_Anti-Oedipus_ (was: R.I.P. Robert Nozick)
Kater Moggin
marko_...@hotmail.com (Marko Amnell):
> One way of looking at what Deleuze and Guattari tried to
> do is to read _Anti-Oedipus_ as an attempt to carry out a fusion
> of the ideas of Freud and Marx (something that had been brewing
> in French thought for some time before that) ...
C'est what? It's called ANTI-Oedipus, dude, and that's no
mistake. The Marx-Freud synthesis was already old news.
Marcuse's _Eros and Civilization_ -- to offer an example -- had
come out about two decades before. "There was a certain way
of thinking correctly, a certain style of political
discourse, a certain ethics of the intellectual. One had to be
on familiar terms with Marx, not let one's dreams stray too
far from Freud." (Foucault in the AO preface.) Deleuze and
Guattari said the hell with all that. In Freud, "everything is
ground, squashed, triangulated into Oedipus" (89).
Psychoanalysis, according to them, is "a narcissism, a
monstrous autism" characteristic of the machinery of capitalism.
(313.)
> and they wrote in
> a style that rebelled against what they perceived to be the overly
> rationalistic orthodoxies of their predecessors.
Agreed. I wonder what some of the local Pynchon fans (Ted
or SubG, maybe) think of AO.
-- Moggin
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
> > One way of looking at what Deleuze and Guattari tried to
> > do is to read _Anti-Oedipus_ as an attempt to carry out
> > a fusion of the ideas of Freud and Marx (something that had
> > been brewing in French thought for some time before that)
>
> C'est what? It's called ANTI-Oedipus, dude, and that's no
> mistake. The Marx-Freud synthesis was already old news.
> Marcuse's _Eros and Civilization_ -- to offer an example -- had
> come out about two decades before. "There was a certain way
> of thinking correctly, a certain style of political
> discourse, a certain ethics of the intellectual. One had to be
> on familiar terms with Marx, not let one's dreams stray too
> far from Freud." (Foucault in the AO preface.) Deleuze and
> Guattari said the hell with all that. In Freud, "everything is
> ground, squashed, triangulated into Oedipus" (89).
> Psychoanalysis, according to them, is "a narcissism, a
> monstrous autism" characteristic of the machinery of capitalism.
> (313.)
You know, I recall how I read parts of both volumes of
_Anti-Oedipus_ during the early stages of my philosophical
education (around 1989-91) and at the time I did get something
out of it. Along with the Foucault, Derrida and other pomo
writers I read at that time, Deleuze and Guattari helped to
dispel various metaphysical and psychological hangups that
one inevitably acquires during childhood and adolescence in
our culture. It was part of a process of the liberation of
thought, and from that point of view, not so different in
its effects from the poetry and novels I read in large
quantities at the time. But looking back at the work now,
and at poststructuralism generally, I see _Anti-Oedipus_ as
a negative, destructive effort. Yes, it is a good thing to
undermine, to question, the ideas and assumptions of capitalism
and psychonanalysis, just as it is a good thing to be able to
deconstruct various concepts and theories in the history of
Western philosophy, as Derrida did. But where do you go from
there? Myself, I turned from poststructuralism to economics
and social science. I studied Marx in more detail. I deepened
my understanding of mathematics, physics and logic. I read
more history, I studied politics, and art history. And I
discovered interdisciplinary philosophical thinkers like
Ernest Gellner, who had also learned from the tradition of
Continental European thought from Hegel to the present, but
had gone their own way. They had taken a constructive direction.
They tried to build a new positive picture of the world. I
don't agree with all the parts of Gellner's worldview, but
I learned a lot from his methodological, historical,
anthropological and political theories. I read six books
by Gellner in the autumn of 1994, and they had a big impact
on me: _Thought and Change_, _The Legitimation of Belief_,
_Nations and Nationalism_, _Plough, Sword and Book_,
_Reason and Culture_ and _The Conditions of Libery_.
These books formed a whole, they summarized a lifetime's
work in trying to come to grips with the modern world.
Later I discovered many faults and problems with these
works, such as Gellner's implicit idealism that he never
deals with properly, or his various right-wing ideological
prejudices and presuppositions. But what remained I still
think is much more valuable than a work like _Anti-Oedipus_.
Deleuze and Guattari only tear things down, they don't
build things up. And that is true of too many postmodern
thinkers. They propose no new worldview. Perhaps they would
see this as a good thing. But personally, I want a thinker
to describe how he sees the world, to address the big
philosophical, political and historical questions. Gellner
said in one of his essays about method in the social sciences
that "The positivists are right, but for Hegelian reasons."
That has stayed in my mind. The positivists are right that
the scientific method can indeed be applied universally to
all fields of inquiry, from physics to social science and
history. And using positivist methods does not in my view
immediately and necessarily lead to reactionary political
views, as many postmodern critics contend. But the Hegelians
are right in drawing our attention to the dialectical nature
of thought, and in undermining any pretensions to absolute
certainty in knowledge. The Hegelians, and the postmodernists
who are their intellectual heirs, show that our scientific
theories and entire worldview, have no absolute foundations.
Our view of the world is founded on a certain system of values
which is culturally contingent, and arose in a specific place
and at a specific point in time. Our worldview is not universally
valid for all time. Earlier, naive positivists like the logical
positivists of the Vienna Circle lacked the historical and
anthropological sophistication and perspective of someone
like Gellner. That's what it means to say that the positivists
are right, but for Hegelian reasons.
I tried to find something about _Anti-Oedipus_ on the web,
and a Google search turned up this brief outline of the
work, which might provide illumination and entertainment
for the uninitiated. I think it gives some flavour of the
contents of the work.
----------------------------------------------------------
A brief outline of _Anti-Oedipus_, adapted from Ronald Bogue,
_Deleuze and Guattari_ (New York: Routledge, 1989):
I. all desire is social; best guide to social desire is
schizophrenic id rather than neurotic ego.
A.schizo-analysis: focus on body parts and social connections:
1.not a "celebration" of schizophrenia, but use of
it to explore contemporary society
2.individual subject as heterogenous aggregate of parts
functioning in social and natural machines
B.subsume Marx and Freud in single Nietzschean framework:
desiring-production.
1.critique of traditional Marxism and Freudianism
2.history and politics of social libido
II.Critique of Freudianism: extending Freud beyond family
A.Oedipal-capitalism link ignored
1.Oedipus is mode of channeling desire
2.psychoanalysis reinforces this channeling
B.Capitalism and desire
1.deterritorializes:
a.destroys feudal hierarchial channels
b.sets adrift pieces of desire, bodies, etc.
2.reterritorializes:
a.channels all production into commodity form
b.Oedipalization concentrates, individualizes
desire into neurotic daddy-mommy-me
3.schizophrenia is result of fragmentation without
Oedipal reintegration
C.Positive desire:
1.desire traditionally seen as lack
a.cf Plato
b.exception: Spinoza
c.Lacan most evident example today
2.for D & G, this is negative, reactive, idealistic, slavish
3.rather, they want positive, productive desire
a.desiring-production
(1)Freud's libido
(2)Nietzsche's will-to-power
b.unconscious
(1)unrelated to negation
(2)indifferent to personal identity
(3)independent of linguistic expression
c.pure multiplicities: nomadic singularities
III.Critique of Marx: libidinalizing Marx
A."social field is immediately invested w/ desire"
1.no distinction between production and consumption
B."everything is production"
1.no distinction between use and exchange value
a.use value depends on stable needs, but needs
are mobile, produced (as Marx knew very well)
IV.Schizo-model for desiring production (Not a romanticizing
of schizophrenia, but using it to interrogate modern production
A.desiring-machines: invasion/persecution
1.production proper
2.cutting off primary flows
a.symbolizes unceasing production
b.e.g. flow of milk between
(1)breast machine
(2)mouth machine
3.linked in chains with other machines
a.in body
b.other bodies
c.nature
d.society
4.unconscious is a factory rather than a theater
5.rather than linking dependent parts into a
functioning whole, desiring machines involve heterogenous
"parts" in a connective synthesis
B.body without organs: catatonia
1.recording (distribution and exchange / unconscious inscription
2.congealing of d-machines into undifferentiated object
a.d-machines at zero intensity
3.extra part produced alongside desiring machines
a.paranoiac machine: body w/o organs repels d-m
b.miraculating machine: " " " " attracts d-m
4.socius: larger social body w/o organs
a.body of earth:
(1)primitive
(2)autochthonous myths [miraculating]
b.body of despot
(1)barbaric
(2)divine origin and absolute power myths [miraculating]
c.body of capital
(1)capitalistic
(2)fetishism: capital appears to produce labor
[miraculating]
5.each chain of d-machines is a line traversing body
w/o organs, thus forming a grid
6.disjunctive synthesis: all lines are libidinally
invested at once in a synthesis that affirms differentiation
C.nomadic subject: multiple personalities
1.consumption
2.when social codes [e.g. Oedipus] break down in their
channelling of desire, then the nomadic subject is possible,
traversing the lines of the d-machines inscribed on the body
w/o organs
D.Model of the giant egg traversed by lines with a wandering
point of pure intensity
V.History of social machines
A.primitive territories
1.pre-state: resist centralization of power
2.socius: body of the earth
3.codes: kinship relations coding flow of goods,
privilege, people, prestige
a.filiation: fixed "capital" stock
(1)blood
(2)administrative
(3)hierarchial
b.alliance: mobile blocks of debt
(1)marriage
(2)political
(3)economic
4.debt:
a.primary dissymmetry setting in motion flows
b.ceremonial inscription within systems
(1)giver: debtor
(2)receiver: surplus value of code
5.representation:
a.ceremonial system is a writing in which words
pronounced and signs written are plurivocal
b.system is also libidinal economy of pleasure and pain
(1)cf. Nietzsche and debtor-creditor
B.barbarian despotic states
1.befalls primitive territories as catastrophe from without
2.socius: body of despot
3.codes:functional pyramid
a.despot at apex
b.peasant at base
4.debt:
a.primitive debt become infinite debt of existence owed to despot
b.punishment no longer festive, but vengeful
5.representation:
a.fixed meanings
b.deterritorialization of graphic sign: made into
transcription of the voice
c.sound given meaning by transcendent authority
enforcing law of linguistic regularity
[dream of transcendental signifier]
(1)Saussurian linguistics is reflection on
despotic representation
(2)signifier dominates the signified
(a)two forces:
i)deterritorializing of signifiers
[creates arbitrary flow]
ii)fixing of signifier-signified
(b)signifier is arbitrary, but also
"acoustic image" within which resounds "mute voice from on high"
C.civilized capitalist production
1.capitalist machine arises from within
2.socius: body of capital
3.debt:
a.deterritorialized into abstract unit of exchange:
free flows of goods, bodies, images, etc
b.reterritorialized thru an axiomatic,
(a)conjoining two flows
(b) of labor
(c) of capital
(1)direct relation of entities on abstract qualities
(2)no limit: can always add new axiom
4.representation:
a.breaks free of Saussurian domination
b.means nothing: simply functions as means of
co-ordination of flows
5.post-state: capitalist state is hangover
a.cap sign does not simply replace despotic sign,
but reintegrates it
b.absorption yet indigestibility provokes oscillation
between two poles of desire
(1)paranoia (metaphysics!)
(a)domination
(b)hierarchy
(c)molar aggregates
(2)schizophrenia
(a)non-systematic
(b)nomadic
(c)molecular
VI.Schizo-politics:
A.overcoming paranoiac tendencies by intensifying
schizophrenic tendencies,
1.accelerating deterritorialization
2.for those trapped in hierarchies
3.micro-political intervention
4.good for intervention in hierarchial parties
B.politics of creativity:
1.freeing of new patterns:
2.horizontal rather than vertical
C.Foucault: power as primary
D.Deleuze and Guattari: desire as primary
Kater Moggin
> Looking back at the work now,
> and at poststructuralism generally, I see _Anti-Oedipus_ as
> a negative, destructive effort. ... Deleuze and Guattari
> only tear things down, they don't build things up.
"A thinking man's answer to the question whether he is a
nihilist would probably be, 'Not enough.'" Adorno, somewhere in
_Negative Dialectics_.
-- Moggin
Marko Amnell
> > You know, I recall how I read parts of both volumes of
> >_Anti-Oedipus_ during the early stages of my philosophical
> > education ...
>
> huh?
OK. My fingers were moving faster than my mind there. I meant
to type, of course, both volumes of _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_,
with _Anti-Oedipus_ (1972) as the first volume, and _A Thousand
Plateaus_ (1980) as the second volume. I know the dates they
were published because I actually dug up the two books last
night, and skimmed through them because of this thread.
> > But looking back at the work now, and at poststructuralism
> > generally, I see _Anti-Oedipus_ as a negative, destructive effort.
>
> How odd. It strikes me as one of the most affirmative books
> written in the genre.
Well, yes, they're affirmative, if by that you mean "life affirming".
The writing is lusty, full of life, and robust in its sensuality--
a bit like the novellas of Georges Bataille, or the novels of
Henry Miller. And as it happens, I recall reading _The Story of
the Eye_, _Blue of Noon_ and _The Tropic of Cancer_ around the
same time I originally read _Anti-Oedipus_. Actually, I liked
_A Thousand Plateaus_ more than the earlier work. I think their
concept of the rhizome, for example, was interesting.
What I meant was that Deleuze and Guattari want to destroy
metaphysical concepts and psychological theories. They advocate
nomadic thought, something that refuses to be pinned down into
a system. Freud and Marx each offered a system of thought. I
don't think Deleuze and Gauttari would see their own social
psychological writings as a system. It is possible to extract
some sort of theoretical system from _Anti-Oedipus_, something
like the brief outline I posted yesterday. But I think that
would be missing the real point of Deleuze and Guattari. Their
schizo-analysis is meant to oppose hierarchical neurotic
systems. It is not an accident that their ideas have been
adopted by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their new book
_Empire_, which is meant to be a sort of new _Communist Manifesto_
for the nomadic anti-globalization movement, who (in a proper,
deterritorialized way) follow the meetings of the paranoid
theorists of the IMF, World Bank and G-7 around the world
from meeting to meeting.
Marko Amnell
> > Looking back at the work now, and at poststructuralism
> > generally, I see _Anti-Oedipus_ as a negative, destructive
> > effort. ... Deleuze and Guattari only tear things down,
> > they don't build things up.
>
> "A thinking man's answer to the question whether he is a
> nihilist would probably be, 'Not enough.'" Adorno, somewhere
> in _Negative Dialectics_.
Well, I think I am some sort of nihilist, at least according
to many of my friends. But maybe I wouldn't be nihilistic
enough for Adorno. Perhaps Deleuze would be, though. Didn't
the guy kill himself by jumping out of a window? And what
about Althusser, who killed his own wife? But then again,
Althusser was a Communist, so he believed in something.
Kater Moggin
> What I meant was that Deleuze and Guattari want to destroy
> metaphysical concepts and psychological theories. They advocate
> nomadic thought, something that refuses to be pinned down into
> a system. Freud and Marx each offered a system of thought.
And instead of combining them into a super-system, Deleuze
offers Nietzsche as an alternative.
Marxism and psychoanalysis in a real sense constitute the
fundamental bureaucracies -- one public, the other private
-- whose aim is somehow or other to recodify everything
that ceaselessly becomes decodified at the horizon of our
culture. Nietzsche's concern, on the contrary, is not
this at all. His task lies elsewhere: beyond all codes
of past, present, and future, to transmit something which
does not and will not allow itself to be codified.
"Nomad Thought," in _The New Nietzsche_
-- Moggin
Marko Amnell
Well, this is an interesting subject, and thank you for
replying. Nietzsche was a brilliant aphoristic philosophical
thinker. In fact, he was the first major philosopher I read
(as a teenager) and I would still consider myself to be a
Nietzschean. The other two aphoristic philosophers I've read
in depth are Wittgenstein and Cioran. There is something similar
about these three writers. Cioran's pessimism is very similar
to Nietzsche's, while Wittgenstein is not nearly as bleak,
and is more interested in logical analysis. But I have a
problem with Deleuze's suggestion that system-building is
always a bad thing. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of
respect for aphoristic thinkers. I think the style is quite
flexible, and can express succinctly and memorably observations
about many different subjects, from moral observations (such
as La Rochefoucault's maxims) to historical and sociological
ones (such as some of the writings of the sociologist Zygmunt
Bauman). Or the British philosopher Simon Critchley, whom you
said you liked. But there comes a point in the development of
sociological observations when the aphoristic form becomes a
hindrance to proper expression. Aphorisms rely heavily on
linguistic imagery to express things. There isn't enough
narrative scope there to develop complex ideas fully. You can
only say so much with metaphors. Why shouldn't someone like
Deleuze express his synthesis of Marxian and psychoanalytic
ideas as a system? The complexity of the subject matter seems
positively to cry out for such a full, systematic treatment.
It seems to me nothing but the postmodern ideological commitment
against system-building which excludes such a treatment. What
is wrong with the fact that a social philosopher like Ernest
Gellner saw it fit to express his synthesis of some of the
ideas of Max Weber, Marx and Durkheim as a system? Nothing
that I can see. Given that there are so many different systems
out there, I don't see why they should be considered to be
oppressive cultural bureaucracies that limit the freedom of
thought. You can pick and choose from amongst all those systems,
and your own thinking doesn't need to become frozen into some
specific code. And yet that seems to be the suggestion in what
you quoted from Deleuze above. The fact that Gellner was heavily
into system-building doesn't mean he necessarily thought there
was anything wrong with Zygmunt Bauman's non-systematic sociology.
I know it's usually considered proper for one to be either for
or against postmodernism, or for or against systematic philosophy.
But I'm afraid I have a live and let live attitude toward all
this.
Arindam Banerjee
Those are lousy aphorisms. To work, they have to be like
mathematical formulas - in fact, any aphorims that cannot be
converted into a computer algorithm is worthless.
> There isn't enough
> narrative scope there to develop complex ideas fully.
Any worthy aphorism gives rise to hosts of complex ideas resulting
in vast systems. Such as the Laws of Maxwell expressed in non-math.
I'd better stop wasting time, and get on with translating Chanakya...
Arindam Banerjee
Kater Moggin
> Aphorisms rely heavily on
> linguistic imagery to express things. There isn't enough
> narrative scope there to develop complex ideas fully.
I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly
into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to
the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the
superstition of those afraid of the water, of the enemies
of cold water: they speak without experience. The
freezing cold makes one swift.
And to ask this incidentally: does a matter
necessarily remain ununderstood and unfathomed merely
because it has been touched only in flight, glanced at, in
a flash? Is it absolutely imperative that one settles
down on it? that one has brooded over it as over an egg?
_Diu noctuque incubando_ [incubating it day and night], as
Newton said of himself? At least there are some truths
that are singularly shy and ticklish and cannot be caught
except suddenly -- that must be _surprised_ or left alone.
from _The Gay Science_ 381.
> Why shouldn't someone like
> Deleuze express his synthesis of Marxian and psychoanalytic
> ideas as a system? The complexity of the subject matter seems
> positively to cry out for such a full, systematic treatment.
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
_Twilight of the Idols_, "Maxims and Arrows" 26.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Aphorisms rely heavily on
> linguistic imagery to express things. There isn't enough
> narrative scope there to develop complex ideas fully.
I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly
into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to
the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the
superstition of those afraid of the water, of the enemies
of cold water: they speak without experience. The
freezing cold makes one swift.
And to ask this incidentally: does a matter
necessarily remain ununderstood and unfathomed merely
because it has been touched only in flight, glanced at, in
a flash? Is it absolutely imperative that one settles
down on it? that one has brooded over it as over an egg?
_Diu noctuque incubando_ [incubating it day and night], as
Newton said of himself? At least there are some truths
that are singularly shy and ticklish and cannot be caught
except suddenly -- that must be _surprised_ or left alone.
from _The Gay Science_ 381.
> Why shouldn't someone like
> Deleuze express his synthesis of Marxian and psychoanalytic
> ideas as a system? The complexity of the subject matter seems
> positively to cry out for such a full, systematic treatment.
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
_Twilight of the Idols_, "Maxims and Arrows" 26.
> I know it's usually considered proper for one to be either for
> or against postmodernism, or for or against systematic philosophy.
> But I'm afraid I have a live and let live attitude toward all
> this.
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet" (attributed to Arnaud
Amaury at Béziers).
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
[...]
Sorry to waste your time but something of what you say interests me. My
thought was just the opposite of yours. Any aphorism which can be
translated is a waste of time, for its form offers no difference. What
makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
systems are translatable? so if the world is not such a system then
translation - within the world is always faulty. Even the translation of
my thoughts into this text is wrong. The aphorism like the poem is able
to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness. Would you say a
painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
matter...
>
>
>You can
>> only say so much with metaphors. Why shouldn't someone like
>> Deleuze express his synthesis of Marxian and psychoanalytic
>> ideas as a system? The complexity of the subject matter seems
>> positively to cry out for such a full, systematic treatment.
>> It seems to me nothing but the postmodern ideological commitment
>> against system-building which excludes such a treatment. What
>> is wrong with the fact that a social philosopher like Ernest
>> Gellner saw it fit to express his synthesis of some of the
>> ideas of Max Weber, Marx and Durkheim as a system? Nothing
>> that I can see. Given that there are so many different systems
>> out there, I don't see why they should be considered to be
>> oppressive cultural bureaucracies that limit the freedom of
>> thought. You can pick and choose from amongst all those systems,
>> and your own thinking doesn't need to become frozen into some
>> specific code. And yet that seems to be the suggestion in what
>> you quoted from Deleuze above. The fact that Gellner was heavily
>> into system-building doesn't mean he necessarily thought there
>> was anything wrong with Zygmunt Bauman's non-systematic sociology.
>> I know it's usually considered proper for one to be either for
>> or against postmodernism, or for or against systematic philosophy.
>> But I'm afraid I have a live and let live attitude toward all
>> this.
--
James Whitehead
atto
>
> Sorry to waste your time but something of what you say interests me. My
> thought was just the opposite of yours. Any aphorism which can be
> translated is a waste of time, for its form offers no difference. What
> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
> systems are translatable? so if the world is not such a system then
> translation - within the world is always faulty. Even the translation of
> my thoughts into this text is wrong. The aphorism like the poem is able
> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness. Would you say a
> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> matter...
isn't the aphorism merely expressive of rhetoric in the logic/rhetoric
antinomy (as forms of expression). I come down on the side fo the latter.
Only the aphorism can express ultimate truth. 'Logic' only expresses
validity and as such can never expess ultimate truth. Indeed, logic is only
imputed in the space between propositions none of which in any case are ever
self-supporting, though it is apparent it can only materially exist through
propositions in the same fashion as rhetoric. I would contend on the
contrary that the aporism is sharp; its argument is perfectly self-contained
within itself (assuming its meaning and thereby truth are granted), rather
than without. So long as rhetoric grounds itself in the aphorism (a hard
task I know to sustain) it will remain the superior form of expression.
Atto
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly
> into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to
> the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the
> superstition of those afraid of the water, of the enemies
> of cold water: they speak without experience. The
> freezing cold makes one swift.
> And to ask this incidentally: does a matter
> necessarily remain ununderstood and unfathomed merely
> because it has been touched only in flight, glanced at, in
> a flash? Is it absolutely imperative that one settles
> down on it? that one has brooded over it as over an egg?
> _Diu noctuque incubando_ [incubating it day and night], as
> Newton said of himself? At least there are some truths
> that are singularly shy and ticklish and cannot be caught
> except suddenly -- that must be _surprised_ or left alone.
>
> from _The Gay Science_ 381.
That is a rather lengthy defense of aphorisms, but more persuasive than the
aphorisms it defends. In fact, Nietszche is much better as here, when he
outlines a little sketch and then leaves it with bits not filled in.
> "The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
> _Twilight of the Idols_, "Maxims and Arrows" 26.
I think it's obvious that this is by far inferior to the above, although
it's about as well-packed as an aphorism can be, and much better than most
of N.'s other ones.
smw
I don't know what moggin thinks, but to me, Nietzsche's aphorisms are
meant to read in bunches, not one at a time. And within such bunches
(I'm trying to avoid the term 'system' here...), the one-liner above
makes fine sense.
s
Arindam Banerjee
Good, good.
My
> thought was just the opposite of yours. Any aphorism which can be
> translated is a waste of time, for its form offers no difference.
I don't think translating Chanakya from archaic Sanskrit to modern English
is a waste of time, but this is just my sole opinion. I suppose you are
right, it is a waste of time, given that the world is composed of white
Eurocentric racists and non-white Eurocentric self-despising reverse-racists.
Still, I hope and believe that such a composition will not always so remain,
and so I labour on, for future generations.
> What
> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
Then it is useless, as it has no business or personal value.
> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
> systems are translatable?
Everything depends upon who is doing the translation! Certainly logical
systems can be modelled into computer programs, and optimised for best
performance. That, by the way, is my job - I have recently given a talk
on a "Abstract Software Modeling". Proper translation is a creative art.
> so if the world is not such a system then
> translation - within the world is always faulty.
I like to think that my translations of Tagore are wonderful, and I am
glad to say, there is proof that I am not the only one in the world who
thinks so.
> Even the translation of
> my thoughts into this text is wrong.
Then you are either fooling us, or you are a confused person. By and large,
the basis behind communication has been to say/write what you mean, and to mean
what you say/write. But then, I am hopelessly out of date. In this world ruled
by politics, not principle, I have no place.
> The aphorism like the poem is able
> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness.
This is the result of Einsteinian gibberish, which has corrupted the basis
of modern human thinking. Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
aphorism. I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
> Would you say a
> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> matter...
"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
Arindam Banerjee.
Fedallah
Dylan Bryan-Dolman wrote:
>
> Kater Moggin <mog...@mediaone.net> quoted:
> > I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly
> > into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to
> > the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the
> > superstition of those afraid of the water, of the enemies
> > of cold water: they speak without experience. The
> > freezing cold makes one swift.
> > And to ask this incidentally: does a matter
> > necessarily remain ununderstood and unfathomed merely
> > because it has been touched only in flight, glanced at, in
> > a flash? Is it absolutely imperative that one settles
> > down on it? that one has brooded over it as over an egg?
> > _Diu noctuque incubando_ [incubating it day and night], as
> > Newton said of himself? At least there are some truths
> > that are singularly shy and ticklish and cannot be caught
> > except suddenly -- that must be _surprised_ or left alone.
> >
> > from _The Gay Science_ 381.
Of course, the flies of the market place prefer dead meat
that doesn't move and isn't so ticklish. At the same time,
they find it easier to harrass those who settle in one spot
to incubate their truths.
Dylan:
> That is a rather lengthy defense of aphorisms, but more persuasive than the
> aphorisms it defends. In fact, Nietszche is much better as here, when he
> outlines a little sketch and then leaves it with bits not filled in.
>
> > "The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
> > _Twilight of the Idols_, "Maxims and Arrows" 26.
Dylan:
> I think it's obvious that this is by far inferior to the above, although
> it's about as well-packed as an aphorism can be, and much better than most
> of N.'s other ones.
