogy: Being and Value, Knowing and Value, and Living and Value, all toward constructive postmodern metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics respectively, issues so-called "tough-minded" intellectuals dismiss. Tough sledding but worth it. Please feel free to inbox me if you're not comfortable commenting on the thread. I can now understand being reticent and why, though you do seem pretty ballsy. Regarding your martial metaphors, I've moved beyond nonviolence to its logical and ethical next step, what I call "anti-violence", in other words, I'll seek to stop violence if I can, at my own risk, up to and including using force, rather than adopting the modern attitude of dispassionate disinterestedness and indifference to the fate of others, which is merely the posturing of "tough-minded" pseudo-intellectual poseurs, which are everywhere, especially amongst white men for some reason. Go figure. Anyhoo, best wishes and holla atcha broseph anytime. Solidarity forever.
panini, let's give it a whirl.

Value and Being, characterized by 0 and 1, are metaphysical transnatural limits of knowledge. Their intersection is Integrity, life. This corresponds to mind ∩ body = memory. They're the basis of an evo-devo phenomenological cycle/circuit, which includes qualities, meanings; substances, forms; and signs/symbols. This may be "folded" into a cube, producing four iterations supporting dual recursions with a switch, and with signs/symbols permits reading from/writing to memory, hence I-language and cognition.

There's your first paragraph. That all you'll get for now. I am working on other things. Let me add that I wrote this just to see if I could. I'm not your errand boy, nor do I perform tricks upon command. I learned my lesson from Daniel's spectacle, not to mention from Jesus, that it's unwise to cast one's pearls before swine, lest they trample them and then turn on you. If you're really interested, prove it. Read the work. Ask interesting questions. Make interesting comments. I'll respond. If you don't make any effort then why should I? It's accessible, and the arguments are designed to be procataleptic, but not, I guess, to the weak-willed, feeble-minded, or emotionally unstable. I'm not saying that you're any of these three, but this, of course, falls within the realm of possibility. I don't know you and I can't assess your motivations or intentions. As far as I'm concerned you're just like me, a nobody from nowhere. I'm delighted to become acquaintances but that takes time and interaction. Btw, I'm aware of Schopenhauer's observation that "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Not to mention the observation of Nicholas Klein, labor union advocate and attorney, that "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." This is often misattributed to Gandhi. Fwiw. Cheers mate.
Outside of the box / Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Last post by K2 on May 24, 2020, 10:30:09 AM »
Some quotes of Eliezer Wiesel sound in order. Check them out and see how they work into your project.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]