Funny, I was thinking just the opposite re: these two. The
superiority of the first quote Moggin gave isn't obvious at
all to me... the second seems an arrow that is especially
well-aimed, and plunges deep. At the same time, like many
of his aphorisms, it occurs to me as a sort of bright,
visible nexus where alot of inter-related ideas cross each
other's path. In general, his aphorisms take on more
demnsions for me when seen in the context of each other and
his works as a whole. The thing is though that the compact
form of the aphorism allows the thoughts expressed to be
more mobile, allows them to form different constellations
and inter-relations instead of attempting to force a single
way of connecting the dots like an elementary school
excersice.
"...thinking wants to be learned like dancing *as* a kind of
dancing." [_Twighlight..._ "What the Germans Lack" 7]
Learning to get from one aphorism to the other, I would
maintain, is begginning to catch a glimpse of what Nietzsche
is experiencing as dance.
Rick
Don Tuite
wrote:
Can you extend this to the _Tractatus_? (Which I personally find
impenetrable?)
Don
Fedallah
Don Tuite wrote:
<snip>
> >"...thinking wants to be learned like dancing *as* a kind of
> >dancing." [_Twighlight..._ "What the Germans Lack" 7]
> >Learning to get from one aphorism to the other, I would
> >maintain, is begginning to catch a glimpse of what Nietzsche
> >is experiencing as dance.
> >
>
> Can you extend this to the _Tractatus_? (Which I personally find
> impenetrable?)
Hehe, I should have been specific. Getting from one of
Nietzsche's aphorisms to another is often like getting a
taste of that dance for me. With the Tractatus, it's often
more like some painfully contortive yoga to me.
Rick
James Whitehead
Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes>news:<TnHjvHAdc4a8EwY
>p...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
Neither do I - what i was trying to say was that its impossible to
arrive at a perfect translation. This is why people are better
translators than computers. What your translation will be is some
impression of the original- but not equal to it. It is in one respect
"better" than the original - to non-Sankrist readers.
> I suppose you are
>right, it is a waste of time, given that the world is composed of white
>Eurocentric racists and non-white Eurocentric self-despising reverse-racists.
>Still, I hope and believe that such a composition will not always so remain,
>and so I labour on, for future generations.
Your task is worthwhile - but my point was not about translating - but
about your assertion that if you cant translate something into a
computer algorithm - its worthless. I suppose if you only value
algorithms then that is so - but others - i myself - find non-
algorithmic statements of value also. Within art - the form - the
material *is* significant. Take your sankrist again - though you produce
this new work - based on the original - how can we in our culture read
this in the same way as it was when first written?
>
>
>> What
>> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
>> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
>
>Then it is useless, as it has no business or personal value.
Yes quite so - my life is useless... the universe useless also?
As to value - that is another matter altogether.
>
>> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
>> systems are translatable?
>
>Everything depends upon who is doing the translation! Certainly logical
>systems can be modelled into computer programs, and optimised for best
>performance. That, by the way, is my job - I have recently given a talk
>on a "Abstract Software Modeling". Proper translation is a creative art.
If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
2+2=5.
>
>> so if the world is not such a system then
>> translation - within the world is always faulty.
>
>I like to think that my translations of Tagore are wonderful, and I am
>glad to say, there is proof that I am not the only one in the world who
>thinks so.
well again i've no objection to this. But the art object is not the same
as that which it seeks to represent - and eventually is not
representative of anything...
>
>
>> Even the translation of
>> my thoughts into this text is wrong.
>
>Then you are either fooling us, or you are a confused person.
I could be both? Lets see - i'm not deliberately trying to fool anyone -
though you'll have to take my word on that. As for being confused i'm
not sure - so maybe that's it. As each moment goes by i don't however
feel confused - the confusion arrives when you or i try to sum up these
- maybe that's the source of my original objection. As if some form
could capture my experience of being - well looking at it - i'm confused
- as its quite something other.
> By and large,
>the basis behind communication has been to say/write what you mean, and to mean
>what you say/write.
There is an awful lot in what you say here - which is especially
relevant in post-structuralism ... post-modern discourse. If you think
that thought and language work like that i suppose so - but how about
describing to someone say (if you had one) a tooth ache.
> But then, I am hopelessly out of date. In this world ruled
>by politics, not principle, I have no place.
I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator. Let me
see if i can show the difference - Neitzsche rather than trying to
explain his toothache wants to give you one of your own. Who knows how
your pain will relate to his - i suspect not at all. He thinks his
superman would welcome it.
>
>> The aphorism like the poem is able
>> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness.
>
>This is the result of Einsteinian gibberish, which has corrupted the basis
>of modern human thinking.
It was around well before Einstein. I'm particularly fond of the
parables in the N.T. But let me give you another example - the poem of
Henry Reed's Naming of Parts. When i first studied this it was in an
english literature lesson - the poem compares the naming of the parts
of a riffle to a spring day "This is the lower sling swivel.. and this
is the piling swivel. Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures. Which in our case
we have not got.." I found we were studying this - in a classroom - like
a riffle - whilst outside "The blossoms Are fragile and motionless..."
Both a contradiction of the poets intent but the feeling of the
stupidity of mechanical understanding in the reality of an english
spring day -
> Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
>aphorism.
maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
> I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
>and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
formulae.
>
>> Would you say a
>> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
>> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> matter...
>
>"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
>
Can you translate this?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry to waste your time but something of what you say interests me. My
>> thought was just the opposite of yours. Any aphorism which can be
>> translated is a waste of time, for its form offers no difference. What
>> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
>> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
>> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
>> systems are translatable? so if the world is not such a system then
>> translation - within the world is always faulty. Even the translation of
>> my thoughts into this text is wrong. The aphorism like the poem is able
>> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness. Would you say a
>> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
>> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> matter...
>
>isn't the aphorism merely expressive of rhetoric in the logic/rhetoric
>antinomy (as forms of expression).
Are we trying to define what an aphorism is? I'm not sure i want to...
my thoughts were about translation. In that any translation will miss
something - it has to be different. At its extremes 2+2 is not the same
as four. Hamlet is not = "A play about a Dane" . What Neitzsche is doing
(i think!) is attempting an artistic approach - 'to get rid of his
thoughts' - not to express something of them ...
>I come down on the side fo the latter.
>Only the aphorism can express ultimate truth. 'Logic' only expresses
>validity and as such can never expess ultimate truth.
I think the "ultimate truth" is in itself a metaphysical object - its
expression in any other way is never "ultimate" If Neitzsche is using
aphorisms like art - then truth seems to have a problem. Though these
objects can seem ultimate.
> Indeed, logic is only
>imputed in the space between propositions none of which in any case are ever
>self-supporting, though it is apparent it can only materially exist through
>propositions in the same fashion as rhetoric. I would contend on the
>contrary that the aporism is sharp; its argument is perfectly self-contained
>within itself (assuming its meaning and thereby truth are granted), rather
>than without. So long as rhetoric grounds itself in the aphorism (a hard
>task I know to sustain) it will remain the superior form of expression.
>
>Atto
I not sure of the idea of superior forms of expression - i guess that
maths is quite good at describing circles and the like but to produce an
equation equal to Hamlet seems unlikely. Certainly my life as lived is
neither a Drama (though it might at times seem this way - and some
foolishly think themselves as actors) or a piece of arithmetic - though
others may well see me as such. (having just taken a credit check!)
Scientists may use maths but potters use clay!
--
James Whitehead
atto
James Whitehead wrote:
> atto writes
> >James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry to waste your time but something of what you say interests me. My
> >> thought was just the opposite of yours. Any aphorism which can be
> >> translated is a waste of time, for its form offers no difference. What
> >> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
> >> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
> >> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only
logical
> >> systems are translatable? so if the world is not such a system then
> >> translation - within the world is always faulty. Even the translation
of
> >> my thoughts into this text is wrong. The aphorism like the poem is able
> >> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness. Would you say a
> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> >> matter...
> >
> >isn't the aphorism merely expressive of rhetoric in the logic/rhetoric
> >antinomy (as forms of expression).
>
> Are we trying to define what an aphorism is? I'm not sure i want to...
> my thoughts were about translation. In that any translation will miss
> something - it has to be different.
i agree
> At its extremes 2+2 is not the same
> as four. Hamlet is not = "A play about a Dane" . What Neitzsche is doing
> (i think!) is attempting an artistic approach - 'to get rid of his
> thoughts' - not to express something of them ...
why would he want to do that? Sure, get rid of the tedious, dead-end ones,
but unite your thoughts in a good one: an aphorism.
>
> >I come down on the side fo the latter.
> >Only the aphorism can express ultimate truth. 'Logic' only expresses
> >validity and as such can never expess ultimate truth.
>
> I think the "ultimate truth" is in itself a metaphysical object - its
> expression in any other way is never "ultimate" If Neitzsche is using
> aphorisms like art - then truth seems to have a problem. Though these
> objects can seem ultimate.
I'm using (ultimate) truth in Heidegger's sense of disclosure. Heidegger
aggressively critiqued the idea of truth as merely a true proposition.
'Grass is green' is not an aphorism because it does not reveal truth; it is
rather tautologous. Despite the fact we can call it true. For Heidegger art
too was all about disclosure.
>
> > Indeed, logic is only
> >imputed in the space between propositions none of which in any case are
ever
> >self-supporting, though it is apparent it can only materially exist
through
> >propositions in the same fashion as rhetoric. I would contend on the
> >contrary that the aporism is sharp; its argument is perfectly
self-contained
> >within itself (assuming its meaning and thereby truth are granted),
rather
> >than without. So long as rhetoric grounds itself in the aphorism (a hard
> >task I know to sustain) it will remain the superior form of expression.
> >
> >Atto
>
> I not sure of the idea of superior forms of expression - i guess that
> maths is quite good at describing circles and the like but to produce an
> equation equal to Hamlet seems unlikely. Certainly my life as lived is
> neither a Drama (though it might at times seem this way - and some
> foolishly think themselves as actors) or a piece of arithmetic - though
> others may well see me as such. (having just taken a credit check!)
so perhaps you're searching for the right aphorism to understand it, all
other forms of expression being inferior.
>
> Scientists may use maths but potters use clay!
okay so aphorism is an artistic term. However, in my sense of aphorism as
self-contained it can have scientific equivalents. A Theory of Everything
would be perfectly self-contained and thereby beautiful for it. Similarly in
mathematics e^i*pi + 1 = 0, in uniting mathematics' 5 most important
constants, could be thought aphoristic and transcendental. (F=ma by contrast
is more bound up in definition, thereby more equivalent to 'grass is green',
and not particularly interesting or beautiful.)
Atto
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
[...]
>> >isn't the aphorism merely expressive of rhetoric in the logic/rhetoric
>> >antinomy (as forms of expression).
>>
>> Are we trying to define what an aphorism is? I'm not sure i want to...
>> my thoughts were about translation. In that any translation will miss
>> something - it has to be different.
>
>i agree
>
>> At its extremes 2+2 is not the same
>> as four. Hamlet is not = "A play about a Dane" . What Neitzsche is doing
>> (i think!) is attempting an artistic approach - 'to get rid of his
>> thoughts' - not to express something of them ...
>
>why would he want to do that? Sure, get rid of the tedious, dead-end ones,
>but unite your thoughts in a good one: an aphorism.
Its a quote - and at present i don't know why he did - i suspect he
sees his position more as an artist than a philosopher. In which case
the thoughts have lives of their own. Its the good ones which have a
life of their own, which demand their space ... "I will never again read
an author of whom i suspect that he wanted to make a book..." I think he
admires the founders of religions but not the followers. His activity is
not about explanation - at its heart is the conjuring up of something
new, as opposed to explaining however carefully or well - what is the
case. How do you think his overman views explanations - i would suspect
with utter contempt.
>
>>
>> >I come down on the side fo the latter.
>> >Only the aphorism can express ultimate truth. 'Logic' only expresses
>> >validity and as such can never expess ultimate truth.
>>
>> I think the "ultimate truth" is in itself a metaphysical object - its
>> expression in any other way is never "ultimate" If Neitzsche is using
>> aphorisms like art - then truth seems to have a problem. Though these
>> objects can seem ultimate.
>
>I'm using (ultimate) truth in Heidegger's sense of disclosure. Heidegger
>aggressively critiqued the idea of truth as merely a true proposition.
>'Grass is green' is not an aphorism because it does not reveal truth; it is
>rather tautologous. Despite the fact we can call it true. For Heidegger art
>too was all about disclosure.
Here is the crux of my problem - what right has Heidegger over that of
the artist - unless he himself wishes to be one. Though i once would say
that art is about the truth - even then its about making truth - not
showing it, is that what you mean? (or he means) There seems to be a
chasm though between art and philosophy that once crossed "truth"
becomes just another thing to be contemptuous about. If art is about
disclosure - what does it disclose? "The bride stripped bare.." The
whole modern programme ends in a void. This is Neitzsche's greatest form
of Nihilism. (rid of its silly science) Once crossed how things are is
quite different. In language we expect some communication - some idea
of community - which sustains life - how can the superman do this - only
by stealing and cheating the more stupid can he survive i think. Joyce
continually tries to fuck the reader... Isn't this what the great
leaders do. We cannot live on our own - and the kind of democratic
society that treats all as equal is a herd mentality. The more these
"groups" protest about G.Bush the more magnificent they make him!
>
>>
>> > Indeed, logic is only
>> >imputed in the space between propositions none of which in any case are
>ever
>> >self-supporting, though it is apparent it can only materially exist
>through
>> >propositions in the same fashion as rhetoric. I would contend on the
>> >contrary that the aporism is sharp; its argument is perfectly
>self-contained
>> >within itself (assuming its meaning and thereby truth are granted),
>rather
>> >than without. So long as rhetoric grounds itself in the aphorism (a hard
>> >task I know to sustain) it will remain the superior form of expression.
>> >
>> >Atto
>>
>> I not sure of the idea of superior forms of expression - i guess that
>> maths is quite good at describing circles and the like but to produce an
>> equation equal to Hamlet seems unlikely. Certainly my life as lived is
>> neither a Drama (though it might at times seem this way - and some
>> foolishly think themselves as actors) or a piece of arithmetic - though
>> others may well see me as such. (having just taken a credit check!)
>
>so perhaps you're searching for the right aphorism to understand it, all
>other forms of expression being inferior.
To understand my life? No - that is meaningless. It is something which
cant be expressed. Or expressed in any number of ways - this amounts to
the same thing.
>
>>
>> Scientists may use maths but potters use clay!
>
>okay so aphorism is an artistic term. However, in my sense of aphorism as
>self-contained it can have scientific equivalents. A Theory of Everything
>would be perfectly self-contained and thereby beautiful for it. Similarly in
>mathematics e^i*pi + 1 = 0, in uniting mathematics' 5 most important
>constants, could be thought aphoristic and transcendental. (F=ma by contrast
>is more bound up in definition, thereby more equivalent to 'grass is green',
>and not particularly interesting or beautiful.)
I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art - and
it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity. Science works - like
mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that. Though the
scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
street? Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
be invited to understand - others may simply play games with meanings...
if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in love
with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
+ 1 = 1 ? Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's Balzac
shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
his erect penis. Even in abstract art is the presence of the
individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the universe
allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
with the subjects own individual will.
--
James Whitehead
Lewis Mammel
James Whitehead wrote:
> Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi + 1 = 1 ?
Actually, I get 2.69740975483 + i * 2.64355906408 ... approximately
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
Lew Mammel, Jr.
atto
> >
> >so perhaps you're searching for the right aphorism to understand it, all
> >other forms of expression being inferior.
>
> To understand my life? No - that is meaningless. It is something which
> cant be expressed. Or expressed in any number of ways - this amounts to
> the same thing.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Scientists may use maths but potters use clay!
> >
> >okay so aphorism is an artistic term. However, in my sense of aphorism as
> >self-contained it can have scientific equivalents. A Theory of Everything
> >would be perfectly self-contained and thereby beautiful for it. Similarly
in
> >mathematics e^i*pi + 1 = 0, in uniting mathematics' 5 most important
> >constants, could be thought aphoristic and transcendental. (F=ma by
contrast
> >is more bound up in definition, thereby more equivalent to 'grass is
green',
> >and not particularly interesting or beautiful.)
>
> I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
> thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
> same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
> perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
> some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art - and
> it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity.
Oh really? Is not equivalence a fundamental feature of the universe? Even
the Ancient Greek Tragedians in their works thought on the basis of a cosmic
justice. Nowadays, one might express it thus: there's no such thing as a
free lunch. Or the zero-sum game.
Quantity: what about Warhol's soup cans? Or the size of your bank-balance? A
zero makes all the difference. Or is the size of bank-balance of merely
scientific curiosity?
> Science works - like
> mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
> arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that.
Do you mean rules by which science advances or rules of peer review? In the
fomer case Bachelard demonstrated that there has never been any determinate
essence of scientific rationality, by which it can advance. Similarly,
Feyerabend (sp?) demonstrated that science advances through paradigm shifts.
There are no rules for constructing a paradigm. The whole point is that the
old paradigm is incapable of answering the very questions and anomalies it
itself produces. The constructing of a paradigm must be a creative exercise,
and, relative to the old structure of thought: ex nihilo.
From the point of view of the sort of rules by which a lab experiment might
be conducted, or subjected to peer review, even here the notion of a rule
lacks foundation. Wittgenstein proved there is essentially no such thing as
rules. There is no method for following a rule. Kripke-Wittgenstein (in
Kripke's re-reading) demonstrated there is no ultimate justification for a
rule.
Science is not the monolithic structure you take it to be.
> Though the
> scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
> would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
> street?
I don't think its constructive to label as distinct people scientists and
artists. They do not live in different worlds. Are you suggesting that
science and art operate according to different language games? Yet your
comments on equivalence show this to be incorrect. Both are attempting to
understand the world as completely as possible.
> Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
> be invited to understand - others may simply play games with meanings...
> if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
> static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
> like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
> Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in love
> with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
> + 1 = 1 ?
I have never come across this possibility. What you are asking to do is
transcend the thought and place it in a higher spiral. (I fully accept with
lower order truths this is entirely possible) However, here, being at the
pinnacle of thought already this is impossible. Do you not see that the ones
cancel through?!! (Just like 'Grass is green' cancels through) Thus you
degrade the proposition because you failed to understand it in the first
place. You belittle the importance of understanding, as your comment
regarding the overman demonstrates.
> Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
> observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
> artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
> individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's Balzac
> shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
> anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
> around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
> his erect penis.
So i take it your insertion of a number 1 into an otherwise correct equation
symbolises an erect penis which noone other than you could divine? Maybe 0
for a vagina then?
> Even in abstract art is the presence of the
> individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
> science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the universe
> allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
> individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
> with the subjects own individual will.
So you still hold to the problem of free will? You seem to be suggesting
there's something fundamentally unexplainable here, yet your arty language
game fails to justify this in any independent terms whatsoever. I would also
add that the concept of sciences should not be restricted to the physical
sciences because the human sciences are just as much science. Sociology is a
science; by extension poverty is one object of this science. No doubt
poverty 'fills the individual's moment of existence' in your special
terminology.
Atto
Arindam Banerjee
So what, it could be equal to, better than or lesser than perfect, depending
upon who is translating it. All depends upon how much the original spirit,
meaning and purpose are conveyed. If one does not get bogged down by trifling
details (as a computer would) then really good efforts are possible. The
translator then becomes almost as important as the original writer, to later
generations, if his efforts are worthwhile. One simply cannot put any
quantitative measure to any art - but one can say that the original has been
represented as sincerely as possible. When someone who knows both languages
is satisfied, then perfection has been attained. Besides, a work that is
sincere invites improvement from other translators, and through such an
iterative process we could reach the goal of perfection.
> This is why people are better
> translators than computers. What your translation will be is some
> impression of the original- but not equal to it.
No translation is equal to the original. It just cannot be so! But it
should carry the spirit, meaning and purpose of the original.
It is in one respect
> "better" than the original - to non-Sankrist readers.
Yes, they can read it, unlike the Sanskrit! I hope my effort creates
some interest and results in better works with help from more learned
people.
> > I suppose you are
> >right, it is a waste of time, given that the world is composed of white
> >Eurocentric racists and non-white Eurocentric self-despising reverse-racists.
> >Still, I hope and believe that such a composition will not always so remain,
> >and so I labour on, for future generations.
>
> Your task is worthwhile - but my point was not about translating - but
> about your assertion that if you cant translate something into a
> computer algorithm - its worthless. I suppose if you only value
> algorithms then that is so - but others - i myself - find non-
> algorithmic statements of value also. Within art - the form - the
> material *is* significant. Take your sankrist again - though you produce
> this new work - based on the original - how can we in our culture read
> this in the same way as it was when first written?
You have to get rid of your biases to begin with, and that is practically
impossible. Then you have to understand our culture as we see it - again
impossible, for all you know about our culture is from Eurocentrics. So I
would suggest that if possible you begin with a perfectly open mind, and
take them as they come. I expect you will get thoroughly confused, and will
remain that way for a long time. I don't know if you'll ever understand.
It is not easy. Besides, all genuine knowledge is a gift from the Divine;
in this case, the Goddess Saraswati, without whose grace one must merely
keep on groping in the dark.
> >> What
> >> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
> >> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
> >
> >Then it is useless, as it has no business or personal value.
>
> Yes quite so - my life is useless... the universe useless also?
Your life is of use if you use it to comprehend the universe.
> As to value - that is another matter altogether.
I meant it interchangeably.
> >> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
> >> systems are translatable?
> >
> >Everything depends upon who is doing the translation! Certainly logical
> >systems can be modelled into computer programs, and optimised for best
> >performance. That, by the way, is my job - I have recently given a talk
> >on a "Abstract Software Modeling". Proper translation is a creative art.
>
> If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
> 2+2=5.
2+2=4 always, but a creative person adds value to the world through the
power of Good, represented by the Divine. A destructive person diminishes
value to the world through the power of Bad, represented by Wicked and
Slothful Egocentric Ways.
> >> so if the world is not such a system then
> >> translation - within the world is always faulty.
> >
> >I like to think that my translations of Tagore are wonderful, and I am
> >glad to say, there is proof that I am not the only one in the world who
> >thinks so.
>
> well again i've no objection to this. But the art object is not the same
> as that which it seeks to represent - and eventually is not
> representative of anything...
If one seeks to be blind there is nothing to be done.
> >> Even the translation of
> >> my thoughts into this text is wrong.
> >
> >Then you are either fooling us, or you are a confused person.
>
> I could be both? Lets see - i'm not deliberately trying to fool anyone -
> though you'll have to take my word on that. As for being confused i'm
> not sure - so maybe that's it. As each moment goes by i don't however
> feel confused - the confusion arrives when you or i try to sum up these
> - maybe that's the source of my original objection. As if some form
> could capture my experience of being - well looking at it - i'm confused
> - as its quite something other.
Oh well, if you are confused, you are confused. It is one form of rejecting
things you don't like.
> > By and large,
> >the basis behind communication has been to say/write what you mean, and to mean
> >what you say/write.
>
> There is an awful lot in what you say here - which is especially
> relevant in post-structuralism ... post-modern discourse. If you think
> that thought and language work like that i suppose so - but how about
> describing to someone say (if you had one) a tooth ache.
I prefer to descibe more interesting items. If I was well paid :) then
I'd give that a go.
> > But then, I am hopelessly out of date. In this world ruled
> >by politics, not principle, I have no place.
>
> I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
> you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
> However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator.
I wouldn't call such a chap an artist. I would call him an impostor propped
up by media bent upon confusing people like you about the basic nature of
art.
> Let me
> see if i can show the difference - Neitzsche rather than trying to
> explain his toothache wants to give you one of your own. Who knows how
> your pain will relate to his - i suspect not at all. He thinks his
> superman would welcome it.
I don't understand a word of what you have written. To some that may
be high intellectualism thereby, but to me you are merely gibbering, please
excuse me.
> >> The aphorism like the poem is able
> >> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness.
> >
> >This is the result of Einsteinian gibberish, which has corrupted the basis
> >of modern human thinking.
>
> It was around well before Einstein. I'm particularly fond of the
> parables in the N.T. But let me give you another example - the poem of
> Henry Reed's Naming of Parts. When i first studied this it was in an
> english literature lesson - the poem compares the naming of the parts
> of a riffle to a spring day "This is the lower sling swivel.. and this
> is the piling swivel. Which in your case you have not got. The branches
> Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures. Which in our case
> we have not got.." I found we were studying this - in a classroom - like
> a riffle - whilst outside "The blossoms Are fragile and motionless..."
> Both a contradiction of the poets intent but the feeling of the
> stupidity of mechanical understanding in the reality of an english
> spring day -
What's fuzzy about the above? The chap was deploring mechanical movement
as opposed to natural movement - a very old theme, indeed, going far beyond the
Industrial Revolution. He is making a case for environmentalism, perhaps,
though not very well.
> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
> >aphorism.
>
> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
some bad poetry.
> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
>
> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
> formulae.
I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous ideas,
being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
> >> Would you say a
> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> >> matter...
> >
> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
> >
> Can you translate this?
You try!
Arindam Banerjee.
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
[..]
>>
>> I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
>> thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
>> same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
>> perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
>> some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art - and
>> it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity.
>
>Oh really? Is not equivalence a fundamental feature of the universe?
"the universe" of science well maybe - but artists universes - maybe -
but here its up to the artist. I'm still waiting for the completion of
the equation Hamlet = ?
where every performer and every member of the audience is allowed a
valid and unique experience.
I'm not a scientist but I'd guess that equivalence isn't a fundamental
feature of the universe but a necessary feature of science/mathematics.
It seems that observation only matches *closely* the theory...
>Even
>the Ancient Greek Tragedians in their works thought on the basis of a cosmic
>justice. Nowadays, one might express it thus: there's no such thing as a
>free lunch. Or the zero-sum game.
Well if you think that - then that's what you think - but i'm yet to
repeat an/any experience...
>
>Quantity: what about Warhol's soup cans? Or the size of your bank-balance? A
>zero makes all the difference. Or is the size of bank-balance of merely
>scientific curiosity?
Maybe you can see that Warhols multiples make no difference for the
nature of the artwork - as if i can produce several thousand piss-poor
paintings which when viewed on mass have the same artistic value as a
single Van Gough?
>
>> Science works - like
>> mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
>> arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that.
>
>Do you mean rules by which science advances or rules of peer review? In the
>fomer case Bachelard demonstrated that there has never been any determinate
>essence of scientific rationality, by which it can advance. Similarly,
>Feyerabend (sp?) demonstrated that science advances through paradigm shifts.
>There are no rules for constructing a paradigm. The whole point is that the
>old paradigm is incapable of answering the very questions and anomalies it
>itself produces. The constructing of a paradigm must be a creative exercise,
>and, relative to the old structure of thought: ex nihilo.
If this is so its kind of strange that Scientists use old things like Pi
and the like - but your attempting to describe science- what about art?
What questions are being answered? Show me an equivalence - better -
show how an older work was in error!
>
>From the point of view of the sort of rules by which a lab experiment might
>be conducted, or subjected to peer review, even here the notion of a rule
>lacks foundation. Wittgenstein proved there is essentially no such thing as
>rules. There is no method for following a rule. Kripke-Wittgenstein (in
>Kripke's re-reading) demonstrated there is no ultimate justification for a
>rule.
I don't think Wittgenstein did any such thing - but my point here is
your yet to say anything about art.
>
>Science is not the monolithic structure you take it to be.
i don't take it to be - we are talking about art - which though appears
like science is not - science was once thought "better" - it seems its
just the same - maybe. Its the idea of Aphorisms being logical objects
which i questioned. There is a flaw (one of a few) in the plot of Romeo
& Juliet - but this *does not* invalidate it.
>
>> Though the
>> scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
>> would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
>> street?
>
>I don't think its constructive to label as distinct people scientists and
>artists.
Neither do i - but you keep reducing everything to equations...
> They do not live in different worlds. Are you suggesting that
>science and art operate according to different language games?
I'm saying that art doesn't rely on any language game - it may play with
them - the potters clay is not a language game. Lets imagine i mould a
lump into some shape. You may want to ask "what is it" it might be a car
- it might be something different - just a clay shape...
> Yet your
>comments on equivalence show this to be incorrect. Both are attempting to
>understand the world as completely as possible.
Not so - i dont think the artist "knows" what they are doing. Please how
does the painting of Rothko bring any more understanding about the
world? Art is a very primitive thing - and maybe like birdsong has some
biological explanation - but that doesn't equate with the act of making
it, or the actuality of the living bird singing.
>
>> Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
>> be invited to understand - others may simply play games with meanings...
>> if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
>> static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
>> like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
>> Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in love
>> with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
>> + 1 = 1 ?
>
>I have never come across this possibility. What you are asking to do is
>transcend the thought and place it in a higher spiral.
No i'm not - i'm saying in art the object can be interpreted in many
ways - and be valid.
> (I fully accept with
>lower order truths this is entirely possible) However, here, being at the
>pinnacle of thought already this is impossible. Do you not see that the ones
>cancel through?!!
No i don't - i'm not a mathematician.
> (Just like 'Grass is green' cancels through)
It doesn't. "Grass is green" within an art context can be quite
interesting and valid. As in pot smokers are naive? Obvious?
>Thus you
>degrade the proposition because you failed to understand it in the first
>place.
Yes i failed to understand it - and i'm quite aware that my statement =1
was both stupid and wrong.
>You belittle the importance of understanding,
No - understanding is more "important" than art. In the sense of
building bridges and space rockets, making weapons etc.
> as your comment
>regarding the overman demonstrates.
You need to explain this, the overman i maintain is an artist, not a
logician - Neitzsches problem is with the ability of the artist to do
what he/she pleases - as in the case of Wagner. Though the artist may be
flattered by Nietzsche - he is an irrelevance- has to be. The artist
belittles everything - otherwise how could he/she create anything. We
are taught such creativity is against the will of God. In your case the
will of your God - Science/Understanding. To experience a work of art is
to be crushed by it. Maybe too many people read Nietzsche thinking its
about understanding - and are crushed by his writing, how he would
laugh. Art is fiction - if you like a work of art you are under its
spell.
My version of the formulae you gave had nothing to do with sex but was
an expletive to the extent of saying "fuck maths" - and maybe fuck art -
yes fuck it!
>
>> Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
>> observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
>> artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
>> individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's Balzac
>> shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
>> anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
>> around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
>> his erect penis.
>
>So i take it your insertion of a number 1 into an otherwise correct equation
>symbolises an erect penis which noone other than you could divine? Maybe 0
>for a vagina then?
Oh dear! not at all - i was breaking it. Duchamp takes the Mona Lisa -
sticks a moustache on it and writes L.H.O.Q.Q. - (this is (from memory)
and in french a mnemonic for "she has a hot arse") Please what does
this mean? Lets put it more simple - Matisse gets his colours wrong.
Picasso puts the eyes in the wrong place... etc. Though there are some
reasons for this they are not equivalent. Yet your maths formulae in
some other logical notation would have an equivalence.
>
>> Even in abstract art is the presence of the
>> individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
>> science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the universe
>> allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
>> individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
>> with the subjects own individual will.
>
>So you still hold to the problem of free will?
I'm not sure what you mean by free will - you are a determinist? Sure my
will is constrained if i chose follow certain philosophies.
> You seem to be suggesting
>there's something fundamentally unexplainable here,
No - you - or god - or Einstein - may be able to completely explain the
world , explain Matisse and why he painted his wife with a white face
and black lips - and why it produces certain reactions when i see the
picture to the extent that nothing is left out, but that isnt my
experience - so you/he/god misses that out.
>yet your arty language
>game fails to justify this in any independent terms whatsoever.
I don't understand this - my language isn't arty - i'm trying to be
rational - which is your game - and point out that somethings are not
explainable in the way you think.
> I would also
>add that the concept of sciences should not be restricted to the physical
>sciences because the human sciences are just as much science. Sociology is a
>science; by extension poverty is one object of this science. No doubt
>poverty 'fills the individual's moment of existence' in your special
>terminology.
Science wants to explain everything? Explains me - explains art,
arbitrates on what is and is not poetry... Yet is these days suffering
from poverty also.
The grass is green
A rose is a rose is a rose
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
[...]
>> >
>> >I don't think translating Chanakya from archaic Sanskrit to modern English
>> >is a waste of time, but this is just my sole opinion.
>>
>> Neither do I - what i was trying to say was that its impossible to
>> arrive at a perfect translation.
>
>So what, it could be equal to, better than or lesser than perfect, depending
>upon who is translating it. All depends upon how much the original spirit,
>meaning and purpose are conveyed. If one does not get bogged down by trifling
>details (as a computer would) then really good efforts are possible. The
>translator then becomes almost as important as the original writer, to later
>generations, if his efforts are worthwhile. One simply cannot put any
>quantitative measure to any art - but one can say that the original has been
>represented as sincerely as possible. When someone who knows both languages
>is satisfied, then perfection has been attained. Besides, a work that is
>sincere invites improvement from other translators, and through such an
>iterative process we could reach the goal of perfection.
How does this equate with your ideas of computer algorithms? Regarding
statements. And you slip in now ideas of improvement - as if the
original has some target it fails to reach? My confusion lies in your
metaphysics...
>
>> This is why people are better
>> translators than computers. What your translation will be is some
>> impression of the original- but not equal to it.
>
>No translation is equal to the original. It just cannot be so! But it
>should carry the spirit, meaning and purpose of the original.
It cannot carry the purpose in most cases - as its aimed at a different
audience - and often for different "academic" reasons.
Well you start with some impossibilities you overcome by divine grace -
if Saraswati is so bothered she has perhaps the attributes to talk
english and within a context i can understand, and no need for a
translator. MY confusion began with your ideas regarding aphorisms - and
now your waving more magic at me...
>
>> >> What
>> >> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
>> >> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
>> >
>> >Then it is useless, as it has no business or personal value.
>>
>> Yes quite so - my life is useless... the universe useless also?
>
>Your life is of use if you use it to comprehend the universe.
if your still trapped by the *desire* to comprehend - My mind is too
open - it (the universe) just floats away...
>
>> As to value - that is another matter altogether.
>
>I meant it interchangeably.
in personal values?
>
>> >> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
>> >> systems are translatable?
>> >
>> >Everything depends upon who is doing the translation! Certainly logical
>> >systems can be modelled into computer programs, and optimised for best
>> >performance. That, by the way, is my job - I have recently given a talk
>> >on a "Abstract Software Modeling". Proper translation is a creative art.
>>
>> If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
>> 2+2=5.
>
>2+2=4 always,
shame! I think even in science we can have 2+2=5 (imagine a system which
prohibits even results.)
> but a creative person adds value to the world through the
>power of Good, represented by the Divine. A destructive person diminishes
>value to the world through the power of Bad, represented by Wicked and
>Slothful Egocentric Ways.
Here we go - pick on some poor creatures - both ape like - and condemn
them out of hand. Focus on the ego and see how there is nothing there -
beyond good and bad, an open mind. You bring in the machinery of
confusion.
>
>> >> so if the world is not such a system then
>> >> translation - within the world is always faulty.
>> >
>> >I like to think that my translations of Tagore are wonderful, and I am
>> >glad to say, there is proof that I am not the only one in the world who
>> >thinks so.
>>
>> well again i've no objection to this. But the art object is not the same
>> as that which it seeks to represent - and eventually is not
>> representative of anything...
>
>If one seeks to be blind there is nothing to be done.
There is nothing to be done! So seeking doesn't come into it. You want
understanding so you create confusion. You want success - you need
therefore failure - you want good - you therefore create evil. You want
to be a better person than me.
>
>> >> Even the translation of
>> >> my thoughts into this text is wrong.
>> >
>> >Then you are either fooling us, or you are a confused person.
>>
>> I could be both? Lets see - i'm not deliberately trying to fool anyone -
>> though you'll have to take my word on that. As for being confused i'm
>> not sure - so maybe that's it. As each moment goes by i don't however
>> feel confused - the confusion arrives when you or i try to sum up these
>> - maybe that's the source of my original objection. As if some form
>> could capture my experience of being - well looking at it - i'm confused
>> - as its quite something other.
>
>Oh well, if you are confused, you are confused. It is one form of rejecting
>things you don't like.
I'm enjoying this dialogue - and the patterns of opposites you are
creating. BTW confusion has been considered by some to be the key to
making art - the blank canvas is perfect - the first mark breaks this
and creates a chaos which the artists tries to bring back to the
perfection.
>
>> > By and large,
>> >the basis behind communication has been to say/write what you mean, and to
>mean
>> >what you say/write.
>>
>> There is an awful lot in what you say here - which is especially
>> relevant in post-structuralism ... post-modern discourse. If you think
>> that thought and language work like that i suppose so - but how about
>> describing to someone say (if you had one) a tooth ache.
>
>I prefer to descibe more interesting items. If I was well paid :) then
>I'd give that a go.
>
>> > But then, I am hopelessly out of date. In this world ruled
>> >by politics, not principle, I have no place.
>>
>> I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
>> you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
>> However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator.
>
>I wouldn't call such a chap an artist. I would call him an impostor propped
>up by media bent upon confusing people like you about the basic nature of
>art.
Oh now your confused? But i'm not trying to confuse you.
>
>> Let me
>> see if i can show the difference - Neitzsche rather than trying to
>> explain his toothache wants to give you one of your own. Who knows how
>> your pain will relate to his - i suspect not at all. He thinks his
>> superman would welcome it.
>
>I don't understand a word of what you have written. To some that may
>be high intellectualism thereby, but to me you are merely gibbering, please
>excuse me.
Of course i can - but i don't see it as intellectualism - quite the
opposite. An intellectual might describe a process - but the actuality
is different. The aphorism like a kiss is not just a translatable
statement.
>
>> >> The aphorism like the poem is able
>> >> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness.
>> >
>> >This is the result of Einsteinian gibberish, which has corrupted the basis
>> >of modern human thinking.
>>
>> It was around well before Einstein. I'm particularly fond of the
>> parables in the N.T. But let me give you another example - the poem of
>> Henry Reed's Naming of Parts. When i first studied this it was in an
>> english literature lesson - the poem compares the naming of the parts
>> of a riffle to a spring day "This is the lower sling swivel.. and this
>> is the piling swivel. Which in your case you have not got. The branches
>> Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures. Which in our case
>> we have not got.." I found we were studying this - in a classroom - like
>> a riffle - whilst outside "The blossoms Are fragile and motionless..."
>> Both a contradiction of the poets intent but the feeling of the
>> stupidity of mechanical understanding in the reality of an english
>> spring day -
>
>What's fuzzy about the above? The chap was deploring mechanical movement
>as opposed to natural movement - a very old theme, indeed, going far beyond the
>Industrial Revolution. He is making a case for environmentalism, perhaps,
>though not very well.
Well that's how you see it - cut and dried (and quite dead). In fact i
think though your observation about environmentalism is valid i don't
think it was uppermost in the poets mind. Elsewhere in another poem an
artillery instructor points out the nature and uses of trees, while the
poet imagines lovers lying under them...
>
>> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
>> >aphorism.
>>
>> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
>
>No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
>the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
>some bad poetry.
nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
is a pity.
>
>> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
>> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
>>
>> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
>> formulae.
>
>I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
>the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous ideas,
>being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
Here you use an analogy - but how is it that worms cant forgive but
sauces can cover ridiculous ideas - what's sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander?
>
>> >> Would you say a
>> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
>> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> >> matter...
>> >
>> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
>> >
>> Can you translate this?
>
>You try!
>
It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02021...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>
> [...]
>
> >> >
> >> >I don't think translating Chanakya from archaic Sanskrit to modern English
> >> >is a waste of time, but this is just my sole opinion.
> >>
> >> Neither do I - what i was trying to say was that its impossible to
> >> arrive at a perfect translation.
> >
> >So what, it could be equal to, better than or lesser than perfect, depending
> >upon who is translating it. All depends upon how much the original spirit,
> >meaning and purpose are conveyed. If one does not get bogged down by trifling
> >details (as a computer would) then really good efforts are possible. The
> >translator then becomes almost as important as the original writer, to later
> >generations, if his efforts are worthwhile. One simply cannot put any
> >quantitative measure to any art - but one can say that the original has been
> >represented as sincerely as possible. When someone who knows both languages
> >is satisfied, then perfection has been attained. Besides, a work that is
> >sincere invites improvement from other translators, and through such an
> >iterative process we could reach the goal of perfection.
>
> How does this equate with your ideas of computer algorithms?
An algorithm is like a recipe - while basically the same, it is done
in different ways by different cooks, who put in their individual touches.
To the extent cooking is art, we have variety; to the extent it is science,
we have uniformity.
An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its power.
To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
individual.
A computer algorithm usually follows a sequential path; however in say
a spreadsheet environment (Excel, say) this situation need not arise. The
system could be modelled as a set of formulas, logic, i/o etc.
Regarding
> statements. And you slip in now ideas of improvement - as if the
> original has some target it fails to reach?
Certainly the original had some target, which it reached in its time. In
our time we have to find out what it was all about. A deep knowledge is
therefore necessary, and proper translation could well be beyond the powers
of just one person.
> My confusion lies in your
> metaphysics...
What metaphysics? I am an engineer, nothing else. That is, I want to
make things, not indulge in shilly-shallying.
> >> This is why people are better
> >> translators than computers. What your translation will be is some
> >> impression of the original- but not equal to it.
> >
> >No translation is equal to the original. It just cannot be so! But it
> >should carry the spirit, meaning and purpose of the original.
>
> It cannot carry the purpose in most cases - as its aimed at a different
> audience - and often for different "academic" reasons.
A work of genuine art is dedicated to the Divine, and is beyond time and
place. Audience and academia are but noise. Those worthy of understanding
such art will understand; those who are not, won't.
Yes.
> if Saraswati is so bothered she has perhaps the attributes to talk
> english and within a context i can understand, and no need for a
> translator.
The Goddess Saraswati may be benign to those who humbly and sincerely
implore Her help, and make themselves worthy for same. Sanskrit, Vedas,
the power of proper speech and music, are all gifts from the Goddess. One
has to be conscious of this, while translating the Chanakya Sutras. The
constant blessing of the Goddess is of paramount importance.
> MY confusion began with your ideas regarding aphorisms - and
> now your waving more magic at me...
I am being sincere; while as you say, you are confused. Anyway, I
have explained what I meant about aphorims and algorithms earlier in this
post.
> >> >> What
> >> >> makes something unique and therefore of value is that which is in it
> >> >> which is not translatable into a mathematical formula or anything else.
> >> >
> >> >Then it is useless, as it has no business or personal value.
> >>
> >> Yes quite so - my life is useless... the universe useless also?
> >
> >Your life is of use if you use it to comprehend the universe.
>
> if your still trapped by the *desire* to comprehend - My mind is too
> open - it (the universe) just floats away...
>
> >
> >> As to value - that is another matter altogether.
> >
> >I meant it interchangeably.
>
>
> in personal values?
Of course. Primarily that. An aphorism gives rise to codes of conduct in
various spheres of personal and public life.
> >> >> This is not some romantic notion but a logical proposition. Only logical
> >> >> systems are translatable?
> >> >
> >> >Everything depends upon who is doing the translation! Certainly logical
> >> >systems can be modelled into computer programs, and optimised for best
> >> >performance. That, by the way, is my job - I have recently given a talk
> >> >on a "Abstract Software Modeling". Proper translation is a creative art.
> >>
> >> If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
> >> 2+2=5.
> >
> >2+2=4 always,
>
> shame! I think even in science we can have 2+2=5 (imagine a system which
> prohibits even results.)
Nonsense. I have put up so far unchallenged designs of perpetual motion
machines are also basically interstellar spaceships, but nowhere I have
used this fallacy - especially not in the mathematical derivation for
unlimited energy. The amount of extra energy that can be obtained through
certain engineering situations (and after watching yesterdays "Planets"
program on TV, hosted by Sandra Sully, I think in physical situations as
well, relating to energy generated from within such planets as Jupiter) can
be quantified without need for any mathematical hocus-pocus.
> > but a creative person adds value to the world through the
> >power of Good, represented by the Divine. A destructive person diminishes
> >value to the world through the power of Bad, represented by Wicked and
> >Slothful Egocentric Ways.
>
> Here we go - pick on some poor creatures - both ape like - and condemn
> them out of hand. Focus on the ego and see how there is nothing there -
> beyond good and bad, an open mind. You bring in the machinery of
> confusion.
Your natural state, not mine. (You stated this earlier.)
> >> >> so if the world is not such a system then
> >> >> translation - within the world is always faulty.
> >> >
> >> >I like to think that my translations of Tagore are wonderful, and I am
> >> >glad to say, there is proof that I am not the only one in the world who
> >> >thinks so.
> >>
> >> well again i've no objection to this. But the art object is not the same
> >> as that which it seeks to represent - and eventually is not
> >> representative of anything...
> >
> >If one seeks to be blind there is nothing to be done.
>
> There is nothing to be done!
Yes.
> So seeking doesn't come into it.
If one wilfully seeks to be obtuse and stupid, nothing can be done.
> You want
> understanding so you create confusion.
No, I want understanding so I emphasize clarity, which may be dazzling to those
who are steeped in darkness. Those who know only confusion are troubled
by clarity. It upsets their ways.
> You want success - you need
> therefore failure - you want good - you therefore create evil.
Where did I talk of evil? I talked only of Wicked and Slothful Egocentric
Ways. That is not Evil, an alien concept to me.
>You want
> to be a better person than me.
Or anyone else, but I am really not interested in such comparisons.
Of course not. (btw your grammar is slipping.)
> But i'm not trying to confuse you.
Thanks.
> >> Let me
> >> see if i can show the difference - Neitzsche rather than trying to
> >> explain his toothache wants to give you one of your own. Who knows how
> >> your pain will relate to his - i suspect not at all. He thinks his
> >> superman would welcome it.
> >
> >I don't understand a word of what you have written. To some that may
> >be high intellectualism thereby, but to me you are merely gibbering, please
> >excuse me.
>
> Of course i can - but i don't see it as intellectualism - quite the
> opposite. An intellectual might describe a process - but the actuality
> is different. The aphorism like a kiss is not just a translatable
> statement.
Okay, if that is what you think, I have nothing more to say. I don't agree,
that's all.
> >> >> The aphorism like the poem is able
> >> >> to express more of a reality by its apparent fuzziness.
> >> >
> >> >This is the result of Einsteinian gibberish, which has corrupted the basis
> >> >of modern human thinking.
> >>
> >> It was around well before Einstein. I'm particularly fond of the
> >> parables in the N.T. But let me give you another example - the poem of
> >> Henry Reed's Naming of Parts. When i first studied this it was in an
> >> english literature lesson - the poem compares the naming of the parts
> >> of a riffle to a spring day "This is the lower sling swivel.. and this
> >> is the piling swivel. Which in your case you have not got. The branches
> >> Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures. Which in our case
> >> we have not got.." I found we were studying this - in a classroom - like
> >> a riffle - whilst outside "The blossoms Are fragile and motionless..."
> >> Both a contradiction of the poets intent but the feeling of the
> >> stupidity of mechanical understanding in the reality of an english
> >> spring day -
> >
> >What's fuzzy about the above? The chap was deploring mechanical movement
> >as opposed to natural movement - a very old theme, indeed, going far beyond the
> >Industrial Revolution. He is making a case for environmentalism, perhaps,
> >though not very well.
>
> Well that's how you see it - cut and dried (and quite dead).
Well, if I had read the whole poem maybe I would have been more enthused.
In fact i
> think though your observation about environmentalism is valid i don't
> think it was uppermost in the poets mind. Elsewhere in another poem an
> artillery instructor points out the nature and uses of trees, while the
> poet imagines lovers lying under them...
See, it is not fuzzy at all.
> >> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
> >> >aphorism.
> >>
> >> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
> >
> >No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
> >the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
> >some bad poetry.
>
> nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
> you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
> is a pity.
I read it with an open mind, and analysed it accordingly. If you don't
like my analysis, please explain why, instead of evading by saying that
the author was a "great mystical thinker".
> >> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
> >> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
> >>
> >> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
> >> formulae.
> >
> >I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
> >the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous ideas,
> >being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
>
> Here you use an analogy - but how is it that worms cant forgive but
> sauces can cover ridiculous ideas - what's sauce for the goose is sauce
> for the gander?
I do not use an analogy, I use a metaphor, to emphasize and clarify
my meaning relating to gaudily or grandly dressed bogus ideas.
> >> >> Would you say a
> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> >> >> matter...
> >> >
> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
> >> >
> >> Can you translate this?
> >
> >You try!
>
> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
Lukewarm.
Arindam Banerjee.
James Whitehead
i've tried to keep this down in size - please paste in anything i've
removed which you think is still pertinent.
[..]
>> >So what, it could be equal to, better than or lesser than perfect, depending
>> >upon who is translating it. All depends upon how much the original spirit,
>> >meaning and purpose are conveyed. If one does not get bogged down by
>trifling
>> >details (as a computer would) then really good efforts are possible. The
>> >translator then becomes almost as important as the original writer, to later
>> >generations, if his efforts are worthwhile. One simply cannot put any
>> >quantitative measure to any art - but one can say that the original has been
>> >represented as sincerely as possible. When someone who knows both languages
>> >is satisfied, then perfection has been attained. Besides, a work that is
>> >sincere invites improvement from other translators, and through such an
>> >iterative process we could reach the goal of perfection.
>>
>> How does this equate with your ideas of computer algorithms?
>
>An algorithm is like a recipe - while basically the same, it is done
>in different ways by different cooks, who put in their individual touches.
>To the extent cooking is art, we have variety; to the extent it is science,
>we have uniformity.
But for each recipe there was a time when it did not exist, this time -
a confused chaos is out of which the recipe - a definite set of steps -
is formed. The repeated playing of Bach - is not the same - as its
original composition. The same goes for science - here again we have the
sheep - who mechanically follow and those who find the existing
paradigms confusing...
>
>An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
>denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
>an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its power.
>To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
>individual.
These are not then translatable into computer algorithms. Though you
wanted clarity - its their ability to hold together opposite ideas which
allows them more closely to picture reality. To become a reality. To
bring the reader actively into the though process.
>
>A computer algorithm usually follows a sequential path; however in say
>a spreadsheet environment (Excel, say) this situation need not arise. The
>system could be modelled as a set of formulas, logic, i/o etc.
Small point but most computer systems these days are fairly parallel...
>
>
>Regarding
>> statements. And you slip in now ideas of improvement - as if the
>> original has some target it fails to reach?
>
>Certainly the original had some target, which it reached in its time. In
>our time we have to find out what it was all about. A deep knowledge is
>therefore necessary, and proper translation could well be beyond the powers
>of just one person.
To the original reader - our difference is un-bridgeable, in post-
modernity there is no history. Belief in a target, belief in deep
knowledge are all metaphysical concepts which belong to modernity.
(?)
>
>> My confusion lies in your
>> metaphysics...
>
>What metaphysics? I am an engineer, nothing else. That is, I want to
>make things, not indulge in shilly-shallying.
This is a metaphysics - a fairly determinist one - but doesn't equate
with ideas of deep knowledge. Without shilly-shallying please show how
deep knowledge differs from shallow.
>
>> >> This is why people are better
>> >> translators than computers. What your translation will be is some
>> >> impression of the original- but not equal to it.
>> >
>> >No translation is equal to the original. It just cannot be so! But it
>> >should carry the spirit, meaning and purpose of the original.
>>
>> It cannot carry the purpose in most cases - as its aimed at a different
>> audience - and often for different "academic" reasons.
>
>A work of genuine art is dedicated to the Divine, and is beyond time and
>place.
Again pure transcendental metaphysics as far as i can see. I know of no
object beyond time and place which is art - with perhaps one exception.
> Audience and academia are but noise. Those worthy of understanding
>such art will understand; those who are not, won't.
yes and grass is green - without time however the algorithm seems stuck.
[...]
>>
>> Well you start with some impossibilities you overcome by divine grace -
>
>Yes.
then again that sounds like metaphysics.
>
>> if Saraswati is so bothered she has perhaps the attributes to talk
>> english and within a context i can understand, and no need for a
>> translator.
>
>The Goddess Saraswati may be benign to those who humbly and sincerely
>implore Her help, and make themselves worthy for same. Sanskrit, Vedas,
>the power of proper speech and music, are all gifts from the Goddess. One
>has to be conscious of this, while translating the Chanakya Sutras. The
>constant blessing of the Goddess is of paramount importance.
i know some engineers - you clearly have "something else" e.g. a divine
blessing.
>
>> MY confusion began with your ideas regarding aphorisms - and
>> now your waving more magic at me...
>
>I am being sincere; while as you say, you are confused. Anyway, I
>have explained what I meant about aphorims and algorithms earlier in this
>post.
[..]
>> >> As to value - that is another matter altogether.
>> >
>> >I meant it interchangeably.
>>
>>
>> in personal values?
>
>Of course. Primarily that. An aphorism gives rise to codes of conduct in
>various spheres of personal and public life.
however these might not at first be deterministically apparent. They
might be subject to some divine grace operating.
[..]
>> >> If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
>> >> 2+2=5.
>> >
>> >2+2=4 always,
>>
>> shame! I think even in science we can have 2+2=5 (imagine a system which
>> prohibits even results.)
>
>Nonsense. I have put up so far unchallenged designs of perpetual motion
>machines are also basically interstellar spaceships, but nowhere I have
>used this fallacy - especially not in the mathematical derivation for
>unlimited energy. The amount of extra energy that can be obtained through
>certain engineering situations (and after watching yesterdays "Planets"
>program on TV, hosted by Sandra Sully, I think in physical situations as
>well, relating to energy generated from within such planets as Jupiter) can
>be quantified without need for any mathematical hocus-pocus.
But surely a particle which knocks itself into a black hole is a
perpetual motion machine - and physicists have mathematical descriptions
of such processes. The many silly designs prior to the wright brothers
didn't invalidate their machine one jot.
>
>> > but a creative person adds value to the world through the
>> >power of Good, represented by the Divine. A destructive person diminishes
>> >value to the world through the power of Bad, represented by Wicked and
>> >Slothful Egocentric Ways.
>>
>> Here we go - pick on some poor creatures - both ape like - and condemn
>> them out of hand. Focus on the ego and see how there is nothing there -
>> beyond good and bad, an open mind. You bring in the machinery of
>> confusion.
>
>Your natural state, not mine. (You stated this earlier.)
I don't think i said it was a natural state - its part of the process of
creation - the frown on the apes face as she/he fumbles with the thigh
bone before bringing it down on the head of another ape.
[..]
>> >
>> >If one seeks to be blind there is nothing to be done.
>>
>> There is nothing to be done!
>
>Yes.
>
>> So seeking doesn't come into it.
>
>If one wilfully seeks to be obtuse and stupid, nothing can be done.
"If a fool persists in his folly he shall become wise" - its William
Blake again.
>
>> You want
>> understanding so you create confusion.
>
>No, I want understanding so I emphasize clarity, which may be dazzling to those
>who are steeped in darkness. Those who know only confusion are troubled
>by clarity. It upsets their ways.
Not so - now you are just being prejudicial and looking for reasons to
discriminate. Only the sick need a doctor, and only those in the dark
light.
>
>> You want success - you need
>> therefore failure - you want good - you therefore create evil.
>
>Where did I talk of evil? I talked only of Wicked and Slothful Egocentric
>Ways. That is not Evil, an alien concept to me.
didn't you have "good" - you have a divine goddess - she has two sides?
You want light - so need those stepped in darkness - your a cowboy - you
need Indians to shoot at... " a Joseph looking for a manger"?
>
>>You want
>> to be a better person than me.
>
>Or anyone else, but I am really not interested in such comparisons.
So why condemn those in the dark! Why not give them some light.
[..]
>> >> I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
>> >> you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
>> >> However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator.
>> >
>> >I wouldn't call such a chap an artist. I would call him an impostor propped
>> >up by media bent upon confusing people like you about the basic nature of
>> >art.
>>
>> Oh now your confused?
>
>Of course not. (btw your grammar is slipping.)
Lets not be pedantic - 'By the way' is what you wanted to say in proper
english. The dons at cambridge see such pedantry as a bar on creative
english as a living and dynamic language.
>
>> But i'm not trying to confuse you.
>
>Thanks.
>
>> >> Let me
>> >> see if i can show the difference - Neitzsche rather than trying to
>> >> explain his toothache wants to give you one of your own. Who knows how
>> >> your pain will relate to his - i suspect not at all. He thinks his
>> >> superman would welcome it.
>> >
>> >I don't understand a word of what you have written. To some that may
>> >be high intellectualism thereby, but to me you are merely gibbering, please
>> >excuse me.
>>
>> Of course i can - but i don't see it as intellectualism - quite the
>> opposite. An intellectual might describe a process - but the actuality
>> is different. The aphorism like a kiss is not just a translatable
>> statement.
>
>Okay, if that is what you think, I have nothing more to say. I don't agree,
>that's all.
we can agree to differ on this then.
Being in love can be very fuzzy....
>
>> >> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
>> >> >aphorism.
>> >>
>> >> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
>> >
>> >No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
>> >the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
>> >some bad poetry.
>>
>> nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
>> you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
>> is a pity.
>
>I read it with an open mind, and analysed it accordingly. If you don't
>like my analysis, please explain why, instead of evading by saying that
>the author was a "great mystical thinker".
Your analysis (what it was) was cut worms cant forgive - well neither
is a sauce a long word - so i needn't like or dislike it - its just that
it strikes me as being inconsistent. Unless your not saying that worms
are incapable of forgiveness - the cut worm forgives - but why - because
the plough is part of the process of life which necessitates some harm -
or because cut worms are able to grow again - so the seeming harm isn't
harm at all - so like a good parable the decision is left with us - and
not determined by the author - or the algorithm. Too quickly do you
arrive on a very limited and seemingly contradictory analysis that its
*just* bad poetry.
>
>> >> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
>> >> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
>> >> formulae.
>> >
>> >I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
>> >the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous ideas,
>> >being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
>>
>> Here you use an analogy - but how is it that worms cant forgive but
>> sauces can cover ridiculous ideas - what's sauce for the goose is sauce
>> for the gander?
>
>I do not use an analogy, I use a metaphor, to emphasize and clarify
>my meaning relating to gaudily or grandly dressed bogus ideas.
Sorry my english again! Surly Your sauce covering the bad fish is
*analogous* to big words covering ridiculous ideas? I think to be
metaphorical would be to say - "big words covering up *fishy* ideas..."
>
>> >> >> Would you say a
>> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
>> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> >> >> matter...
>> >> >
>> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
>> >> >
>> >> Can you translate this?
>> >
>> >You try!
>>
>> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
>
>Lukewarm.
>
OK your turn!
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02021...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>
>
> i've tried to keep this down in size - please paste in anything i've
> removed which you think is still pertinent.
> [..]
I'll do that, too.
-snip-
> >
> >An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
> >denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
> >an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its power.
> >To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
> >individual.
>
> These are not then translatable into computer algorithms.
Yes, they are, but not automatically unless we have really clever
programs
for same.
> Though you
> wanted clarity - its their ability to hold together opposite ideas which
> allows them more closely to picture reality.
In a recipe, there is no scope for opposite ideas, unless we stretch
things
and say that we need both fire and water to make hot soup.
I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
opposite
ideas.
Main difference between an aphorism and an epic is that an aphorism is
short while an epic is long.
> To become a reality.
I think we may have different ideas about reality.
> To
> bring the reader actively into the though process.
So as to dive into his pocket? :) :)
> >A computer algorithm usually follows a sequential path; however in say
> >a spreadsheet environment (Excel, say) this situation need not arise. The
> >system could be modelled as a set of formulas, logic, i/o etc.
>
> Small point but most computer systems these days are fairly parallel...
No, they all work sequentially on individual basis but work parallel
as a group,
using certain protocols for intercommunication.
The Windows environment is basically a big if statement.
Multithreading
is only apparent parallel working. A system works on such a parallel
basis
but the individual algorithms representing the system usually work
sequentially,
unless by their very nature they have to be scattered across various
systems.
> >Regarding
> >> statements. And you slip in now ideas of improvement - as if the
> >> original has some target it fails to reach?
> >
> >Certainly the original had some target, which it reached in its time. In
> >our time we have to find out what it was all about. A deep knowledge is
> >therefore necessary, and proper translation could well be beyond the powers
> >of just one person.
>
> To the original reader - our difference is un-bridgeable, in post-
> modernity there is no history.
How convenient for bad consciences!
Belief in a target, belief in deep
> knowledge are all metaphysical concepts which belong to modernity.
I did not talk about beliefs, I talked about representing ancient
knowledge
in modern terms.
> (?)
>
>
> >
> >> My confusion lies in your
> >> metaphysics...
> >
> >What metaphysics? I am an engineer, nothing else. That is, I want to
> >make things, not indulge in shilly-shallying.
>
> This is a metaphysics - a fairly determinist one - but doesn't equate
> with ideas of deep knowledge. Without shilly-shallying please show how
> deep knowledge differs from shallow.
A deep knowledge is the basis of shallow knowledges, as expressed by
the superficial adherence of shallow knowledge to deep knowledge, or
equally superfical rejection. One example is the much vaunted Aryan
theory of the Nazis - a very shallow self-aggrandizing theory. Deep
knowledge would have meant an understanding of Chanakya Sutra to
understand the thinking of Aryans; shallow thinking followed racist
theories perfected by USAn and French academics. Deep thinking is
sincere,
and leads to good results; shallow thinking leads to Nazism, whose
consequences we know.
- snip -
> >> >> If its "creative" you've added something - a creative person makes
> >> >> 2+2=5.
> >> >
> >> >2+2=4 always,
> >>
> >> shame! I think even in science we can have 2+2=5 (imagine a system which
> >> prohibits even results.)
> >
> >Nonsense. I have put up so far unchallenged designs of perpetual motion
> >machines are also basically interstellar spaceships, but nowhere I have
> >used this fallacy - especially not in the mathematical derivation for
> >unlimited energy. The amount of extra energy that can be obtained through
> >certain engineering situations (and after watching yesterdays "Planets"
> >program on TV, hosted by Sandra Sully, I think in physical situations as
> >well, relating to energy generated from within such planets as Jupiter) can
> >be quantified without need for any mathematical hocus-pocus.
>
> But surely a particle which knocks itself into a black hole is a
> perpetual motion machine - and physicists have mathematical descriptions
> of such processes.
Firstly, my design had nothing to do with black holes - a useless
concept
that cannot be practically achieved. Secondly, I just read a short
story
by Asimov that had to do with putting a particle into the black hole
(incidentally a billiard ball was used, by the vengeful and
proved-wrong
theoretician to kill the engineer who did it) and it is of course full
of
nonsense so far as actual physics is concerned. Thirdly, this shows
the
impact of popular fiction (lies, that is) upon the unthinking masses
who
nevertheless fund scientific tricksters through taxation. Sad.
> The many silly designs prior to the wright brothers
> didn't invalidate their machine one jot.
Silly or not, they were made with good intentions. Some may have
been more useful than the Wright brothers design, which burns and
pollutes
the air.
> >> > but a creative person adds value to the world through the
> >> >power of Good, represented by the Divine. A destructive person diminishes
> >> >value to the world through the power of Bad, represented by Wicked and
> >> >Slothful Egocentric Ways.
> >>
> >> Here we go - pick on some poor creatures - both ape like - and condemn
> >> them out of hand. Focus on the ego and see how there is nothing there -
> >> beyond good and bad, an open mind. You bring in the machinery of
> >> confusion.
> >
> >Your natural state, not mine. (You stated this earlier.)
>
> I don't think i said it was a natural state - its part of the process of
> creation - the frown on the apes face as she/he fumbles with the thigh
> bone before bringing it down on the head of another ape.
You said that you could not even translate your thoughts properly, and
that was not from any desire to fool, but from confusion. If you have
at last managed to translate your thoughts properly, then you are not
being confused.
>
>
> [..]
>
> >> >
> >> >If one seeks to be blind there is nothing to be done.
> >>
> >> There is nothing to be done!
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> So seeking doesn't come into it.
> >
> >If one wilfully seeks to be obtuse and stupid, nothing can be done.
>
> "If a fool persists in his folly he shall become wise" - its William
> Blake again.
After his money is separated from him, perhaps.
> >> You want
> >> understanding so you create confusion.
> >
> >No, I want understanding so I emphasize clarity, which may be dazzling to those
> >who are steeped in darkness. Those who know only confusion are troubled
> >by clarity. It upsets their ways.
>
> Not so - now you are just being prejudicial and looking for reasons to
> discriminate.
Hardly. I am again emphasising the need for clarity, with a view to
discriminate. I try to have an open mind, and judge things as I find
them
to be, after as thorough an analysis as possible. Bigoted
people just follow dogma, so much easier. It so happens that these
days bigotry is a bit unfashionable, so the bigots are pretending to
be
confused. So while I do discriminate, I have no need to seek reasons
for
same - that would have happened if I were a bigot.
> Only the sick need a doctor, and only those in the dark
> light.
Yes.
>
> >
> >> You want success - you need
> >> therefore failure - you want good - you therefore create evil.
> >
> >Where did I talk of evil? I talked only of Wicked and Slothful Egocentric
> >Ways. That is not Evil, an alien concept to me.
>
> didn't you have "good" - you have a divine goddess - she has two sides?
No. She is just wonderful, worthy of complete reverence and devotion.
> You want light - so need those stepped in darkness - your a cowboy - you
> need Indians to shoot at... " a Joseph looking for a manger"?
I am not an USAn. I am an Indian, so I don't need Indians to shoot
at, nor
do I want to be shot at.
> >>You want
> >> to be a better person than me.
> >
> >Or anyone else, but I am really not interested in such comparisons.
>
> So why condemn those in the dark! Why not give them some light.
I do not condemn anyone. If someone wants light, he or she must make
the
necessary effort on his or her own. There is no spoonfeeding, so far
as
I am concerned. And how do I know who is in the dark or who is not?
It would
be presumptuous of me to offer unasked-for light.
> [..]
> >> >> I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
> >> >> you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
> >> >> However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator.
> >> >
> >> >I wouldn't call such a chap an artist. I would call him an impostor propped
> >> >up by media bent upon confusing people like you about the basic nature of
> >> >art.
> >>
> >> Oh now your confused?
> >
> >Of course not. (btw your grammar is slipping.)
>
> Lets not be pedantic - 'By the way' is what you wanted to say in proper
> english.
It was a matter of balance.
> The dons at cambridge see such pedantry as a bar on creative
> english as a living and dynamic language.
They would do far better if they suggested more vowels and consonants
for the
English language, following Shaw. Do they really want to turn English
into
one large grunting monster? Well, I suppose they are a bunch of
mediocritising leftists who want the thirdworlders to be less overawed
by the
could-be beautiful speech of firstworlders.
- snip -
> > In fact i
> >> think though your observation about environmentalism is valid i don't
> >> think it was uppermost in the poets mind. Elsewhere in another poem an
> >> artillery instructor points out the nature and uses of trees, while the
> >> poet imagines lovers lying under them...
> >
> >See, it is not fuzzy at all.
>
> Being in love can be very fuzzy....
But the poem may not be that. Imparting a fuzzy feeling to a reader,
and
being fuzzy, are two entirely different things.
> >> >> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
> >> >> >aphorism.
> >> >>
> >> >> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
> >> >
> >> >No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
> >> >the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
> >> >some bad poetry.
> >>
> >> nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
> >> you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
> >> is a pity.
> >
> >I read it with an open mind, and analysed it accordingly. If you don't
> >like my analysis, please explain why, instead of evading by saying that
> >the author was a "great mystical thinker".
>
> Your analysis (what it was) was cut worms cant forgive - well neither
> is a sauce a long word - so i needn't like or dislike it - its just that
> it strikes me as being inconsistent. Unless your not saying that worms
> are incapable of forgiveness
That is exactly what I said. Worms are incapable of forgiveness, so
they
cannot forgive. To write that they can forgive, is thus nonsense, of
a
low kind (not the Lewis Carroll kind, or the Sukumar Ray kind, more of
the Einsteinian black-hole perpetual motion machine kind).
- the cut worm forgives - but why - because
> the plough is part of the process of life which necessitates some harm -
The cut worm does not forgive, it only gets cut and is harmed. The
harm
comes to the cut worm, not to the plough or ploughman.
To accept this line as good poetry is to justify the exploitation of
the
weak by the strong. That happens, of course, but the purpose of the
good
poet (as opposed to the propagandist) has been to take the side of the
weak.
That is why I called it bad poetry. It is, in fact, very bad poetry.
> or because cut worms are able to grow again - so the seeming harm isn't
> harm at all -
Oh, so the thirdworlders were not harmed at all when they were
exploited
by Europeans, just because they have large populations now?
> so like a good parable the decision is left with us - and
> not determined by the author - or the algorithm.
There are always two points of view - one from the killer's and the
other
from the victim's. You implicitly support the former, I the latter,
in this
case, where the bad poetry/aphorism may be seen as a killer's
aphorism. There is no confusion
once we agree on this. When we don't, this is fuzzy nonsense.
Too quickly do you
> arrive on a very limited and seemingly contradictory analysis that its
> *just* bad poetry.
What contradiction? It is not *just* bad poetry, it is the worst
poetry possible. If the writer was Blake, then, well, the chap was
often mad
and so need not be taken seriously, for everything he wrote.
> >> >> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
> >> >> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
> >> >> formulae.
> >> >
> >> >I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
> >> >the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous ideas,
> >> >being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
> >>
> >> Here you use an analogy - but how is it that worms cant forgive but
> >> sauces can cover ridiculous ideas - what's sauce for the goose is sauce
> >> for the gander?
> >
> >I do not use an analogy, I use a metaphor, to emphasize and clarify
> >my meaning relating to gaudily or grandly dressed bogus ideas.
>
> Sorry my english again! Surly Your sauce covering the bad fish is
> *analogous* to big words covering ridiculous ideas?
When I compared an algorithm to a recipe, that was analogy, for I was
explaining a comparatively little-understood term with something
similar in scope but better
understood. "As good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish" is not
an analogy, it is a simile, which is a figure of speech. Figures of
speech
are used to make the language more interesting and vivid.
> I think to be
> metaphorical would be to say - "big words covering up *fishy* ideas..."
*Fishy* ideas get funded, unlike ideas publicly represented as bad
fish.
> >> >> >> Would you say a
> >> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> >> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> >> >> >> matter...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-smile?"
> >> >> >
> >> >> Can you translate this?
> >> >
> >> >You try!
> >>
> >> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
> >
> >Lukewarm.
> >
> OK your turn!
Pass.
Arindam Banerjee.
atto
James Whitehead wrote
>
> [..]
>
> >>
> >> I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
> >> thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
> >> same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
> >> perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
> >> some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art -
and
> >> it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity.
> >
> >Oh really? Is not equivalence a fundamental feature of the universe?
>
> "the universe" of science well maybe - but artists universes - maybe -
> but here its up to the artist. I'm still waiting for the completion of
> the equation Hamlet = ?
> where every performer and every member of the audience is allowed a
> valid and unique experience.
it depends whether you're asking what is the essence of Hamlet (in
pre-Heiddegerian metaphysics) or what is the existence of Hamlet (Heidegger
and after). Are you pre-supposing the existence of Hamlet, in which case in
which form do you take this existence to take? Or you could just say with
Kripke that Hamlet=Hamlet in all possible universes. (Just like
Hephaestus=Vulcan in all possible universes).
>
> I'm not a scientist but I'd guess that equivalence isn't a fundamental
> feature of the universe but a necessary feature of science/mathematics.
> It seems that observation only matches *closely* the theory...
So now you are getting onto simulation. The simulation is always equivalent
to itself because it has no outside.
How do we take measurements in any case, except parsed through a theory? You
fear and seek to evade equivalence on the assertion that all your
experiences are unique. Theory is the possibility of re-instating the real,
transecending the simulation, understanding what's really going on.
>
> >Even
> >the Ancient Greek Tragedians in their works thought on the basis of a
cosmic
> >justice. Nowadays, one might express it thus: there's no such thing as a
> >free lunch. Or the zero-sum game.
>
> Well if you think that - then that's what you think - but i'm yet to
> repeat an/any experience...
.. I thought you were a proponent of eternal recurrence?
>
> >
> >Quantity: what about Warhol's soup cans? Or the size of your
bank-balance? A
> >zero makes all the difference. Or is the size of bank-balance of merely
> >scientific curiosity?
>
> Maybe you can see that Warhols multiples make no difference for the
> nature of the artwork - as if i can produce several thousand piss-poor
> paintings which when viewed on mass have the same artistic value as a
> single Van Gough?
So maybe the piss-poor painting is a repeatable experience, or the
coca-cola, or do you think Coca-Cola Corps bless you with a unique coke
experience every time?
And your assertion doesn't work in the case of money though, does it? Your
bank-balance is a pure function of arithmetic. Several thousands pennies
make a pile of money. Or is there some special beauty in a fortune and the
power it endows?
>
> >
> >> Science works - like
> >> mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
> >> arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that.
> >
> >Do you mean rules by which science advances or rules of peer review? In
the
> >fomer case Bachelard demonstrated that there has never been any
determinate
> >essence of scientific rationality, by which it can advance. Similarly,
> >Feyerabend (sp?) demonstrated that science advances through paradigm
shifts.
> >There are no rules for constructing a paradigm. The whole point is that
the
> >old paradigm is incapable of answering the very questions and anomalies
it
> >itself produces. The constructing of a paradigm must be a creative
exercise,
> >and, relative to the old structure of thought: ex nihilo.
>
> If this is so its kind of strange that Scientists use old things like Pi
> and the like
Pi does not express a paradigm in itself but may be necessitated within one.
The value of Pi is not in dispute, although you would wish to argue that Pi
may equal 4.
> - but your attempting to describe science- what about art?
> What questions are being answered? Show me an equivalence - better -
> show how an older work was in error!
Because it failed. Because further art was required. Art never builds on
art, but science builds on science.
>
> >
> >From the point of view of the sort of rules by which a lab experiment
might
> >be conducted, or subjected to peer review, even here the notion of a rule
> >lacks foundation. Wittgenstein proved there is essentially no such thing
as
> >rules. There is no method for following a rule. Kripke-Wittgenstein (in
> >Kripke's re-reading) demonstrated there is no ultimate justification for
a
> >rule.
>
> I don't think Wittgenstein did any such thing - but my point here is
> your yet to say anything about art.
He spent agood half the Philosophical Investigations assaulting the idea of
a rule. Anyway, i thought you're point was that Art = ? , in which there's
nothing much to say about it.
>
> >
> >Science is not the monolithic structure you take it to be.
>
> i don't take it to be - we are talking about art - which though appears
> like science is not - science was once thought "better" - it seems its
> just the same - maybe. Its the idea of Aphorisms being logical objects
> which i questioned. There is a flaw (one of a few) in the plot of Romeo
> & Juliet - but this *does not* invalidate it.
You mean because Romeo & Juliet = ? Thats handy.
>
> >
> >> Though the
> >> scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
> >> would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
> >> street?
> >
> >I don't think its constructive to label as distinct people scientists and
> >artists.
>
> Neither do i - but you keep reducing everything to equations...
No, you're reducing science to that studied by scientists, and art to that
persued by artists, when there is actually no meaningful relation whatsover.
Its like the author and the book in your Nietzsche quote; the book should
not merely embody the authors desire to produce books, as if that was what
he does.
>
> > They do not live in different worlds. Are you suggesting that
> >science and art operate according to different language games?
>
> I'm saying that art doesn't rely on any language game - it may play with
> them - the potters clay is not a language game.
In which case why do you understand the 'scientist' and the 'artist'
thinking in two distinct ways in relation to jumping out of a building?
And the potter's clay is very easily understandable as his language so i'm
not sure what point you're making.
> Lets imagine i mould a
> lump into some shape. You may want to ask "what is it" it might be a car
> - it might be something different - just a clay shape...
>
> > Yet your
> >comments on equivalence show this to be incorrect. Both are attempting to
> >understand the world as completely as possible.
>
> Not so - i dont think the artist "knows" what they are doing. Please how
> does the painting of Rothko bring any more understanding about the
> world? Art is a very primitive thing - and maybe like birdsong has some
> biological explanation - but that doesn't equate with the act of making
> it, or the actuality of the living bird singing.
You don't still believe in the invisible life-force do you? And why would
art be so primitive unless it embodies a mode of universal thought (for
Levi-Strauss the Pensee Sauvage) which sort to understand the unity of the
world. Modern physics in it search for the Theory of Everything is the
manifestation of the same urge. Why do we need modern physics? Because
primitive theories of everything (the art) failed.
Again, like in the free will, you seem to be saying ther is something
radically incomprehensible in the notion of a live bird *singing* no less.
Its very simple really, surely we just need the right paradigm?
>
> >
> >> Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
> >> be invited to understand - others may simply play games with
meanings...
> >> if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
> >> static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
> >> like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
> >> Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in
love
> >> with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
> >> + 1 = 1 ?
> >
> >I have never come across this possibility. What you are asking to do is
> >transcend the thought and place it in a higher spiral.
>
> No i'm not - i'm saying in art the object can be interpreted in many
> ways - and be valid.
Interpretation has to take place within a paradigm. There is no innate
relativistic reason why any interpretation should be equally possible - it
needs higher independent justification.
>
> > (I fully accept with
> >lower order truths this is entirely possible) However, here, being at the
> >pinnacle of thought already this is impossible. Do you not see that the
ones
> >cancel through?!!
>
> No i don't - i'm not a mathematician.
Your 1 dissappears if you subtract 1 from both sides.
>
> > (Just like 'Grass is green' cancels through)
>
> It doesn't. "Grass is green" within an art context can be quite
> interesting and valid. As in pot smokers are naive? Obvious?
'grass is green' is commonly accepted to be an analytic statement. Green
does not add anything to the grass. 'Pot-smokers are naive' would be a
falsifiable synthetic statement. (I falsify it). A true, non-falsifiable
universalisable synthetic statement would constitute an aphorism. There
could be interpretations of its truth, but not whether it was true. Hence
truth must be operative. Truth is the name of the game.
>
>
> >Thus you
> >degrade the proposition because you failed to understand it in the first
> >place.
>
> Yes i failed to understand it - and i'm quite aware that my statement =1
> was both stupid and wrong.
you said it not me. :p
>
>
> >You belittle the importance of understanding,
>
> No - understanding is more "important" than art. In the sense of
> building bridges and space rockets, making weapons etc.
>
> > as your comment
> >regarding the overman demonstrates.
>
> You need to explain this,
merely that you approvingly quoted that the overman is not interested in
understanding
> the overman i maintain is an artist, not a
> logician - Neitzsches problem is with the ability of the artist to do
> what he/she pleases - as in the case of Wagner. Though the artist may be
> flattered by Nietzsche - he is an irrelevance- has to be. The artist
> belittles everything - otherwise how could he/she create anything. We
> are taught such creativity is against the will of God. In your case the
> will of your God - Science/Understanding. To experience a work of art is
> to be crushed by it. Maybe too many people read Nietzsche thinking its
> about understanding - and are crushed by his writing, how he would
> laugh. Art is fiction - if you like a work of art you are under its
> spell.
>
> My version of the formulae you gave had nothing to do with sex but was
> an expletive to the extent of saying "fuck maths" - and maybe fuck art -
> yes fuck it!
Ooh you punk. 'Fuck maths' - do think that has potential for a New Social
Movement? Don't let maths crush you, but crush maths!
>
> >
> >> Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
> >> observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
> >> artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
> >> individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's
Balzac
> >> shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
> >> anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
> >> around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
> >> his erect penis.
> >
> >So i take it your insertion of a number 1 into an otherwise correct
equation
> >symbolises an erect penis which noone other than you could divine? Maybe
0
> >for a vagina then?
>
> Oh dear! not at all - i was breaking it. Duchamp takes the Mona Lisa -
> sticks a moustache on it and writes L.H.O.Q.Q. - (this is (from memory)
> and in french a mnemonic for "she has a hot arse") Please what does
> this mean? Lets put it more simple - Matisse gets his colours wrong.
> Picasso puts the eyes in the wrong place... etc. Though there are some
> reasons for this they are not equivalent. Yet your maths formulae in
> some other logical notation would have an equivalence.
Is equivalence a sin? Are you not self-identical too?
>
> >
> >> Even in abstract art is the presence of the
> >> individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
> >> science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the
universe
> >> allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
> >> individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
> >> with the subjects own individual will.
> >
> >So you still hold to the problem of free will?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by free will - you are a determinist? Sure my
> will is constrained if i chose follow certain philosophies.
No i mean the problematic of free-will. I also mean fuck it. Fuck the
problem of free-will. Is it a problem for science? I think you are
suggesting we must carefully cater for 'free-will' in our non-scientific
vignette. Bearing in mind now it is constrained if you choose to follow
certain philosophies.
>
> > You seem to be suggesting
> >there's something fundamentally unexplainable here,
>
> No - you - or god - or Einstein - may be able to completely explain the
> world , explain Matisse and why he painted his wife with a white face
> and black lips
well i dare say its a paradox! Lets leave aside social contradications and
metaphysical paradoxes and worry about why Matisse painted his wife with a
white face and black lips. It just doesn't make sense!
> - and why it produces certain reactions when i see the
> picture to the extent that nothing is left out, but that isnt my
> experience - so you/he/god misses that out.
How do you explain that the world cannot be explained, without merely
stating? Doesn't your lack of understanding too need to be explained?
Presumably it has consequences.
>
> >yet your arty language
> >game fails to justify this in any independent terms whatsoever.
>
> I don't understand this - my language isn't arty - i'm trying to be
> rational - which is your game - and point out that somethings are not
> explainable in the way you think.
"individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
with the subjects own individual will"
would you like to translate?
>
> > I would also
> >add that the concept of sciences should not be restricted to the physical
> >sciences because the human sciences are just as much science. Sociology
is a
> >science; by extension poverty is one object of this science. No doubt
> >poverty 'fills the individual's moment of existence' in your special
> >terminology.
>
> Science wants to explain everything? Explains me - explains art,
> arbitrates on what is and is not poetry... Yet is these days suffering
> from poverty also.
Only because you have not made the effort to understand it. Whose poverty?
>
> The grass is green
>
> A rose is a rose is a rose
E=MC^2
Atto
Lewis Mammel
atto wrote:
> Again, like in the free will, you seem to be saying ther is something
> radically incomprehensible in the notion of a live bird *singing* no less.
> Its very simple really, surely we just need the right paradigm?
To me, the beauty of birdsong is the very epitome of radical
incomprehensibilty. Please note that the beauty is encompassed
in the term "song". NOVA had a show once called "Why Birds Sing"
but they never addressed the question. They only discussed why they
made sounds.
> > >> Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
> > >> be invited to understand - others may simply play games with
> meanings...
> > >> if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
> > >> static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
> > >> like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
> > >> Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in
> love
> > >> with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
> > >> + 1 = 1 ?
> > >
> > >I have never come across this possibility. What you are asking to do is
> > >transcend the thought and place it in a higher spiral.
You know what does this? Nonsense. Consider "Oh Susanna!" - "It rained
all day the night I left, the weather it was dry" It's amazing to me
the way that fascinates. To me, "Then She Bit Me" by DJ Jazzy Jeff and
Fresh Prince is a worthy modern successor -
There she is,
Watching T.V.
All My Children.
No, thats Cosby.
No, Speed Racer.
No, thats Shaft.
No, thats Kimble.
My fault...the T.V.'s off.
He's on my genius list for that ... BTW, It really is true that
e^i*pi + 1 ~= 2.69740975483 + i * 2.64355906408
if you evaluate the expression according to normal conventions, as written.
>
> E=MC^2
Are you familiar at all with the elementary equations of special relativity
theory? They form a perfect candidate for the application of semiotics
to scientific discourse. Peirce asserts that mathematical equations
are ICONS in the specific sense that they embody the structure that
they represent. If you go through various elementary derivations and
calculations with the Lorentz transformations, you get a sort of
symbological symphony which is something quite apart from the physical
significance of the results.
I don't know what there really is to say about it, except to point
out that it exists. To me it is baffling, though, like birdsong.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
atto wrote:
> Do you mean rules by which science advances or rules of peer review? In the
> fomer case Bachelard demonstrated that there has never been any determinate
> essence of scientific rationality, by which it can advance. Similarly,
> Feyerabend (sp?) demonstrated that science advances through paradigm shifts.
Kuhn is the paradigm guy. Feyerabend is the "anything goes" guy - more
radical than Kuhn. Let me recommend once again, John Horgan's THE END OF
SCIENCE, which contains interviews with Kuhn and Feyerabend, inter alios.
( Many of them, including Kuhn and Feyerabend, since deceased. )
> There are no rules for constructing a paradigm. The whole point is that the
> old paradigm is incapable of answering the very questions and anomalies it
> itself produces. The constructing of a paradigm must be a creative exercise,
> and, relative to the old structure of thought: ex nihilo.
The whole paradigm thing is more or less a crock. Not that paradigms don't
exist, but the doctrine that their overthrow constitutes the structure of
scientific revolutions is distinctly procrustean. How it became received
wisdom is a question in itself - it's catchy, I guess. My own observation
in contradiction thereof: Galileo's TWO NEW SCIENCES is a careful development
of the Aristotelian paradigm of motion, which has never been overthrown.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>James Whitehead wrote
>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >>
>> >> I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
>> >> thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
>> >> same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
>> >> perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
>> >> some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art -
>and
>> >> it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity.
>> >
>> >Oh really? Is not equivalence a fundamental feature of the universe?
>>
>> "the universe" of science well maybe - but artists universes - maybe -
>> but here its up to the artist. I'm still waiting for the completion of
>> the equation Hamlet = ?
>> where every performer and every member of the audience is allowed a
>> valid and unique experience.
>
>it depends whether you're asking what is the essence of Hamlet (in
>pre-Heiddegerian metaphysics) or what is the existence of Hamlet (Heidegger
>and after). Are you pre-supposing the existence of Hamlet, in which case in
>which form do you take this existence to take? Or you could just say with
>Kripke that Hamlet=Hamlet in all possible universes. (Just like
>Hephaestus=Vulcan in all possible universes).
I'm talking about the play - which is performed to an audience. How many
"hamlets" are there even in this single performance. How is an
equivalence possible if even within (one person / the play) as it
affects and changes them throughout the play. Science and maybe
philosophy seems to wish to reduce things down - to simple yet
equivalent statements, until the holy grail of the theory of everything
can be printed on a tee shirt. Assuming the universe could be
"digitised" then its reducible to 0 or 1, via recursive application of
the mp3 algorithm. Substitution of a mothers dead child for an
equivalent one would not be seen in the same way as you handle numbers.
I suggest you need to adopt different criteria to those of science if
you wish to appreciate different cultures.
>
>>
>> I'm not a scientist but I'd guess that equivalence isn't a fundamental
>> feature of the universe but a necessary feature of science/mathematics.
>> It seems that observation only matches *closely* the theory...
>
>So now you are getting onto simulation. The simulation is always equivalent
>to itself because it has no outside.
I'm not sure what you mean here, a simulation attempts or is intended to
be like something else.
>How do we take measurements in any case, except parsed through a theory?
Well your going to retrospectively impose theories on things like my cat
- i watch her look at the table top, tense her muscles and jump. Again
are you a going to be a cultural colonialist in forcing theories of
measurement on my cat. When i see a painting which i find interesting it
can be - and at times was - despite my theories of what is appropriate
in art.
> You
>fear and seek to evade equivalence on the assertion that all your
>experiences are unique. Theory is the possibility of re-instating the real,
>transecending the simulation, understanding what's really going on.
I'm not frightened - an emulation of myself is infinity imposed on this
moment now - yet i feel no weight. If someone's simulating me somewhere
else i've no problem with this - i'm not aware of it. "Whats really
going on" is this thread.
>
>>
>> >Even
>> >the Ancient Greek Tragedians in their works thought on the basis of a
>cosmic
>> >justice. Nowadays, one might express it thus: there's no such thing as a
>> >free lunch. Or the zero-sum game.
>>
>> Well if you think that - then that's what you think - but i'm yet to
>> repeat an/any experience...
>
>.. I thought you were a proponent of eternal recurrence?
Your confusing me with Nietzsche. I suppose i think that there is not
some purpose or goal to existence - or that its not important. ER being
true or not doesn't affect this position, its only those who think there
is some other deeper reality that would - if they could show me - change
my position. I would welcome such information - but its never
forthcoming - (are you listening moggin?) There are always excuses as to
why i'm not able to see this.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Quantity: what about Warhol's soup cans? Or the size of your
>bank-balance? A
>> >zero makes all the difference. Or is the size of bank-balance of merely
>> >scientific curiosity?
>>
>> Maybe you can see that Warhols multiples make no difference for the
>> nature of the artwork - as if i can produce several thousand piss-poor
>> paintings which when viewed on mass have the same artistic value as a
>> single Van Gough?
>
>So maybe the piss-poor painting is a repeatable experience, or the
>coca-cola, or do you think Coca-Cola Corps bless you with a unique coke
>experience every time?
piss-poor is a category inhabited by many unique objects. As to drinking
a coke - each experience of drinking is not the same - if you use an
alcoholic drink this is soon obvious.
>
>And your assertion doesn't work in the case of money though, does it? Your
>bank-balance is a pure function of arithmetic. Several thousands pennies
>make a pile of money. Or is there some special beauty in a fortune and the
>power it endows?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, in terms of actual money - the coins
are only promises - as are the digits in the bank. If it was just pure
arithmetic then i could write a cheque to pay myself a million pounds.
Each of those pennies represents unique moments - a period of my time-
or in the case of interest someone else's. Any hourly paid worker will
tell you this, each hour makes a difference, are not the same, otherwise
you wouldn't get so tired at the end of the day.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Science works - like
>> >> mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
>> >> arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that.
>> >
>> >Do you mean rules by which science advances or rules of peer review? In
>the
>> >fomer case Bachelard demonstrated that there has never been any
>determinate
>> >essence of scientific rationality, by which it can advance. Similarly,
>> >Feyerabend (sp?) demonstrated that science advances through paradigm
>shifts.
>> >There are no rules for constructing a paradigm. The whole point is that
>the
>> >old paradigm is incapable of answering the very questions and anomalies
>it
>> >itself produces. The constructing of a paradigm must be a creative
>exercise,
>> >and, relative to the old structure of thought: ex nihilo.
>>
>> If this is so its kind of strange that Scientists use old things like Pi
>> and the like
>
>Pi does not express a paradigm in itself but may be necessitated within one.
>The value of Pi is not in dispute, although you would wish to argue that Pi
>may equal 4.
This is another thread! but i think it does express a paradigm. If you
play the game of maths its properties are clear. If i say its 4 - i'm
not playing the game. Its my point - your appear to be using the wrong
criteria regarding art. Your welcome to do this - but there are others.
>
>> - but your attempting to describe science- what about art?
>> What questions are being answered? Show me an equivalence - better -
>> show how an older work was in error!
>
>Because it failed. Because further art was required. Art never builds on
>art, but science builds on science.
You have a theory - one which is similar to one i once held. However Van
Goughs are not generally regarded as failures. The second point about
art not building on art though is wrong.
It seems that art - though at one time demonstrated a progressive
tendency - it now appears that there are specific "golden" ages.
Impressionism for instance in painting - or the "classical" period in
music. Again there isn't scope to fully develop this - but painting for
instance has reached a steady state. Now whats interesting is i think
the same thing is also happening in science. We see new theories which
only last a while - and the golden age of Relativity and QM - which will
continue to be taught. And Newtonian mechanics to most engineering
students.
I'll go on a bit about this i think as its important to my current
thinking on art etc.
Now all the major mountains have been climbed all that's left is to re-
climb them - or climb smaller - maybe very difficult hills.
So in art - what's left is to either re-do old works - painting
"impressionist" pictures or "abstract pictures" or explore some very
obscure and fine areas of the art form which are of little real interest
to anyone.
Same in physics - the big stuff has been done, though Hawking is equated
with Newton and Einstein its not true is it? - his achievements are
quite esoteric and trivial in comparison.
Post modernity then can only be trivial or copy modernity (which is
ironic as modernity is predicated on newness) - and then promote these
works as if they are "great" in comparison to the past. Oasis (or any
other new band) = greatest since the Beatles... Tracy Emin and Hawking
both exploit personality cults.
The only one thing left for modernity i think was a full scale nuclear
exchange - but this didn't happen.
>
>>
>> >
>> >From the point of view of the sort of rules by which a lab experiment
>might
>> >be conducted, or subjected to peer review, even here the notion of a rule
>> >lacks foundation. Wittgenstein proved there is essentially no such thing
>as
>> >rules. There is no method for following a rule. Kripke-Wittgenstein (in
>> >Kripke's re-reading) demonstrated there is no ultimate justification for
>a
>> >rule.
>>
>> I don't think Wittgenstein did any such thing - but my point here is
>> your yet to say anything about art.
>
>He spent agood half the Philosophical Investigations assaulting the idea of
>a rule. Anyway, i thought you're point was that Art = ? , in which there's
>nothing much to say about it.
Investigations might assault the idea of "a rule" - but surely he allows
rules. But my point is that if you apply the rules of mathematics to art
you will get different results. That is possible to say lots about art -
but its not necessary to be under a mathematical or scientific
constraint. (and these maybe problematic) Though if you want to value a
monet by calculating the cost per square inch your welcome. Isn't it
just that there are lots of rules these days, and we are free to choose.
Doesn't Derrida make the point that the lack of equivalence generates an
infinite discourse? If you manage to create a system where a=a - and
its closed (maths isn't is it?) then you can limit what can be said. But
we can choose other.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Science is not the monolithic structure you take it to be.
>>
>> i don't take it to be - we are talking about art - which though appears
>> like science is not - science was once thought "better" - it seems its
>> just the same - maybe. Its the idea of Aphorisms being logical objects
>> which i questioned. There is a flaw (one of a few) in the plot of Romeo
>> & Juliet - but this *does not* invalidate it.
>
>You mean because Romeo & Juliet = ? Thats handy.
No - for one - there is no such poison - or was then that would work in
the way it does in the play, but the drama requires this fiction in
order to create the dramatic ending. If in some physical theory we
discover a flaw - we would want to correct it and so improve the theory?
but such a correction to the plot of Romeo and Juliet is not required,
and if made wouldn't add to the drama - it would maybe change it
altogether.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Though the
>> >> scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
>> >> would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
>> >> street?
>> >
>> >I don't think its constructive to label as distinct people scientists and
>> >artists.
>>
>> Neither do i - but you keep reducing everything to equations...
>
>No, you're reducing science to that studied by scientists,
that's what science is. Its not "everything".
> and art to that
>persued by artists,
and its audience.
> when there is actually no meaningful relation whatsover.
Science is the product of science - its audience is other scientists
(and these days popularist accounts for public consumption - without
rigour - so its becoming art) Some of it is used by technologists...
Artists always had another audience other than themselves - perhaps.
>Its like the author and the book in your Nietzsche quote; the book should
>not merely embody the authors desire to produce books, as if that was what
>he does.
I think he's alluding to the artistic power of ideas, and not the
analysis of what is already there.
>
>>
>> > They do not live in different worlds. Are you suggesting that
>> >science and art operate according to different language games?
>>
>> I'm saying that art doesn't rely on any language game - it may play with
>> them - the potters clay is not a language game.
>
>In which case why do you understand the 'scientist' and the 'artist'
>thinking in two distinct ways in relation to jumping out of a building?
Because i don't know of a scientist who jumped out of a building. I'm
trying to show the difference between theory and practice.
Artist/Scientist seem similar but their aim is different. Maybe the
artist wants to create a new mystery, the scientist solve one.
>
>And the potter's clay is very easily understandable as his language so i'm
>not sure what point you're making.
Clay here is not a language. What does a pot signify.
>
>> Lets imagine i mould a
>> lump into some shape. You may want to ask "what is it" it might be a car
>> - it might be something different - just a clay shape...
>>
>> > Yet your
>> >comments on equivalence show this to be incorrect. Both are attempting to
>> >understand the world as completely as possible.
>>
>> Not so - i dont think the artist "knows" what they are doing. Please how
>> does the painting of Rothko bring any more understanding about the
>> world? Art is a very primitive thing - and maybe like birdsong has some
>> biological explanation - but that doesn't equate with the act of making
>> it, or the actuality of the living bird singing.
>
>You don't still believe in the invisible life-force do you?
Not at all.
>And why would
>art be so primitive unless it embodies a mode of universal thought (for
>Levi-Strauss the Pensee Sauvage) which sort to understand the unity of the
>world.
When your painting your not thinking.... its closer to play..
>Modern physics in it search for the Theory of Everything is the
>manifestation of the same urge.
No i think its the very opposite.
>Why do we need modern physics? Because
>primitive theories of everything (the art) failed.
>
>Again, like in the free will, you seem to be saying ther is something
>radically incomprehensible in the notion of a live bird *singing* no less.
>Its very simple really, surely we just need the right paradigm?
There is a paradigm that is *to be* that particular blackbird singing
that particular song at this moment. And that one cannot be equated with
another... like my experience of listening to its song.
Science is only the convenience of an imaginary equality.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
>> >> be invited to understand - others may simply play games with
>meanings...
>> >> if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
>> >> static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
>> >> like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
>> >> Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in
>love
>> >> with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
>> >> + 1 = 1 ?
>> >
>> >I have never come across this possibility. What you are asking to do is
>> >transcend the thought and place it in a higher spiral.
>>
>> No i'm not - i'm saying in art the object can be interpreted in many
>> ways - and be valid.
>
>Interpretation has to take place within a paradigm. There is no innate
>relativistic reason why any interpretation should be equally possible - it
>needs higher independent justification.
If you say "Interpretation has to take place within a paradigm" then
you've fixed your world view. But this Axiom is arbitrary.
>
>>
>> > (I fully accept with
>> >lower order truths this is entirely possible) However, here, being at the
>> >pinnacle of thought already this is impossible. Do you not see that the
>ones
>> >cancel through?!!
>>
>> No i don't - i'm not a mathematician.
>
>Your 1 dissappears if you subtract 1 from both sides.
Yes in that game they do.
>
>>
>> > (Just like 'Grass is green' cancels through)
>>
>> It doesn't. "Grass is green" within an art context can be quite
>> interesting and valid. As in pot smokers are naive? Obvious?
>
>'grass is green' is commonly accepted to be an analytic statement. Green
>does not add anything to the grass.
Sorry - it does. Our lawn is quite brown at the moment. Just like The
sky is blue - snow is white - the colour adds something to the image in
my mind. It might not in yours - but i bet i'm not alone in this.
Remember not to eat the yellow snow.
> 'Pot-smokers are naive' would be a
>falsifiable synthetic statement. (I falsify it).
If your' admitting to pot smoking you could for my part prove it! Isn't
it naive to think that *simply* science can explain everything?
> A true, non-falsifiable
>universalisable synthetic statement would constitute an aphorism. There
>could be interpretations of its truth, but not whether it was true. Hence
>truth must be operative. Truth is the name of the game.
Its becoming clear that it (a belief in it) is the name of your game.
But the object you describe can only exist in the most trivial of worlds
- or else becomes god. It was truth that did for art, it is belief in
truth which has created a world so lacking in poetry and beauty.
(Flowers fool bees) How ugly is the truth, romance becomes insemination.
But such truth is even toxic to itself as it needs error, the thing it
seeks to remove.
>
>>
>>
>> >Thus you
>> >degrade the proposition because you failed to understand it in the first
>> >place.
>>
>> Yes i failed to understand it - and i'm quite aware that my statement =1
>> was both stupid and wrong.
>
>you said it not me. :p
i'm not allowed that move in the game it seems.
>
>>
>>
>> >You belittle the importance of understanding,
>>
>> No - understanding is more "important" than art. In the sense of
>> building bridges and space rockets, making weapons etc.
>>
>> > as your comment
>> >regarding the overman demonstrates.
>>
>> You need to explain this,
>
>merely that you approvingly quoted that the overman is not interested in
>understanding
otherwise be crushed by it.
>
>> the overman i maintain is an artist, not a
>> logician - Neitzsches problem is with the ability of the artist to do
>> what he/she pleases - as in the case of Wagner. Though the artist may be
>> flattered by Nietzsche - he is an irrelevance- has to be. The artist
>> belittles everything - otherwise how could he/she create anything. We
>> are taught such creativity is against the will of God. In your case the
>> will of your God - Science/Understanding. To experience a work of art is
>> to be crushed by it. Maybe too many people read Nietzsche thinking its
>> about understanding - and are crushed by his writing, how he would
>> laugh. Art is fiction - if you like a work of art you are under its
>> spell.
>>
>> My version of the formulae you gave had nothing to do with sex but was
>> an expletive to the extent of saying "fuck maths" - and maybe fuck art -
>> yes fuck it!
>
>Ooh you punk. 'Fuck maths' - do think that has potential for a New Social
>Movement? Don't let maths crush you, but crush maths!
no - too many sheep learning maths these days. See how you rise in
defence of maths and not art, maybe to sheep grass is lunch. (sorry just
playing)
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
>> >> observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
>> >> artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
>> >> individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's
>Balzac
>> >> shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
>> >> anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
>> >> around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
>> >> his erect penis.
>> >
>> >So i take it your insertion of a number 1 into an otherwise correct
>equation
>> >symbolises an erect penis which noone other than you could divine? Maybe
>0
>> >for a vagina then?
>>
>> Oh dear! not at all - i was breaking it. Duchamp takes the Mona Lisa -
>> sticks a moustache on it and writes L.H.O.Q.Q. - (this is (from memory)
>> and in french a mnemonic for "she has a hot arse") Please what does
>> this mean? Lets put it more simple - Matisse gets his colours wrong.
>> Picasso puts the eyes in the wrong place... etc. Though there are some
>> reasons for this they are not equivalent. Yet your maths formulae in
>> some other logical notation would have an equivalence.
>
>Is equivalence a sin? Are you not self-identical too?
I said equivalence is the convenience of science - its factually
trivial. Does equivalence give or remove identity. You see i think it
removes identity. Its not that i want identity - its just that's what
appears.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Even in abstract art is the presence of the
>> >> individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
>> >> science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the
>universe
>> >> allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
>> >> individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
>> >> with the subjects own individual will.
>> >
>> >So you still hold to the problem of free will?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by free will - you are a determinist? Sure my
>> will is constrained if i chose follow certain philosophies.
>
>No i mean the problematic of free-will. I also mean fuck it. Fuck the
>problem of free-will. Is it a problem for science? I think you are
>suggesting we must carefully cater for 'free-will' in our non-scientific
>vignette. Bearing in mind now it is constrained if you choose to follow
>certain philosophies.
i'm saying the problem of free will is part of philosophy. How does
solving this problem alter the blackbirds song.
>
>>
>> > You seem to be suggesting
>> >there's something fundamentally unexplainable here,
>>
>> No - you - or god - or Einstein - may be able to completely explain the
>> world , explain Matisse and why he painted his wife with a white face
>> and black lips
>
>well i dare say its a paradox! Lets leave aside social contradications and
>metaphysical paradoxes and worry about why Matisse painted his wife with a
>white face and black lips. It just doesn't make sense!
It makes a very nice painting. Like poetry, tigers don't burn in the
night.
>
>> - and why it produces certain reactions when i see the
>> picture to the extent that nothing is left out, but that isnt my
>> experience - so you/he/god misses that out.
>
>How do you explain that the world cannot be explained, without merely
>stating? Doesn't your lack of understanding too need to be explained?
>Presumably it has consequences.
I'm not certain i'm following here - you can have as many explanations
as you want. I don't understand maths - i maybe could learn to - this
would change me. However can i understand everything - in detail - i
think not, i cant even imagine God being able to do this. A certain
concept of god is limited by the small presence of myself in the world.
Again i come down to my unique experience, even a god having this has a
different experience, of "God having James' experience" is not = to
"James having James' experience".
Learning maths, acquiring understanding, drinking beer or learning judo
- all have consequences.
>
>>
>> >yet your arty language
>> >game fails to justify this in any independent terms whatsoever.
>>
>> I don't understand this - my language isn't arty - i'm trying to be
>> rational - which is your game - and point out that somethings are not
>> explainable in the way you think.
>
>"individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
>with the subjects own individual will"
>
>would you like to translate?
who said this - was it me? Doesn't sound like me - but seems familiar to
how i regard consciousness. There is a fair bit in it to translate. It
also seems part of a larger sentence. I think its badly written as it
doesn't reveal the "particular" of existence. Let me try,
just do nothing for a few seconds,
OK, now how could that be changed.
I'd say it cant be? Am i wrong.
>
>>
>> > I would also
>> >add that the concept of sciences should not be restricted to the physical
>> >sciences because the human sciences are just as much science. Sociology
>is a
>> >science; by extension poverty is one object of this science. No doubt
>> >poverty 'fills the individual's moment of existence' in your special
>> >terminology.
>>
>> Science wants to explain everything? Explains me - explains art,
>> arbitrates on what is and is not poetry... Yet is these days suffering
>> from poverty also.
>
>Only because you have not made the effort to understand it. Whose poverty?
The poverty of understanding. That think you can capture something
creates a poverty.
>
>>
>> The grass is green
>>
>> A rose is a rose is a rose
>
To see a rose as a rose and not understand it.
>E=MC^2
>
E or
said the donkey.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
[..]
>> >
>> >An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
>> >denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
>> >an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its power.
>> >To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
>> >individual.
>>
>> These are not then translatable into computer algorithms.
>
>Yes, they are, but not automatically unless we have really clever
>programs
>for same.
Well its how clever - to the extent that they can become confused?
>
>> Though you
>> wanted clarity - its their ability to hold together opposite ideas which
>> allows them more closely to picture reality.
>
>In a recipe, there is no scope for opposite ideas, unless we stretch
>things
>and say that we need both fire and water to make hot soup.
And is why poetry is different from logic. When Blake uses the imaginary
of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
of a just a logical tiger.
So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
Eyre IS sexually repressed!
>
>I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
>opposite
>ideas.
And we can also in aphorisms.
>
>Main difference between an aphorism and an epic is that an aphorism is
>short while an epic is long.
>
>> To become a reality.
>
>I think we may have different ideas about reality.
>
:-)
we have different realities so its to be expected?
>> To
>> bring the reader actively into the though process.
>
>So as to dive into his pocket? :) :)
>
>> >A computer algorithm usually follows a sequential path; however in say
>> >a spreadsheet environment (Excel, say) this situation need not arise. The
>> >system could be modelled as a set of formulas, logic, i/o etc.
>>
>> Small point but most computer systems these days are fairly parallel...
>
>No, they all work sequentially on individual basis but work parallel
>as a group,
i thought most pentiums perform more than one instruction at a time
these days...
>using certain protocols for intercommunication.
>The Windows environment is basically a big if statement.
>Multithreading
>is only apparent parallel working. A system works on such a parallel
>basis
>but the individual algorithms representing the system usually work
>sequentially,
>unless by their very nature they have to be scattered across various
>systems.
>
>> >Regarding
>> >> statements. And you slip in now ideas of improvement - as if the
>> >> original has some target it fails to reach?
>> >
>> >Certainly the original had some target, which it reached in its time. In
>> >our time we have to find out what it was all about. A deep knowledge is
>> >therefore necessary, and proper translation could well be beyond the powers
>> >of just one person.
>>
>> To the original reader - our difference is un-bridgeable, in post-
>> modernity there is no history.
>
>How convenient for bad consciences!
>
>Belief in a target, belief in deep
>> knowledge are all metaphysical concepts which belong to modernity.
>
>I did not talk about beliefs, I talked about representing ancient
>knowledge
>in modern terms.
you said it had a target - you believed this?
>> (?)
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> My confusion lies in your
>> >> metaphysics...
>> >
>> >What metaphysics? I am an engineer, nothing else. That is, I want to
>> >make things, not indulge in shilly-shallying.
>>
>> This is a metaphysics - a fairly determinist one - but doesn't equate
>> with ideas of deep knowledge. Without shilly-shallying please show how
>> deep knowledge differs from shallow.
>
>A deep knowledge is the basis of shallow knowledges, as expressed by
>the superficial adherence of shallow knowledge to deep knowledge, or
>equally superfical rejection. One example is the much vaunted Aryan
>theory of the Nazis - a very shallow self-aggrandizing theory. Deep
>knowledge would have meant an understanding of Chanakya Sutra to
>understand the thinking of Aryans; shallow thinking followed racist
>theories perfected by USAn and French academics. Deep thinking is
>sincere,
>and leads to good results; shallow thinking leads to Nazism, whose
>consequences we know.
All i see is deep and shallow being used as value judgements. To a Nazi
therefore the Aryan theory would be deep.
>
>- snip -
>
>You said that you could not even translate your thoughts properly, and
>that was not from any desire to fool, but from confusion. If you have
>at last managed to translate your thoughts properly, then you are not
>being confused.
You miss my point here but its not important.
[..]
>
>Hardly. I am again emphasising the need for clarity, with a view to
>discriminate. I try to have an open mind, and judge things as I find
>them
>to be, after as thorough an analysis as possible. Bigoted
>people just follow dogma, so much easier. It so happens that these
>days bigotry is a bit unfashionable, so the bigots are pretending to
>be
>confused. So while I do discriminate, I have no need to seek reasons
>for
>same - that would have happened if I were a bigot.
But you seem to have some dogmatic belief in a divine being?
But that's just what you seem to be saying to me - that i'm wrong over
some issue - regarding aphorisms etc. I confess to being likewise guilty
- i think your missing something of Blake's imaginary.
>
>> [..]
>> >> >> I know for everyday use we accept such things as what you say is what
>> >> >> you mean - though its clear that's not what goes on deliberately.
>> >> >> However the artist in particular is not primarily a communicator.
>> >> >
>> >> >I wouldn't call such a chap an artist. I would call him an impostor
>propped
>> >> >up by media bent upon confusing people like you about the basic nature of
>> >> >art.
>> >>
>> >> Oh now your confused?
>> >
>> >Of course not. (btw your grammar is slipping.)
>>
>> Lets not be pedantic - 'By the way' is what you wanted to say in proper
>> english.
>
>It was a matter of balance.
>
>> The dons at cambridge see such pedantry as a bar on creative
>> english as a living and dynamic language.
>
>They would do far better if they suggested more vowels and consonants
>for the
>English language, following Shaw. Do they really want to turn English
>into
>one large grunting monster? Well, I suppose they are a bunch of
>mediocritising leftists who want the thirdworlders to be less overawed
>by the
>could-be beautiful speech of firstworlders.
Well they accept that english no longer belongs to the english. American
slang uses the addition of not at the end of a sentence to negate it -
its part of its life.
>
>- snip -
>
>> > In fact i
>> >> think though your observation about environmentalism is valid i don't
>> >> think it was uppermost in the poets mind. Elsewhere in another poem an
>> >> artillery instructor points out the nature and uses of trees, while the
>> >> poet imagines lovers lying under them...
>> >
>> >See, it is not fuzzy at all.
>>
>> Being in love can be very fuzzy....
>
>But the poem may not be that. Imparting a fuzzy feeling to a reader,
>and
>being fuzzy, are two entirely different things.
But maybe related - ambiguity can be used to provoke thought, rather
than a conclusion.
>
>> >> >> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
>> >> >> >aphorism.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
>> >> >
>> >> >No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
>> >> >the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
>> >> >some bad poetry.
>> >>
>> >> nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
>> >> you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
>> >> is a pity.
>> >
>> >I read it with an open mind, and analysed it accordingly. If you don't
>> >like my analysis, please explain why, instead of evading by saying that
>> >the author was a "great mystical thinker".
>>
>> Your analysis (what it was) was cut worms cant forgive - well neither
>> is a sauce a long word - so i needn't like or dislike it - its just that
>> it strikes me as being inconsistent. Unless your not saying that worms
>> are incapable of forgiveness
>
>That is exactly what I said. Worms are incapable of forgiveness, so
>they
>cannot forgive. To write that they can forgive, is thus nonsense, of
>a
>low kind (not the Lewis Carroll kind, or the Sukumar Ray kind, more of
>the Einsteinian black-hole perpetual motion machine kind).
This is getting very pedantic but your supposed to use some imagination
- if the worm could forgive then it would...
>
> - the cut worm forgives - but why - because
>> the plough is part of the process of life which necessitates some harm -
>
>The cut worm does not forgive, it only gets cut and is harmed. The
>harm
>comes to the cut worm, not to the plough or ploughman.
>
>To accept this line as good poetry is to justify the exploitation of
>the
>weak by the strong. That happens, of course, but the purpose of the
>good
>poet (as opposed to the propagandist) has been to take the side of the
>weak.
This is an interesting interpretation of the passage. Further it
demonstrates how its being translated into an algorithm would be
difficult.
>
>That is why I called it bad poetry. It is, in fact, very bad poetry.
>
Well your criticising your interpretation of it. Maybe we should ban
ploughs?
>> or because cut worms are able to grow again - so the seeming harm isn't
>> harm at all -
>
>Oh, so the thirdworlders were not harmed at all when they were
>exploited
>by Europeans, just because they have large populations now?
Its interesting how you relate the proverb to the third world /first
world issue, which i very much doubt was in the authors mind - the terms
didn't exist. Though the author was opposed to mechanical thinking. The
proverb is one of the proverbs of hell - how now do you think it?
>
>> so like a good parable the decision is left with us - and
>> not determined by the author - or the algorithm.
>
>There are always two points of view - one from the killer's and the
>other
>from the victim's. You implicitly support the former, I the latter,
>in this
>case, where the bad poetry/aphorism may be seen as a killer's
>aphorism. There is no confusion
>once we agree on this. When we don't, this is fuzzy nonsense.
The worm isn't killed - it might even be the case in Blake's day that
they thought both halves regenerated. Or is Blake saying the worm should
forgive - or that the plough / ploughman is in the right. If the plough
is a symbol of industrialisation and the worm of nature then i'd say he
would be on the side of the worm. So maybe he's saying that though the
first world exploits the third the third has a greater truth and worth
that cannot be destroyed but as a consequence of exploitation is
radicalised.
>
>Too quickly do you
>> arrive on a very limited and seemingly contradictory analysis that its
>> *just* bad poetry.
>
>What contradiction? It is not *just* bad poetry, it is the worst
>poetry possible. If the writer was Blake, then, well, the chap was
>often mad
>and so need not be taken seriously, for everything he wrote.
I've no evidence of his madness, only his genius. But you condemn it not
from what it is but by your interpretation of it.
>
>> >> >> > I understand what you write, to write nonsense under huge words
>> >> >> >and long mathematical formulae pass as high scholarship.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry i don't follow the above - i don't write long mathematical
>> >> >> formulae.
>> >> >
>> >> >I wasn't talking about your mathematical ability - I was talking about
>> >> >the impressiveness of long maths and big words covering up ridiculous
>ideas,
>> >> >being used as good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish.
>> >>
>> >> Here you use an analogy - but how is it that worms cant forgive but
>> >> sauces can cover ridiculous ideas - what's sauce for the goose is sauce
>> >> for the gander?
>> >
>> >I do not use an analogy, I use a metaphor, to emphasize and clarify
>> >my meaning relating to gaudily or grandly dressed bogus ideas.
>>
>> Sorry my english again! Surly Your sauce covering the bad fish is
>> *analogous* to big words covering ridiculous ideas?
>
>When I compared an algorithm to a recipe, that was analogy, for I was
>explaining a comparatively little-understood term with something
>similar in scope but better
>understood.
No - you were saying what you thought an Aphorism was - then claiming
that anything which didn't conform to your definition wasn't an
aphorism. The same with what was good poetry. This is a fallacy -
similar to saying all swans are white, and when the Australian variety
is presented that its not a swan. In the same way that white
imperialists could enslave blacks - for they were not humans as humans
are white. And other such nonsense... If only *white* culture is to be
considered civilised then such a culture can legitimately dominate
others who are not civilised - by virtue of their race.
> "As good sauce to cover the stench of bad fish" is not
>an analogy, it is a simile, which is a figure of speech. Figures of
>speech
>are used to make the language more interesting and vivid.
surely you would think the simple truth cannot be made more vivid?
>
>> I think to be
>> metaphorical would be to say - "big words covering up *fishy* ideas..."
>
>*Fishy* ideas get funded, unlike ideas publicly represented as bad
>fish.
?
>
>> >> >> >> Would you say a
>> >> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
>> >> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> >> >> >> matter...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-
>smile?"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Can you translate this?
>> >> >
>> >> >You try!
>> >>
>> >> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
>> >
>> >Lukewarm.
>> >
>> OK your turn!
>
>Pass.
oh come on - play up - play up!
>
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02021...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>
> [..]
>
> >> >
> >> >An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
> >> >denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
> >> >an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its power.
> >> >To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
> >> >individual.
> >>
> >> These are not then translatable into computer algorithms.
> >
> >Yes, they are, but not automatically unless we have really clever
> >programs
> >for same.
>
> Well its how clever - to the extent that they can become confused?
A well compiled computer program either delivers rightly or wrongly, or gets stuck
waiting for inputs. It does not get confused.
> >> Though you
> >> wanted clarity - its their ability to hold together opposite ideas which
> >> allows them more closely to picture reality.
> >
> >In a recipe, there is no scope for opposite ideas, unless we stretch
> >things
> >and say that we need both fire and water to make hot soup.
>
> And is why poetry is different from logic.
Good poetry is never really illogical.
When Blake uses the imaginary
> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
> of a just a logical tiger.
He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
> Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
> for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
> Eyre IS sexually repressed!
Wrong approaches, both. They derive from confused and illogical minds.
> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
> >opposite
> >ideas.
> And we can also in aphorisms.
Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
can stretch them.
- snip -
> >A deep knowledge is the basis of shallow knowledges, as expressed by
> >the superficial adherence of shallow knowledge to deep knowledge, or
> >equally superfical rejection. One example is the much vaunted Aryan
> >theory of the Nazis - a very shallow self-aggrandizing theory. Deep
> >knowledge would have meant an understanding of Chanakya Sutra to
> >understand the thinking of Aryans; shallow thinking followed racist
> >theories perfected by USAn and French academics. Deep thinking is
> >sincere,
> >and leads to good results; shallow thinking leads to Nazism, whose
> >consequences we know.
>
> All i see is deep and shallow being used as value judgements. To a Nazi
> therefore the Aryan theory would be deep.
To an Aryan it would be shallow. If there had been scope for proper
communication between them, the Nazis might have changed their minds.
A qualified unbiased third party can only judge what is deep or what is
shallow. I think he would conclude that those who are the direct
descendants of Aryans, as proved by their following Aryan ways continuously for
thousands of years, are better Aryans than those who picked up borrowed
feathers very recently.
- snip -
> >Hardly. I am again emphasising the need for clarity, with a view to
> >discriminate. I try to have an open mind, and judge things as I find
> >them
> >to be, after as thorough an analysis as possible. Bigoted
> >people just follow dogma, so much easier. It so happens that these
> >days bigotry is a bit unfashionable, so the bigots are pretending to
> >be
> >confused. So while I do discriminate, I have no need to seek reasons
> >for
> >same - that would have happened if I were a bigot.
>
> But you seem to have some dogmatic belief in a divine being?
Not dogmatic, as it does not derive from any dogma. And not belief, either,
of the kind understood by Western dogmatists. It is, as I said, complete
reverence and devotion arising from long internal striving and also Divine
grace. It arises from the culture and thought of my native land, where
the Goddess is lovingly worshipped. So it is part of a social process, which
has gone on for thousands of years. Foreign invaders and opportunists have
tried their best to corrupt our thinking, and indeed they succeeded with our
elite English speaking self-despising reverse-racists. I do not identify
with them, so for understanding I try to gain the world-view my great-
grandparents had, which is totally different from the modern reverse-racists.
- snip -
> >> >Or anyone else, but I am really not interested in such comparisons.
> >>
> >> So why condemn those in the dark! Why not give them some light.
> >
> >I do not condemn anyone. If someone wants light, he or she must make
> >the
> >necessary effort on his or her own. There is no spoonfeeding, so far
> >as
> >I am concerned. And how do I know who is in the dark or who is not?
> >It would
> >be presumptuous of me to offer unasked-for light.
>
> But that's just what you seem to be saying to me - that i'm wrong over
> some issue - regarding aphorisms etc.
Yes. I said you were wrong to give a confused quality to aphorisms. That
is a secular standpoint, not what you could call a metaphysical one. For my
existene with others on this planet, I need to relate on secular issues - the
metaphysical/transcendental issues are personal, or restricted to close
groups who share them.
> I confess to being likewise guilty
> - i think your missing something of Blake's imaginary.
Imaginary what?
- snip -
> But maybe related - ambiguity can be used to provoke thought, rather
> than a conclusion.
Ambiguity is two or more different meanings for something. It is not
fuzzy nonsense, that no one can make sense of, and therefore rejects or
calls high-brow stuff.
> >> >> >> > Clarity, not fuzziness, is the chief quality of any
> >> >> >> >aphorism.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> maybe your right here. "The cut worm forgives the plough"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, this is fuzzy nonsense, not clarity. The cut worm cannot forgive
> >> >> >the plough, it does not have the ability to do so. This is just
> >> >> >some bad poetry.
> >> >>
> >> >> nice! its bad is it... your welcome to think its just bad poetry - but
> >> >> you have closed your mind on one of our great mystical thinkers, which
> >> >> is a pity.
> >> >
> >> >I read it with an open mind, and analysed it accordingly. If you don't
> >> >like my analysis, please explain why, instead of evading by saying that
> >> >the author was a "great mystical thinker".
> >>
> >> Your analysis (what it was) was cut worms cant forgive - well neither
> >> is a sauce a long word - so i needn't like or dislike it - its just that
> >> it strikes me as being inconsistent. Unless your not saying that worms
> >> are incapable of forgiveness
> >
> >That is exactly what I said. Worms are incapable of forgiveness, so
> >they
> >cannot forgive. To write that they can forgive, is thus nonsense, of
> >a
> >low kind (not the Lewis Carroll kind, or the Sukumar Ray kind, more of
> >the Einsteinian black-hole perpetual motion machine kind).
>
> This is getting very pedantic but your supposed to use some imagination
> - if the worm could forgive then it would...
Some imagination, eh? Then all the pigs and cows are very happy to be
slaughtered, as that would keep those uppity apes happy? Let us imagine
the exploited being very happy to be exploited! So nice for the exploiter,
if he can get this message across! Be happy to be raped, murdered, tortured...
Is this the new NATO strategy?
A denial of reality leads to madness, and so such a line could only be
written by a talented madman such as Blake. He did write some good lines, as well,
in his sane moments. Naturally, some bad line written by him can be
used by the cunning to justify their wicked actions.
> > - the cut worm forgives - but why - because
> >> the plough is part of the process of life which necessitates some harm -
> >
> >The cut worm does not forgive, it only gets cut and is harmed. The
> >harm
> >comes to the cut worm, not to the plough or ploughman.
> >
> >To accept this line as good poetry is to justify the exploitation of
> >the
> >weak by the strong. That happens, of course, but the purpose of the
> >good
> >poet (as opposed to the propagandist) has been to take the side of the
> >weak.
>
> This is an interesting interpretation of the passage. Further it
> demonstrates how its being translated into an algorithm would be
> difficult.
Thanks, but it is easy to translate that into an algorithm to justify killing
using deceit. An aphorism does not have to be wholesome, or decent, as this
one shows. To those who value decency, this aphorism is bad.
> >That is why I called it bad poetry. It is, in fact, very bad poetry.
> >
>
> Well your criticising your interpretation of it. Maybe we should ban
> ploughs?
We should look at better ways of doing agriculture, such as
hydroponics. Or multi-storeyed growth in controlled environments.
That will be a whole lot better - more productive, labour intensive,
satisfying, humane, safe,
etc. Yes, we should think of banning ploughs, and returning the
farms to Mother Nature and her worms.
> >> or because cut worms are able to grow again - so the seeming harm isn't
> >> harm at all -
> >
> >Oh, so the thirdworlders were not harmed at all when they were
> >exploited
> >by Europeans, just because they have large populations now?
>
> Its interesting how you relate the proverb to the third world /first
> world issue, which i very much doubt was in the authors mind - the terms
> didn't exist.
Just as good art/thinking is independent of time and space, so is
bad art/thinking.
> Though the author was opposed to mechanical thinking. The
> proverb is one of the proverbs of hell - how now do you think it?
I don't know about proverbs of hell.
> >> so like a good parable the decision is left with us - and
> >> not determined by the author - or the algorithm.
> >
> >There are always two points of view - one from the killer's and the
> >other
> >from the victim's. You implicitly support the former, I the latter,
> >in this
> >case, where the bad poetry/aphorism may be seen as a killer's
> >aphorism. There is no confusion
> >once we agree on this. When we don't, this is fuzzy nonsense.
>
> The worm isn't killed - it might even be the case in Blake's day that
> they thought both halves regenerated.
Still the concept of the worm "forgiving" is nonsense. The worm gets
cut, and it is an observed fact that no living being desires involuntary
extinction. From this, we have the moral standpoint that it is wrong
to kill.
> Or is Blake saying the worm should
> forgive - or that the plough / ploughman is in the right.
Yes, that is it. If you kill, you prosper - standard theory of all killers.
Perhaps Blake did not want to make it look this way, but to judge from this
one line that is just what comes to mind.
> If the plough
> is a symbol of industrialisation and the worm of nature then i'd say he
> would be on the side of the worm. So maybe he's saying that though the
> first world exploits the third the third has a greater truth and worth
> that cannot be destroyed but as a consequence of exploitation is
> radicalised.
Lot of ifs and maybes, hardly convincing!
All he is saying is that the cut worm forgives the plough, and that is,
at the kindest, fuzzy nonsense. On the average, it is very bad poetry,
amounting to a justification of exploitation. The business of life
naturally results in exploitation (the wolves must eat deer) but all advances
in the human condition have resulted from the quality of compassion.
>
> >
> >Too quickly do you
> >> arrive on a very limited and seemingly contradictory analysis that its
> >> *just* bad poetry.
> >
> >What contradiction? It is not *just* bad poetry, it is the worst
> >poetry possible. If the writer was Blake, then, well, the chap was
> >often mad
> >and so need not be taken seriously, for everything he wrote.
>
> I've no evidence of his madness, only his genius.
This is my main disagreement with you. You think of plain silliness and
manifest wickedness as genius. This, I repeat, is a sad consequence of
media-vaunted Einsteinian gibberish, which has totally corrupted human
thinking.
> But you condemn it not
> from what it is but by your interpretation of it.
No, I condemn it from what it is but you support it with your interpretation
consisting of ifs and maybes.
- snip -
> >When I compared an algorithm to a recipe, that was analogy, for I was
> >explaining a comparatively little-understood term with something
> >similar in scope but better
> >understood.
>
> No - you were saying what you thought an Aphorism was - then claiming
> that anything which didn't conform to your definition wasn't an
> aphorism.
What else could I say?
> The same with what was good poetry. This is a fallacy -
Why?
> similar to saying all swans are white, and when the Australian variety
> is presented that its not a swan.
But an Australian black swan is not a white swan. It is a different kind
of swan. This is a matter of classification. If someone says that a
wombat is a swan, will anyone agree?
> In the same way that white
> imperialists could enslave blacks - for they were not humans as humans
> are white.
They were considered human enough, when Hannibal's black troops slaughtered
the white Romans at Cannae. Any excuse is good enough for wicked people to
continue with exploitation. Just put in as many ifs and maybes in shonky
theories as required, get them printed and bound nicely, and then pay some
academic/media person to praise it. Lies become facts.
And other such nonsense... If only *white* culture is to be
> considered civilised then such a culture can legitimately dominate
> others who are not civilised - by virtue of their race.
Well, that is what they thought and practised. Till Hitler came along, and
believed that theory even more ardently than the earlier practitioners, with
somewhat disastrous results for all the racists.
- snip -
> >> >> >> >> Would you say a
> >> >> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you are
> >> >> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
> >> >> >> >> matter...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-
> smile?"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Can you translate this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You try!
> >> >>
> >> >> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
> >> >
> >> >Lukewarm.
> >> >
> >> OK your turn!
> >
> >Pass.
>
> oh come on - play up - play up!
"Jo na samjhe woh anaari hai"
(He who cannot understand is a novice.)
Arindam Banerjee.
atto
> >
> >How do you explain that the world cannot be explained, without merely
> >stating? Doesn't your lack of understanding too need to be explained?
> >Presumably it has consequences.
>
> I'm not certain i'm following here - you can have as many explanations
> as you want. I don't understand maths - i maybe could learn to - this
> would change me. However can i understand everything - in detail - i
> think not, i cant even imagine God being able to do this. A certain
> concept of god is limited by the small presence of myself in the world.
> Again i come down to my unique experience, even a god having this has a
> different experience, of "God having James' experience" is not = to
> "James having James' experience".
>
> Learning maths, acquiring understanding, drinking beer or learning judo
> - all have consequences.
There is no choice but to understand everything. This is the lesson of the
pensee sauvage. Understand everything or nothing. Ultimately there is no
half-way house. You concede that understanding maths, for instance, has a
consequence, but not that failing to understand has one in itself,
potentially more tragic. This is because you perceive science and maths as
merely human constructions and diversions, the domain of scientists and
mathematicians, and fail to perceive their signification in the world.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >yet your arty language
> >> >game fails to justify this in any independent terms whatsoever.
> >>
> >> I don't understand this - my language isn't arty - i'm trying to be
> >> rational - which is your game - and point out that somethings are not
> >> explainable in the way you think.
> >
> >"individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
> >with the subjects own individual will"
> >
> >would you like to translate?
>
> who said this - was it me?
yes. See its so convoluted you don't even recognise it or what on earth it
was supposed to mean. Haha. Aphorisms are not a carte blanche to gibber. It
is the world which is to be explained, not your language game.
Atto
James Whitehead
Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<FWq2zEAyK5c8Ew4
>R...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <890e65ea.02021...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
>> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
>> >> >denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
>> >> >an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its
>power.
>> >> >To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
>> >> >individual.
>> >>
>> >> These are not then translatable into computer algorithms.
>> >
>> >Yes, they are, but not automatically unless we have really clever
>> >programs
>> >for same.
>>
>> Well its how clever - to the extent that they can become confused?
>
>A well compiled computer program either delivers rightly or wrongly, or gets
>stuck
>waiting for inputs. It does not get confused.
Ah so we have a test for discrimination between humans and computers...
but your forgetting the "halting problem"
>
>> >> Though you
>> >> wanted clarity - its their ability to hold together opposite ideas which
>> >> allows them more closely to picture reality.
>> >
>> >In a recipe, there is no scope for opposite ideas, unless we stretch
>> >things
>> >and say that we need both fire and water to make hot soup.
>>
>> And is why poetry is different from logic.
>
>Good poetry is never really illogical.
Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
>
> When Blake uses the imaginary
>> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
>> of a just a logical tiger.
>
>He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
>Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
>tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
>logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
dispute - well is simply not true. Your hatred for the west is clouding
your "open mind".
>
>> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
>
>In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
Another opinion- you've never been to a poetry reading? - and if a poet
responds to an audience you'd simply say its not poetry...
>
>> Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
>> for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
>> Eyre IS sexually repressed!
>
>Wrong approaches, both. They derive from confused and illogical minds.
Its what i'm trying to show - your approach is similar - saying what the
poet can and cant do... etc.
>
>> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
>> >opposite
>> >ideas.
>> And we can also in aphorisms.
>
>Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
>any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
>can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
>can stretch them.
How do you know your definition above is not an example of bias and not
intrinsic.
>
>- snip -
>
>> >A deep knowledge is the basis of shallow knowledges, as expressed by
>> >the superficial adherence of shallow knowledge to deep knowledge, or
>> >equally superfical rejection. One example is the much vaunted Aryan
>> >theory of the Nazis - a very shallow self-aggrandizing theory. Deep
>> >knowledge would have meant an understanding of Chanakya Sutra to
>> >understand the thinking of Aryans; shallow thinking followed racist
>> >theories perfected by USAn and French academics. Deep thinking is
>> >sincere,
>> >and leads to good results; shallow thinking leads to Nazism, whose
>> >consequences we know.
>>
>> All i see is deep and shallow being used as value judgements. To a Nazi
>> therefore the Aryan theory would be deep.
>
>To an Aryan it would be shallow. If there had been scope for proper
>communication between them, the Nazis might have changed their minds.
>A qualified unbiased third party can only judge what is deep or what is
>shallow. I think he would conclude that those who are the direct
>descendants of Aryans, as proved by their following Aryan ways continuously for
>thousands of years, are better Aryans than those who picked up borrowed
>feathers very recently.
Your first problem is getting your third party..
>
>- snip -
>
>> >Hardly. I am again emphasising the need for clarity, with a view to
>> >discriminate. I try to have an open mind, and judge things as I find
>> >them
>> >to be, after as thorough an analysis as possible. Bigoted
>> >people just follow dogma, so much easier. It so happens that these
>> >days bigotry is a bit unfashionable, so the bigots are pretending to
>> >be
>> >confused. So while I do discriminate, I have no need to seek reasons
>> >for
>> >same - that would have happened if I were a bigot.
>>
>> But you seem to have some dogmatic belief in a divine being?
>
>Not dogmatic, as it does not derive from any dogma. And not belief, either,
>of the kind understood by Western dogmatists. It is, as I said, complete
>reverence and devotion arising from long internal striving and also Divine
>grace. It arises from the culture and thought of my native land, where
>the Goddess is lovingly worshipped. So it is part of a social process, which
>has gone on for thousands of years. Foreign invaders and opportunists have
>tried their best to corrupt our thinking, and indeed they succeeded with our
>elite English speaking self-despising reverse-racists. I do not identify
>with them, so for understanding I try to gain the world-view my great-
>grandparents had, which is totally different from the modern reverse-racists.
Who were subjects of the british empire.
>
>- snip -
>
>> >> >Or anyone else, but I am really not interested in such comparisons.
>> >>
>> >> So why condemn those in the dark! Why not give them some light.
>> >
>> >I do not condemn anyone. If someone wants light, he or she must make
>> >the
>> >necessary effort on his or her own. There is no spoonfeeding, so far
>> >as
>> >I am concerned. And how do I know who is in the dark or who is not?
>> >It would
>> >be presumptuous of me to offer unasked-for light.
>>
>> But that's just what you seem to be saying to me - that i'm wrong over
>> some issue - regarding aphorisms etc.
>
>Yes. I said you were wrong to give a confused quality to aphorisms. That
>is a secular standpoint, not what you could call a metaphysical one. For my
>existene with others on this planet, I need to relate on secular issues - the
>metaphysical/transcendental issues are personal, or restricted to close
>groups who share them.
>
>> I confess to being likewise guilty
>> - i think your missing something of Blake's imaginary.
>
>Imaginary what?
my spelling!
>
>- snip -
>
>
>> But maybe related - ambiguity can be used to provoke thought, rather
>> than a conclusion.
>
>Ambiguity is two or more different meanings for something. It is not
>fuzzy nonsense, that no one can make sense of, and therefore rejects or
>calls high-brow stuff.
Fuzzy can be logical... but no matter.
Or the modern Hindu's -
>
>A denial of reality leads to madness,
Well you want to transcend it! or think you can...
> and so such a line could only be
>written by a talented madman such as Blake. He did write some good lines, as
>well,
>in his sane moments. Naturally, some bad line written by him can be
>used by the cunning to justify their wicked actions.
Or a good line.
>
>> > - the cut worm forgives - but why - because
>> >> the plough is part of the process of life which necessitates some harm -
>> >
>> >The cut worm does not forgive, it only gets cut and is harmed. The
>> >harm
>> >comes to the cut worm, not to the plough or ploughman.
>> >
>> >To accept this line as good poetry is to justify the exploitation of
>> >the
>> >weak by the strong. That happens, of course, but the purpose of the
>> >good
>> >poet (as opposed to the propagandist) has been to take the side of the
>> >weak.
>>
>> This is an interesting interpretation of the passage. Further it
>> demonstrates how its being translated into an algorithm would be
>> difficult.
>
>Thanks, but it is easy to translate that into an algorithm to justify killing
>using deceit. An aphorism does not have to be wholesome, or decent, as this
>one shows. To those who value decency, this aphorism is bad.
Well it could expose the hypocrisy of those who think they are good, and
not involved in the killing and destruction which is going on...
>
>> >That is why I called it bad poetry. It is, in fact, very bad poetry.
>> >
>>
>> Well your criticising your interpretation of it. Maybe we should ban
>> ploughs?
>
>We should look at better ways of doing agriculture, such as
>hydroponics. Or multi-storeyed growth in controlled environments.
>That will be a whole lot better - more productive, labour intensive,
>satisfying, humane, safe,
>etc. Yes, we should think of banning ploughs, and returning the
>farms to Mother Nature and her worms.
Maybe we should stop our bodies destroying the bacteria and just give up
the daily struggle for life... I presume you welcome lice and fleas...
>
>> >> or because cut worms are able to grow again - so the seeming harm isn't
>> >> harm at all -
>> >
>> >Oh, so the thirdworlders were not harmed at all when they were
>> >exploited
>> >by Europeans, just because they have large populations now?
>>
>> Its interesting how you relate the proverb to the third world /first
>> world issue, which i very much doubt was in the authors mind - the terms
>> didn't exist.
>
>Just as good art/thinking is independent of time and space, so is
>bad art/thinking.
more opinion... without much thought. What is not then independent of
time... and space.
>
>
>> Though the author was opposed to mechanical thinking. The
>> proverb is one of the proverbs of hell - how now do you think it?
>
>I don't know about proverbs of hell.
But that didn't stop you unconditionally judging the proverb.
>
>> >> so like a good parable the decision is left with us - and
>> >> not determined by the author - or the algorithm.
>> >
>> >There are always two points of view - one from the killer's and the
>> >other
>> >from the victim's. You implicitly support the former, I the latter,
>> >in this
>> >case, where the bad poetry/aphorism may be seen as a killer's
>> >aphorism. There is no confusion
>> >once we agree on this. When we don't, this is fuzzy nonsense.
>>
>> The worm isn't killed - it might even be the case in Blake's day that
>> they thought both halves regenerated.
>
>Still the concept of the worm "forgiving" is nonsense. The worm gets
>cut, and it is an observed fact that no living being desires involuntary
>extinction. From this, we have the moral standpoint that it is wrong
>to kill.
Please - the worm is not killed - which is why perhaps it doesn't mind.
Or do all living beings desire immortality.
>
>> Or is Blake saying the worm should
>> forgive - or that the plough / ploughman is in the right.
>
>Yes, that is it. If you kill, you prosper - standard theory of all killers.
We are all killers.
>Perhaps Blake did not want to make it look this way, but to judge from this
>one line that is just what comes to mind.
>
to live is to kill - surely you are aware of this.
>> If the plough
>> is a symbol of industrialisation and the worm of nature then i'd say he
>> would be on the side of the worm. So maybe he's saying that though the
>> first world exploits the third the third has a greater truth and worth
>> that cannot be destroyed but as a consequence of exploitation is
>> radicalised.
>
>Lot of ifs and maybes, hardly convincing!
well i prefer to use conditions as i might be wrong - there may be
another view. Even the typhoid bacteria has a point of view.
>
>All he is saying is that the cut worm forgives the plough, and that is,
>at the kindest, fuzzy nonsense. On the average, it is very bad poetry,
>amounting to a justification of exploitation. The business of life
>naturally results in exploitation (the wolves must eat deer) but all advances
>in the human condition have resulted from the quality of compassion.
That's just what the worm is demonstrating.
>>
>> >
>> >Too quickly do you
>> >> arrive on a very limited and seemingly contradictory analysis that its
>> >> *just* bad poetry.
>> >
>> >What contradiction? It is not *just* bad poetry, it is the worst
>> >poetry possible. If the writer was Blake, then, well, the chap was
>> >often mad
>> >and so need not be taken seriously, for everything he wrote.
>>
>> I've no evidence of his madness, only his genius.
>
>This is my main disagreement with you. You think of plain silliness and
>manifest wickedness as genius. This, I repeat, is a sad consequence of
>media-vaunted Einsteinian gibberish, which has totally corrupted human
>thinking.
Blake wrote well before Einstein - and i think we cant continue this
much longer as you keep making unsupported assertions - which at best
shows a lack of compassion. Your plough - cuts worms without apology or
care.
>
>> But you condemn it not
>> from what it is but by your interpretation of it.
>
>No, I condemn it from what it is but you support it with your interpretation
>consisting of ifs and maybes.
>
You have the absolute truth on the matter - so we cant discuss it.
>- snip -
>
>> >When I compared an algorithm to a recipe, that was analogy, for I was
>> >explaining a comparatively little-understood term with something
>> >similar in scope but better
>> >understood.
>>
>> No - you were saying what you thought an Aphorism was - then claiming
>> that anything which didn't conform to your definition wasn't an
>> aphorism.
>
>What else could I say?
That you could be wrong, that it could be otherwise... that its bound to
conditions - ifs and maybes.
>
>> The same with what was good poetry. This is a fallacy -
>
>Why?
I show you below.
>
>> similar to saying all swans are white, and when the Australian variety
>> is presented that its not a swan.
>
>But an Australian black swan is not a white swan.
correct - but ALL SWANS - its a swan!
> It is a different kind
>of swan. This is a matter of classification. If someone says that a
>wombat is a swan, will anyone agree?
>
>> In the same way that white
>> imperialists could enslave blacks - for they were not humans as humans
>> are white.
>
>They were considered human enough, when Hannibal's black troops slaughtered
>the white Romans at Cannae.
> Any excuse is good enough for wicked people to
>continue with exploitation. Just put in as many ifs and maybes in shonky
>theories as required, get them printed and bound nicely, and then pay some
>academic/media person to praise it. Lies become facts.
>
>And other such nonsense... If only *white* culture is to be
>> considered civilised then such a culture can legitimately dominate
>> others who are not civilised - by virtue of their race.
>
>Well, that is what they thought and practised. Till Hitler came along, and
>believed that theory even more ardently than the earlier practitioners, with
>somewhat disastrous results for all the racists.
Well you certainly cut my arguments up here - with no heed for what i
actually said - you plough on, your furrow is straight and unbending-
>- snip -
>
>> >> >> >> >> Would you say a
>> >> >> >> >> painting is "translatable" - or even the momentary experience you
>are
>> >> >> >> >> now having? I think not - but would welcome being put right on the
>> >> >> >> >> matter...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Will my love with pensive outlook while her day with but a half-
>> smile?"
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Can you translate this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You try!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It gives a wistful feeling - (any good?)
>> >> >
>> >> >Lukewarm.
>> >> >
>> >> OK your turn!
>> >
>> >Pass.
>>
>> oh come on - play up - play up!
>
>"Jo na samjhe woh anaari hai"
>(He who cannot understand is a novice.)
>
Such information is wasted on the novice- for he cannot understand it -
and wasted on the master because she already knows.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
writes
Now you laughing at how you can make me seem funny by cutting my reply -
which though creative of you denies the meaning which i was trying to
impart - so in your understanding remains a little island of ignorance.
I did go on to explain it - and it makes mores sense than the silly
demand to understand everything.
> Aphorisms are not a carte blanche to gibber. It
>is the world which is to be explained, not your language game.
>
my language game is part of my world - in your attempt to *understand*
"everything" how quickly you decide to only understand yourself - and
destroy everything else.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>was supposed to mean. Haha. Aphorisms are not a carte blanche to gibber. It
>is the world which is to be explained, not your language game.
Here is what i actually said
I think i have a fundamental problem in dealing with science - and its
thinkers. You seem to cry out for definitions - which is just not the
same in art. I really don't think i can explain this very well, without
perhaps seeming stupid (preferred) or rude. Whatever beauty you see in
some explanation is not the same kind of thing which occurs in art - and
it hasn't the idea of equivalence or quantity. Science works - like
mathematics - by co-operative rules, and though these are found in the
arts - they are a convenience only - and despised at that. Though the
scientist may understand the forces in falling out of a building why
would an artist choose to jump out of a first floor building onto the
street? Why some works of art can be ugly, or funny even. Some you may
be invited to understand - others may simply play games with meanings...
if you want a definition - and you seem to? maybe aphorisms aren't
static like e^i*pi + 1 = 0 - but twist about - move of their own accord
like creatures, act in contrary ways at times. The old story of
Pygmalion is the sculptors creation comes alive - then he falls in love
with it - as a dynamic living object. Can e^i*pi + 1 = 0 ever be e^i*pi
+ 1 = 1 ? Its only recently that science has seen the importance of the
observer, but this is still in a very generalised way, in art the
artists involvement is total - like a child's - but with his/her full
individuality presenting itself. Let me try to explain - Rodin's Balzac
shows the writer in a dressing gown, it was criticised as being
anatomically flawed, but unknown to the critics the clay gown wrapped
around a carefully sculptured naked body of the man- his hand grasping
his erect penis. Even in abstract art is the presence of the
individual's smell, sex, dreams.. life - exists. The equations of
science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the universe
allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
with the subjects own individual will.
Lets see then - i start by explaining i might not be able to explain
myself very well - you then cut half a sentence - about the artistic
act (remove this context) - and ask what it means! and when i say it
doesn't quite sound like me - you laugh.
Lets see
"to understand has one in itself, potentially more tragic."
what does that mean - please translate...
Lets take my full sentence then in all it imperfection...
The equations of
science are one thing - abstract which maybe spread thought the universe
allow wonderful technologies - etc? but that's not the same as the
individuals moment of existence as being which fills the entire world
with the subjects own individual will.
Why i didnt recognise it (well i guessed you were quoting me but
couldn't be bothered to look up the miss-quote) was that i'm talking
about the artist - its why i jibed at "will" - but its the case in art
that its the artist's will that is imposed on the material and not some
other theory... artist as god - which is not a normal condition. The
artistic moment is the point of individual mark making, the hand in the
cave in spain - ecce homo. For all of your understanding you can never
have the feeling of Neil Armstrong stepping off the lunar lander. One
more point - according to your theory mathematics makes a difference and
changes one for the better it seems - yet they are not a particularly
happy lot - i know of two who committed suicide. It seems their
knowledge in no way better equips them for life, we are governed by
fools - not mathematicians.
My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with science
- but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<FWq2zEAyK5c8Ew4
> >R...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <890e65ea.02021...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> >> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >An aphorism could also be compared to a recipe, provided sequential steps
> >> >> >denoting causality/conditionality are followed. The difference is that
> >> >> >an aphorism could lead to many different recipes, depending upon its
> power.
> >> >> >To find the recipes/algorithms from the aphorism is the task of the
> >> >> >individual.
> >> >>
> >> >> These are not then translatable into computer algorithms.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, they are, but not automatically unless we have really clever
> >> >programs
> >> >for same.
> >>
> >> Well its how clever - to the extent that they can become confused?
> >
> >A well compiled computer program either delivers rightly or wrongly, or gets
> >stuck
> >waiting for inputs. It does not get confused.
>
> Ah so we have a test for discrimination between humans and computers...
> but your forgetting the "halting problem"
You are forgetting my qualifier for the computer program. By the way,
your "your" business is quite tiresome. If you cannot fix it, then I
cannot
continue to be a party to this murder of the English language. It is
not
mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
machines and humans.
> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
>
> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
of
good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
> > When Blake uses the imaginary
> >> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
> >> of a just a logical tiger.
> >
> >He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
> >Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
> >tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
> >logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
>
> The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
> dispute - well is simply not true.
What do you mean it is not true? The other day I saw a TV program
here
which told me that 60,000 tigers were killed by the British and their
followers in India - they wanted to kill all the tigers.
Your hatred for the west is clouding
> your "open mind".
I admire the good about the West, not the bad.
You are sadly descending to personal attacks, which are unfounded.
- snip -
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> >> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
> >
> >In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
>
> Another opinion- you've never been to a poetry reading? - and if a poet
> responds to an audience you'd simply say its not poetry...
>
> >
> >> Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
> >> for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
> >> Eyre IS sexually repressed!
> >
> >Wrong approaches, both. They derive from confused and illogical minds.
>
> Its what i'm trying to show - your approach is similar - saying what the
> poet can and cant do... etc.
There is no similarity between your approach and mine. You are talking
subjective nonsense about the hydrogen atom, or making an arbitrary
statement about a character that could be convincingly refuted. I am
laying down my avenues of thinking, which may or may not be followed by
others. If they don't, I would expect them to logically or factually refute
my statment. When they make evasions and accusations, they expose their
intellectual shallowness.
> >> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
> >> >opposite
> >> >ideas.
> >> And we can also in aphorisms.
> >
> >Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
> >any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
> >can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
> >can stretch them.
>
> How do you know your definition above is not an example of bias and not
> intrinsic.
Because there are no obvious logical or factual discrepancies; because in
this simple case it is just a definition. Quite axiomatic.
>
> >
> >- snip -
> >
> >> >A deep knowledge is the basis of shallow knowledges, as expressed by
> >> >the superficial adherence of shallow knowledge to deep knowledge, or
> >> >equally superfical rejection. One example is the much vaunted Aryan
> >> >theory of the Nazis - a very shallow self-aggrandizing theory. Deep
> >> >knowledge would have meant an understanding of Chanakya Sutra to
> >> >understand the thinking of Aryans; shallow thinking followed racist
> >> >theories perfected by USAn and French academics. Deep thinking is
> >> >sincere,
> >> >and leads to good results; shallow thinking leads to Nazism, whose
> >> >consequences we know.
> >>
> >> All i see is deep and shallow being used as value judgements. To a Nazi
> >> therefore the Aryan theory would be deep.
> >
> >To an Aryan it would be shallow. If there had been scope for proper
> >communication between them, the Nazis might have changed their minds.
> >A qualified unbiased third party can only judge what is deep or what is
> >shallow. I think he would conclude that those who are the direct
> >descendants of Aryans, as proved by their following Aryan ways continuously for
> >thousands of years, are better Aryans than those who picked up borrowed
> >feathers very recently.
>
> Your first problem is getting your third party..
I have no problem! If you had read what I wrote, you would have learnt
that others had problems when they exercised shallow thinking about deep
issues.
> >- snip -
> >
> >> >Hardly. I am again emphasising the need for clarity, with a view to
> >> >discriminate. I try to have an open mind, and judge things as I find
> >> >them
> >> >to be, after as thorough an analysis as possible. Bigoted
> >> >people just follow dogma, so much easier. It so happens that these
> >> >days bigotry is a bit unfashionable, so the bigots are pretending to
> >> >be
> >> >confused. So while I do discriminate, I have no need to seek reasons
> >> >for
> >> >same - that would have happened if I were a bigot.
> >>
> >> But you seem to have some dogmatic belief in a divine being?
> >
> >Not dogmatic, as it does not derive from any dogma. And not belief, either,
> >of the kind understood by Western dogmatists. It is, as I said, complete
> >reverence and devotion arising from long internal striving and also Divine
> >grace. It arises from the culture and thought of my native land, where
> >the Goddess is lovingly worshipped. So it is part of a social process, which
> >has gone on for thousands of years. Foreign invaders and opportunists have
> >tried their best to corrupt our thinking, and indeed they succeeded with our
> >elite English speaking self-despising reverse-racists. I do not identify
> >with them, so for understanding I try to gain the world-view my great-
> >grandparents had, which is totally different from the modern reverse-racists.
>
> Who were subjects of the british empire.
Yes. :( :( I am talking about my great-grandparents, who led a life
reasonably free from British or Communist influences.
> >Ambiguity is two or more different meanings for something. It is not
> >fuzzy nonsense, that no one can make sense of, and therefore rejects or
> >calls high-brow stuff.
>
> Fuzzy can be logical... but no matter.
More likely that it could be logical to be fuzzy at times.
I don't think that any modern Hindu is saying that the worm forgives
being cut up by the plough. More like, they are saying "even the worm
turns".
> >A denial of reality leads to madness,
>
> Well you want to transcend it! or think you can...
Transcending mundane reality leads to understanding it far better. That's
what good poetry is all about.
> > and so such a line could only be
> >written by a talented madman such as Blake. He did write some good lines, as
> >well,
> >in his sane moments. Naturally, some bad line written by him can be
> >used by the cunning to justify their wicked actions.
>
> Or a good line.
No, a good line cannot be used for a bad purpose.
You presume too much, and see too little.
Arindam Banerjee.
James Whitehead
Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>z...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>By the way,
>your "your" business is quite tiresome. If you cannot fix it, then I
>cannot
>continue to be a party to this murder of the English language.
Your welcome - You're getting so upset over a ' and an e, but are quite
happy to use "Internet" jargon - as i said english is a living language,
what kills a language is pedantry.
Humm? doesn't "the forgetting" in some way belong to you?
> It is
>not
>mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
>machines and humans.
Communication is not an issue - even between computers ASCII to BCD etc.
as long as you see that my "your" is = "you are" - which you do! then
there is no bar to communication.
>
>> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
>>
>> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
>
>A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
>of
>good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
If only you could listen to yourself - its you who wants to behave so
sheepishly with regard to english grammar. Who says that poetry has to
have a purpose... it might and then it might not.
>
>> > When Blake uses the imaginary
>> >> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
>> >> of a just a logical tiger.
>> >
>> >He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
>> >Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
>> >tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
>> >logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
>>
>> The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
>> dispute - well is simply not true.
>
>What do you mean it is not true? The other day I saw a TV program
>here
>which told me that 60,000 tigers were killed by the British and their
>followers in India - they wanted to kill all the tigers.
When i was studying Hinduism - a term which is not good in describing
the "religion" that westerns attempted to give a taxonomy to - an
interesting anecdote was related concerning local, house and village,
gods and deities. It was a village that was plagued with tigers until an
English colonialist began hunting them. After his death he was buried in
a cemetery and ever after when tigers would pray on the poor villages
they would put a cigar and a glass of brandy on the grave. He had in
effect entered into their pantheon of gods and was "offered" appropriate
gifts to defend them from tigers. Furthermore the Victorian interest in
zoological gardens was founded partly on the wish to conserve...
>
>Your hatred for the west is clouding
>> your "open mind".
>
>I admire the good about the West, not the bad.
>You are sadly descending to personal attacks, which are unfounded.
>
This was not a personal attack - i was remarking on how you condemn
such things as a poem by Blake on the basis of its colonialism - which
i must admit i couldn't see. But lets leave all alone shall we. Its been
an interesting exchange.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>
>> >> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
>> >
>> >In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
>>
>> Another opinion- you've never been to a poetry reading? - and if a poet
>> responds to an audience you'd simply say its not poetry...
>>
>> >
>> >> Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
>> >> for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
>> >> Eyre IS sexually repressed!
>> >
>> >Wrong approaches, both. They derive from confused and illogical minds.
>>
>> Its what i'm trying to show - your approach is similar - saying what the
>> poet can and cant do... etc.
>
>There is no similarity between your approach and mine. You are talking
>subjective nonsense about the hydrogen atom, or making an arbitrary
>statement about a character that could be convincingly refuted. I am
>laying down my avenues of thinking, which may or may not be followed by
>others. If they don't, I would expect them to logically or factually refute
>my statment. When they make evasions and accusations, they expose their
>intellectual shallowness.
Hold on - you're now throwing the insults. I wasn't talking subjective
nonsense, i was trying to make someone who appears only to recognise
logic and facts that there are other valid forms of expression in the
world. You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
the open fields and hills.
>
>> >> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
>> >> >opposite
>> >> >ideas.
>> >> And we can also in aphorisms.
>> >
>> >Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
>> >any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
>> >can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
>> >can stretch them.
>>
>> How do you know your definition above is not an example of bias and not
>> intrinsic.
>
>Because there are no obvious logical or factual discrepancies; because in
>this simple case it is just a definition. Quite axiomatic.
There is a quite devastating error in your assertion that its not
possible to produce any test which would disprove it - in Popper's term.
Are you saying aphorisms can be nonsensical? - or that this disqualifies
them, my dictionary gives a definition of "a pithy saying" which doesn't
follow that it has to make sense in the way you seem to want it to.
If as you maintain an aphorism's sense it completely translatable then
we need to think of the reason to use them in the first place. To a mind
that cannot see anything of worth outside of such logic this is maybe
not possible.
I get the feeling that you consider yourself the third partner!
Without knowing the dates its difficult to be precise in what i say but
Modern India seems to be a construct of the british in its
infrastructure and institutions.
Yes its a pity how they copy the western arms race...
>
>> >A denial of reality leads to madness,
>>
>> Well you want to transcend it! or think you can...
>
>Transcending mundane reality leads to understanding it far better. That's
>what good poetry is all about.
Sure! and logic is very mundane.
Maybe i'm not wishing to see as you do? which seems to want to see
everything clearly - as a god?
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >- snip -
> >
> >> >> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
> >> >
> >> >In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
> >>
> >> Another opinion- you've never been to a poetry reading? - and if a poet
> >> responds to an audience you'd simply say its not poetry...
The creation of poetry has nothing to do with the audience. The
recitation
is a different matter - then poetry becomes drama, to the extent the
audience is expected to be involved. It is high drama if the audience
is
expected to pay. When poetry is made under such expectation, then the
creation process is not purely individualistic, so what comes out is
not poetry
but drama. A genuine poet has no audience.
> >> >> Its clear to see the difference in literature and physics classes, "well
> >> >> for me i think the hydrogen atom should have two electrons"... or Jane
> >> >> Eyre IS sexually repressed!
> >> >
> >> >Wrong approaches, both. They derive from confused and illogical minds.
> >>
> >> Its what i'm trying to show - your approach is similar - saying what the
> >> poet can and cant do... etc.
> >
> >There is no similarity between your approach and mine. You are talking
> >subjective nonsense about the hydrogen atom, or making an arbitrary
> >statement about a character that could be convincingly refuted. I am
> >laying down my avenues of thinking, which may or may not be followed by
> >others. If they don't, I would expect them to logically or factually refute
> >my statment. When they make evasions and accusations, they expose their
> >intellectual shallowness.
>
> Hold on - you're now throwing the insults.
What insults?
> I wasn't talking subjective
> nonsense,
Yes you were. Unless you cannot tell the difference between sense
and subjective nonsense. Which, I am afraid, may be the case if you
are as confused as you made yourself out to begin with.
> i was trying to make someone who appears only to recognise
> logic and facts that there are other valid forms of expression in the
> world.
I never denied any other valid forms of expression in the world. I
said
that so far as aphorisms are concerned, we have to confine ourselves
to
logic and facts (code, data, so far as relevance to computer
algorithms is concerned). You may or may not agree - that is your
business. I am
laying down my comprehension for the term "aphorism". So when you try
to
pass off nonsense aphoristically I object.
> You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
> the open fields and hills.
Very well. If you don't want my meaning for the sound "aphorism" let
us
find some other meaningful sound that makes my meaning in this
language.
"Laws", "axioms", "proverbs" etc. are not satisfying, in this matter.
> >> >> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
> >> >> >opposite
> >> >> >ideas.
> >> >> And we can also in aphorisms.
> >> >
> >> >Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
> >> >any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
> >> >can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
> >> >can stretch them.
> >>
> >> How do you know your definition above is not an example of bias and not
> >> intrinsic.
> >
> >Because there are no obvious logical or factual discrepancies; because in
> >this simple case it is just a definition. Quite axiomatic.
>
> There is a quite devastating error in your assertion that its not
> possible to produce any test which would disprove it - in Popper's term.
You cannot disprove any definition. If you did that, dictionaries
would
make no sense. We would become a bunch of apes, when we quit giving
particular meanings to particular sounds. Popper or no Popper, that
is what
will happen.
I make logical/factual constructions from definitions, to come to
conclusions.
This is very different from making baseless assertions.
> Are you saying aphorisms can be nonsensical?
No. I am saying exactly the opposite. An aphorism has to be clear and
it
must make sense.
> - or that this disqualifies
> them, my dictionary gives a definition of "a pithy saying" which doesn't
> follow that it has to make sense in the way you seem to want it to.
Yes, "a pithy saying" is quite right. This implies that an aphorism
is
a substantial, worthy matter expressed in words. It gives a
generality,
which makes it cover laws, proverbs, axioms, and also constructions
based
upon same. Meaningless, or confusing stuff can never be pithy -
though
they may appear to have some meaning not visible to the naive or
gullible
throught their very inscrutability.
> If as you maintain an aphorism's sense it completely translatable then
> we need to think of the reason to use them in the first place.
The translator translates, for that is what he wants to do. He
probably thinks
that someone somewhere sometime may appreciate his work, and find it
useful.
> To a mind
> that cannot see anything of worth outside of such logic this is maybe
> not possible.
May be, or may be not, la. :) If the translator translates for the
pure
joy of it, without hope for gain, then why he should care for what
narrow
minds may or may not find possible.
- snip -
> >You presume too much, and see too little.
> >
> Maybe i'm not wishing to see as you do?
Maybe you only see what you want to see.
which seems to want to see
> everything clearly - as a god?
Certainly being as godlike as possible is the chief desire for any
Hindu.
This has been so for many thousands of years.
Arindam Banerjee.
atto
One
> more point - according to your theory mathematics makes a difference and
> changes one for the better it seems - yet they are not a particularly
> happy lot - i know of two who committed suicide. It seems their
> knowledge in no way better equips them for life, we are governed by
> fools - not mathematicians.
without really needing to diagree, your comments lend themselves to a
consideration if the old platonic parable of the cave. The mathematicians
have ascended the heights of understanding, and are then forced to endure
the pain of descending to the everyday world, and deal with fools - however
necessary, of course, is this task.
>
> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a crude
question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
>
>
> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with science
> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
adulation of the aphorism. I like rhetoric. I dislike logic. All good art is
a form of rhetoric. Rhetoric has the greatest possibilities, but also
greatest danger of directionless and shoddiness. This is why I believe it
has to secured to understanding. People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides philosophical
vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is presumed
dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
'Women, children, animals - we must not be afraid of assimilations - do not
just have a subject-consciousness, they have a kind of objective ironic
presentiment that the category into which they have been placed does not
exist'
Now, there is no argument here in the traditional sense, moving from
premises to conclusion. The argument is perfectly self-contained, simply a
function of the concepts Baudrillard invokes. In this sense it is analytic,
although rather at a remove from all bachelors are unmarried. Obviously you
cannot argue 'analytically' whether or not particular individuals exist.
This would be to misunderstand the sort of presumptions we are dealing with
and Baudrillard subverts through the category of existence. The genius of
the statement is in the assimilation. Obviously women believe they exist,
and animal liberationists believe animals 'exist' (against the patriarchal
structure) Baudrillard unites them in the commonplace of existence, which
ironically nonetheless will be seen as either misogynistic or
anthropomorphic. The beauty is we need not become embroiled in any of this,
because there was no argument in any case and all interpretation is a
super-imposition (as I said before, interpretation only takes place within a
paradigm) All feminist, and animals rights, literature conversely tries to
construct arguments, or moan, which is a fallacy.
I'm also interested in the very possibility of "theory". While art, in its
extreme self-identicality (it equals nothing except itself) and its
rhetorical likeness, pursues the same horizon as theory, art does not for
the most part understand its genesis or its destination. Art invariably
returns to itself (contemplation of itself.. perhaps for a new view, or a
reminder of the original) whereas theory is conversely concerned with the
flight to extremes. This is commonly held to be a presupposition of theory:
that the world is moving to extremes. However, on the basis that the world
does not perceive this (it is apathetic: things merely are the way they are,
like the artwork) & necessarily only theory has the eyes to perceives the
movement, how do we explain the possibility of theory in the first place?
Much postmodern theory is articulated in the form 'it is no longer the case
that...', followed by a traditionally universalising analytic statement
'e.g. power/sexuality/universals exists', or the contention that we are
living in a unique age. Is this a fraud, or is it merely the only launchpad
into radical theory? Assuming it is only a means to an end, then ultimately
what are we to say about time? We believed in anti-cultural, spatio-temporal
metaphysics all along?
Atto
Arindam Banerjee
> happy to use "Internet" jargon -
I used an abbreviation "btw" which is not jargon. Jargon is "okay", under
certain circumstances. What you are doing is mutilating the language, and
so corrupting the course of proper communication.
> as i said english is a living language,
> what kills a language is pedantry.
What kills a language results from what uglifies it. Pedants (as primary
schoolteachers) work hard to impart the ability of proper communication to
children, in the hope that they will not turn out to be disaffected
drug-pushers and mass murderers.
> Humm? doesn't "the forgetting" in some way belong to you?
>
> > It is
> >not
> >mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
> >machines and humans.
>
> Communication is not an issue - even between computers ASCII to BCD etc.
Oh, it was an issue all right - till they had universally accepted standards.
> as long as you see that my "your" is = "you are" - which you do! then
> there is no bar to communication.
Why not corrupt and debase everything else then, accordingly?
"your" is not "you are". You are creating confusion. And yes, you are
annoying me by that, and if you do persist, I shall not reply any more, so
there will be no more communication.
> >> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
> >>
> >> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
> >
> >A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
> >of
> >good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
>
> If only you could listen to yourself - its you who wants to behave so
> sheepishly with regard to english grammar.
Not sheepishly, correctly. We must have uniformity in basic methods of
communication, to begin with. After that we want improvements, not debasements.
> Who says that poetry has to
> have a purpose... it might and then it might not.
Did I talk of purpose? I talked of logic. Purpose and logic are different
things.
> >> > When Blake uses the imaginary
> >> >> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
> >> >> of a just a logical tiger.
> >> >
> >> >He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
> >> >Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
> >> >tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
> >> >logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
> >>
> >> The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
> >> dispute - well is simply not true.
> >
> >What do you mean it is not true? The other day I saw a TV program
> >here
> >which told me that 60,000 tigers were killed by the British and their
> >followers in India - they wanted to kill all the tigers.
>
> When i was studying Hinduism - a term which is not good in describing
> the "religion" that westerns attempted to give a taxonomy to - an
> interesting anecdote was related concerning local, house and village,
> gods and deities.
If that is what you know of "Hinduism" then I have nothing to say...
It was a village that was plagued with tigers until an
> English colonialist began hunting them.
In the television documentary that told us how the tigers are becoming
extinct, they showed villagers in a tiger-infested place. They had no
hatred for the tiger, only awe and reverence. Having awe and reverence for
the tiger made Indians a great people in the past, for the wonderful qualities
of the tiger was something to match, as they set such a high standard. Indeed,
the noble qualities existing in our literature have no doubt been influenced
by the quality of our wildlife. By destroying them, we become just monkeys.
After his death he was buried in
> a cemetery and ever after when tigers would pray on the poor villages
> they would put a cigar and a glass of brandy on the grave.
The only Britisher honoured for killing tigers was Jim Corbett. And he was
and is honoured (they have named a national park after him) because he
shot man-eating tigers, on foot. Unlike the colonialists who used hundred
of beaters and shot the tigers from elephants.
> He had in
> effect entered into their pantheon of gods and was "offered" appropriate
> gifts to defend them from tigers.
No doubt, this is an exercise in demeaning Hindus and Hinduism. A colonialist
experiment, quite familiar.
> Furthermore the Victorian interest in
> zoological gardens was founded partly on the wish to conserve...
...their egos?
> >Your hatred for the west is clouding
> >> your "open mind".
> >
> >I admire the good about the West, not the bad.
> >You are sadly descending to personal attacks, which are unfounded.
> >
>
> This was not a personal attack
Oh yes it was. You are imputing the quality of hatred to me. You are making
me look like an illogical hateful creature.
- i was remarking on how you condemn
> such things as a poem by Blake on the basis of its colonialism -
No, I condemned a line of a poem by Blake on the grounds of its being
intrinsically fuzzy nonsense at best, and very wicked at worst. I said
that such a line could be used to justify exploitation, such as
colonialism.
Arindam Banerjee.
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>
>One
>> more point - according to your theory mathematics makes a difference and
>> changes one for the better it seems - yet they are not a particularly
>> happy lot - i know of two who committed suicide. It seems their
>> knowledge in no way better equips them for life, we are governed by
>> fools - not mathematicians.
>
>without really needing to diagree, your comments lend themselves to a
>consideration if the old platonic parable of the cave. The mathematicians
>have ascended the heights of understanding, and are then forced to endure
>the pain of descending to the everyday world, and deal with fools - however
>necessary, of course, is this task.
No - they are just ordinary guys no better equipped in many respects
than anyone else. They may be good at their sums - but their
understanding (of other things) is often poor, like any obsessive.
One's expertise in a certain field is just that.
>
>>
>> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
>
>better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a crude
>question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
>
If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do i
want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or a
Socrates. It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make life
enjoyable.
>>
>>
>> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with science
>> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
>
>well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
>adulation of the aphorism.
It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
>I like rhetoric. I dislike logic. All good art is
>a form of rhetoric.
I'm in need of clarification - especially when you say *All* *good* art.
What often goes for good art these days was often first thought shoddy.
> Rhetoric has the greatest possibilities, but also
>greatest danger of directionless and shoddiness. This is why I believe it
>has to secured to understanding.
Again please help me over this with some examples. I really have
problems here - is understanding necessary to our appreciation of art,
clearly it should be of science?
>People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
>departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides philosophical
>vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is presumed
>dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
However this is still not art - or is it?
>
>'Women, children, animals - we must not be afraid of assimilations - do not
>just have a subject-consciousness, they have a kind of objective ironic
>presentiment that the category into which they have been placed does not
>exist'
>
>Now, there is no argument here in the traditional sense, moving from
>premises to conclusion. The argument is perfectly self-contained, simply a
>function of the concepts Baudrillard invokes. In this sense it is analytic,
>although rather at a remove from all bachelors are unmarried. Obviously you
>cannot argue 'analytically' whether or not particular individuals exist.
>This would be to misunderstand the sort of presumptions we are dealing with
>and Baudrillard subverts through the category of existence. The genius of
>the statement is in the assimilation. Obviously women believe they exist,
>and animal liberationists believe animals 'exist' (against the patriarchal
>structure)
Hold on - but do animals? And do things called women always believe they
exist. The nature of existence - and category here is being discussed
(or is attempted at) philosophically - so does the philosophy of
Baudrillard believe... and what is this but redundant metaphysics again.
Made to seem a little shocking.
>Baudrillard unites them in the commonplace of existence, which
>ironically nonetheless will be seen as either misogynistic or
>anthropomorphic. The beauty is we need not become embroiled in any of this,
>because there was no argument in any case and all interpretation is a
>super-imposition (as I said before, interpretation only takes place within a
>paradigm) All feminist, and animals rights, literature conversely tries to
>construct arguments, or moan, which is a fallacy.
>
How on earth can moaning be a fallacy. But i must admit this doesn't
follow from the Baudrillard quote - for me at least, it simply seems to
say that categories are arbitrary. But neither is the above art or
aphorism as far as i can see. The only irony i can find is the
consciousness of the subjective prejudice which one wishes to overcome.
In the case of the persecution of the Jews it might be possible to argue
that your not a Jew - but feminism accepts the title to which it
complains. I suppose it is then the argument over the differences in
rights etc. between Men and Women. But i don't see the need to say -
just because there is an implicit acceptance or denial of the term
"woman" - or "nigger" that it makes it "objective".
>I'm also interested in the very possibility of "theory". While art, in its
>extreme self-identicality (it equals nothing except itself) and its
>rhetorical likeness, pursues the same horizon as theory, art does not for
>the most part understand its genesis or its destination. Art invariably
>returns to itself (contemplation of itself.. perhaps for a new view, or a
>reminder of the original) whereas theory is conversely concerned with the
>flight to extremes. This is commonly held to be a presupposition of theory:
>that the world is moving to extremes. However, on the basis that the world
>does not perceive this (it is apathetic: things merely are the way they are,
>like the artwork) & necessarily only theory has the eyes to perceives the
>movement, how do we explain the possibility of theory in the first place?
>
I think the above - with big exceptions- may describe modern art - and
modern philosophy.
>Much postmodern theory is articulated in the form 'it is no longer the case
>that...', followed by a traditionally universalising analytic statement
>'e.g. power/sexuality/universals exists', or the contention that we are
>living in a unique age. Is this a fraud, or is it merely the only launchpad
>into radical theory? Assuming it is only a means to an end, then ultimately
>what are we to say about time? We believed in anti-cultural, spatio-temporal
>metaphysics all along?
>
>
Something along these lines i think is true.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>> happy to use "Internet" jargon -
>
>I used an abbreviation "btw" which is not jargon.
Of course it is. It relates to the Internet like SPAM etc.
> Jargon is "okay", under
>certain circumstances.
Why? And who makes and legitimates it?
> What you are doing is mutilating the language, and
>so corrupting the course of proper communication.
And the same could be said of using btw.
>
>> as i said english is a living language,
>> what kills a language is pedantry.
>
>What kills a language results from what uglifies it.
Well i know what you mean by uglifies it - but i'm not sure of its being
a "proper" word - and i'm not sure you can claim good grammar here at
all.
> Pedants (as primary
>schoolteachers) work hard to impart the ability of proper communication to
>children, in the hope that they will not turn out to be disaffected
>drug-pushers and mass murderers.
>
You don't understand the "proper" role of a school teacher - which is
not the pedantic instruction of communication - but the development of
the "full child." Having grammar beaten into a child will not prevent
latter criminal activity. Showing that they are valued by others might.
>> Humm? doesn't "the forgetting" in some way belong to you?
>>
>> > It is
>> >not
>> >mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
>> >machines and humans.
>>
>> Communication is not an issue - even between computers ASCII to BCD etc.
>
>Oh, it was an issue all right - till they had universally accepted standards.
>
Well if i say "your on fire" i guess you'd want to just burn.
>> as long as you see that my "your" is = "you are" - which you do! then
>> there is no bar to communication.
>
>Why not corrupt and debase everything else then, accordingly?
>
If that's how you regard evolution then everything else is. You are (:-)
a TV watcher .... "To boldly go" requires infinitive splitting! Make it
so!
>"your" is not "you are". You are creating confusion.
in who - you are not confused - neither am i on the matter - i'm a bit
sloppy on the net - like your btw. its o.k. in this context. Notice i'm
trying to get it right and so not annoy you. Gosh it seems so important
-more than the original discussion, or is it a red herring.
> And yes, you are
>annoying me by that, and if you do persist, I shall not reply any more, so
>there will be no more communication.
"if you persist" - i think the do is misplaced? It seems to be a
tautology.
>
>> >> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
>> >>
>> >> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
>> >
>> >A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
>> >of
>> >good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
>>
>> If only you could listen to yourself - its you who wants to behave so
>> sheepishly with regard to english grammar.
>
>Not sheepishly, correctly. We must have uniformity in basic methods of
>communication, to begin with. After that we want improvements, not debasements.
Blimey - that would have put paid to Shakespeare amongst many others!
>
>> Who says that poetry has to
>> have a purpose... it might and then it might not.
>
>Did I talk of purpose?
yes you did - its right there - about 16 lines above.
> I talked of logic. Purpose and logic are different
>things.
>
>> >> > When Blake uses the imaginary
>> >> >> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
>> >> >> of a just a logical tiger.
>> >> >
>> >> >He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
>> >> >Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
>> >> >tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
>> >> >logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
>> >>
>> >> The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
>> >> dispute - well is simply not true.
>> >
>> >What do you mean it is not true? The other day I saw a TV program
>> >here
>> >which told me that 60,000 tigers were killed by the British and their
>> >followers in India - they wanted to kill all the tigers.
>>
>> When i was studying Hinduism - a term which is not good in describing
>> the "religion" that westerns attempted to give a taxonomy to - an
>> interesting anecdote was related concerning local, house and village,
>> gods and deities.
>
>If that is what you know of "Hinduism" then I have nothing to say...
>
Its something - It was a university text which made the point that to
study a religion - even one we are familiar with - like Christianity -
to read about its doctrines etc. will in no way equip you for
understanding how its practitioners regard it. For instance many
Christians who regularly attend church are unaware of the meaning of the
immaculate conception - and of the 39 articles. Now an academic might
think that these are important to know about in order to understand the
faith. This would not be true however as it fails to appreciate the way
in which people live within the faith. That though we in the west would
assume some universal hierarchy of divinities within Hinduism - (the
word itself having no meaning in some cases) this is not the case in
practice.
>It was a village that was plagued with tigers until an
>> English colonialist began hunting them.
>
>In the television documentary that told us how the tigers are becoming
>extinct, they showed villagers in a tiger-infested place. They had no
>hatred for the tiger, only awe and reverence. Having awe and reverence for
>the tiger made Indians a great people in the past, for the wonderful qualities
>of the tiger was something to match, as they set such a high standard. Indeed,
>the noble qualities existing in our literature have no doubt been influenced
>by the quality of our wildlife. By destroying them, we become just monkeys.
Sounds like blatant propaganda - tiger hunting existed in India before
the Raj.
>
> After his death he was buried in
>> a cemetery and ever after when tigers would pray on the poor villages
>> they would put a cigar and a glass of brandy on the grave.
>
>The only Britisher honoured for killing tigers was Jim Corbett.
My example wasn't of him - so you are wrong on this matter i think.
> And he was
>and is honoured (they have named a national park after him) because he
>shot man-eating tigers, on foot. Unlike the colonialists who used hundred
>of beaters and shot the tigers from elephants.
Yes the colonialists adopted the existing traditions of the previous
rulers.
>
>> He had in
>> effect entered into their pantheon of gods and was "offered" appropriate
>> gifts to defend them from tigers.
>
>No doubt, this is an exercise in demeaning Hindus and Hinduism. A colonialist
>experiment, quite familiar.
Nothing like this - the catholic church has a pantheon of saints for
every conceivable problem. Your prejudiced attitude - no doubt supported
by state T.V. is dreadful.
>
>> Furthermore the Victorian interest in
>> zoological gardens was founded partly on the wish to conserve...
>
>...their egos?
the animals...
>
>> >Your hatred for the west is clouding
>> >> your "open mind".
>> >
>> >I admire the good about the West, not the bad.
>> >You are sadly descending to personal attacks, which are unfounded.
>> >
>>
>> This was not a personal attack
>
>Oh yes it was. You are imputing the quality of hatred to me. You are making
>me look like an illogical hateful creature.
I wouldn't go that far. But you seem to have nothing good to say of the
west.
>
>- i was remarking on how you condemn
>> such things as a poem by Blake on the basis of its colonialism -
>
>No, I condemned a line of a poem by Blake on the grounds of its being
>intrinsically fuzzy nonsense at best, and very wicked at worst. I said
>that such a line could be used to justify exploitation, such as
>colonialism.
Yes and this was not based on any sympathetic consideration of the poet
- who you called mad - but on your own bigotry.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>8...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
>> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>> >- snip -
>> >
>> >> >> So in discussing poetry the audiences individual responses are relevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >In poetry the audience does not matter. In drama, it does.
>> >>
>> >> Another opinion- you've never been to a poetry reading? - and if a poet
>> >> responds to an audience you'd simply say its not poetry...
>
>The creation of poetry has nothing to do with the audience. The
>recitation
>is a different matter - then poetry becomes drama, to the extent the
>audience is expected to be involved. It is high drama if the audience
>is
>expected to pay. When poetry is made under such expectation, then the
>creation process is not purely individualistic, so what comes out is
>not poetry
>but drama. A genuine poet has no audience.
You talk of agreement in communication then lay down an arbitrary rule
of your own making which rules out much of what is generally considered
poetry.
Just so - your own terms. And within these you are yet to show that the
proposition is true - that nothing is lost in translation. But then you
seemed to say it might be - but that contradicts your proposition.
>
>> You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
>> the open fields and hills.
>
>Very well. If you don't want my meaning for the sound "aphorism" let
>us
>find some other meaningful sound that makes my meaning in this
>language.
>"Laws", "axioms", "proverbs" etc. are not satisfying, in this matter.
Maybe logic is translatable as you see it - without loss of meaning - in
literature however the form does make a difference- that's all i was
offering. You cant accurately translate a sonnet into an equation.
>
>> >> >> >I never said that an aphorism is an epic. In an epic, we deal with
>> >> >> >opposite
>> >> >> >ideas.
>> >> >> And we can also in aphorisms.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then it is not an aphorism, it is something else. For an aphorism to make
>> >> >any sense, it cannot have intrinsic double meaning. However any meaning
>> >> >can be imparted to it, depending upon the reader's biases and how far he
>> >> >can stretch them.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know your definition above is not an example of bias and not
>> >> intrinsic.
>> >
>> >Because there are no obvious logical or factual discrepancies; because in
>> >this simple case it is just a definition. Quite axiomatic.
>>
>> There is a quite devastating error in your assertion that its not
>> possible to produce any test which would disprove it - in Popper's term.
>
>You cannot disprove any definition. If you did that, dictionaries
>would
>make no sense. We would become a bunch of apes, when we quit giving
>particular meanings to particular sounds. Popper or no Popper, that
>is what
>will happen.
I think you've lost the plot my friend. Take the proposition that a
noble gas is one that cannot be oxidized. This was disproved by doing
just that. Or Swans are white birds. The dictionary definition of
"Atom" has undergone some change.
>
>I make logical/factual constructions from definitions, to come to
>conclusions.
>This is very different from making baseless assertions.
>
>> Are you saying aphorisms can be nonsensical?
>
>No. I am saying exactly the opposite. An aphorism has to be clear and
>it
>must make sense.
But this is just something you've decided.
>
>> - or that this disqualifies
>> them, my dictionary gives a definition of "a pithy saying" which doesn't
>> follow that it has to make sense in the way you seem to want it to.
>
>Yes, "a pithy saying" is quite right. This implies that an aphorism
>is
>a substantial, worthy matter expressed in words. It gives a
>generality,
>which makes it cover laws, proverbs, axioms, and also constructions
>based
>upon same. Meaningless, or confusing stuff can never be pithy -
>though
>they may appear to have some meaning not visible to the naive or
>gullible
>throught their very inscrutability.
>
>> If as you maintain an aphorism's sense it completely translatable then
>> we need to think of the reason to use them in the first place.
>
>The translator translates, for that is what he wants to do. He
>probably thinks
>that someone somewhere sometime may appreciate his work, and find it
>useful.
You miss the point of "form".
>
>> To a mind
>> that cannot see anything of worth outside of such logic this is maybe
>> not possible.
>
>May be, or may be not, la. :) If the translator translates for the
>pure
>joy of it, without hope for gain, then why he should care for what
>narrow
>minds may or may not find possible.
hum!
>
>- snip -
>
>> >You presume too much, and see too little.
>> >
>> Maybe i'm not wishing to see as you do?
>
>Maybe you only see what you want to see.
>
>which seems to want to see
>> everything clearly - as a god?
>
>Certainly being as godlike as possible is the chief desire for any
>Hindu.
>This has been so for many thousands of years.
Desire!
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> of your own making which rules out much of what is generally considered
> poetry.
If you do not agree with the arbitrary rule then there is no further
communication on that issue.
- snip -
> Just so - your own terms. And within these you are yet to show that the
> proposition is true - that nothing is lost in translation.
I never said that "nothing is lost" in translation. I said that a translation
could be deemed less, equal or more than the original, depending upon who
is translating, and all dependant upon the opinion of one who is qualified
to understand the meanings of the original and the translation. Usually
translations of Indian poetry to English are very bad, and much is lost.
That does not mean that such must always happen.
> But then you
> seemed to say it might be - but that contradicts your proposition.
You put up your own proposition, not mine. If you really want to make
sense then please quote me, and then indicate the exact areas where your
unhappiness exists.
> >> You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
> >> the open fields and hills.
> >
> >Very well. If you don't want my meaning for the sound "aphorism" let
> >us
> >find some other meaningful sound that makes my meaning in this
> >language.
> >"Laws", "axioms", "proverbs" etc. are not satisfying, in this matter.
>
> Maybe logic is translatable as you see it - without loss of meaning - in
> literature however the form does make a difference- that's all i was
> offering. You cant accurately translate a sonnet into an equation.
Did I ever say that one could translate a sonnet into an equation? I may
translate a Rabindrasangeet into a sonnet, though. In fact, I think I did
that, once. I was talking about translating aphorisms into computer algorithms,
which are logical and mathematical constructions.
- snip -
> >You cannot disprove any definition. If you did that, dictionaries
> >would
> >make no sense. We would become a bunch of apes, when we quit giving
> >particular meanings to particular sounds. Popper or no Popper, that
> >is what
> >will happen.
>
> I think you've lost the plot my friend. Take the proposition that a
> noble gas is one that cannot be oxidized.
Was that a definition or a proposition? Is a noble gas defined as one
that cannot be oxidised, or one that naturally exists in an unoxidised
state?
I am not saying that dictionary definitions are immutable. The meanings
of words certainly change, but not rapidly.
> This was disproved by doing
> just that.
Yes, a wrong proposition was struck down. That usually happens, and should
happen. I hope to do the same thing with Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity. However, that process will not involve changing any meaning to
words, or screwing up grammar and mathematics.
Or Swans are white birds. The dictionary definition of
> "Atom" has undergone some change.
Hardly. The atom is still the smallest unit of matter relating to an element.
We cannot confuse between such a definition and theories relating to how
the atom is constituted.
> >I make logical/factual constructions from definitions, to come to
> >conclusions.
> >This is very different from making baseless assertions.
> >
> >> Are you saying aphorisms can be nonsensical?
> >
> >No. I am saying exactly the opposite. An aphorism has to be clear and
> >it
> >must make sense.
>
> But this is just something you've decided.
Certainly, following the dictionary meaning. There is no other word in
the language which conveys more than this, for the purpose. If there is
any other, then I'll stand corrected, and substitute all instances of
"aphorism" with say "ahorism". But then, that will be coining a word, and
one has to be a recognised great master to do that and get away with it.
> >> - or that this disqualifies
> >> them, my dictionary gives a definition of "a pithy saying" which doesn't
> >> follow that it has to make sense in the way you seem to want it to.
> >
> >Yes, "a pithy saying" is quite right. This implies that an aphorism
> >is
> >a substantial, worthy matter expressed in words. It gives a
> >generality,
> >which makes it cover laws, proverbs, axioms, and also constructions
> >based
> >upon same. Meaningless, or confusing stuff can never be pithy -
> >though
> >they may appear to have some meaning not visible to the naive or
> >gullible
> >throught their very inscrutability.
> >
> >> If as you maintain an aphorism's sense it completely translatable then
> >> we need to think of the reason to use them in the first place.
> >
> >The translator translates, for that is what he wants to do. He
> >probably thinks
> >that someone somewhere sometime may appreciate his work, and find it
> >useful.
>
> You miss the point of "form".
True, the form changes - that must be so, unless how can there be a
translation? We are concerned about the meaning, intent, content of the
original, expressed in different form, that may be understood by a
different audience.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >> Your welcome - You're getting so upset over a ' and an e, but are quite
> >> happy to use "Internet" jargon -
> >
> >I used an abbreviation "btw" which is not jargon.
>
> Of course it is. It relates to the Internet like SPAM etc.
It may relate to Usenet, but it means "By the way" which is not
jargon.
> > Jargon is "okay", under
> >certain circumstances.
>
> Why? And who makes and legitimates it?
It fosters a sense of camaraderie, among colleagues. It also makes
things
clear. So it can and does improve communication.
> > What you are doing is mutilating the language, and
> >so corrupting the course of proper communication.
>
> And the same could be said of using btw.
No, it is not a corruption of grammar and a fouling of the
communication
process, given the Usenet context. If I used it in an essay to be
published in a newspaper, then yes, it would not be understood and
would
mean a fouling of communication. In any case, an abbreviation is
never
a corruption of communication, unlike deliberate misuse of grammar.
> >> as i said english is a living language,
> >> what kills a language is pedantry.
> >
> >What kills a language results from what uglifies it.
>
> Well i know what you mean by uglifies it - but i'm not sure of its being
> a "proper" word - and i'm not sure you can claim good grammar here at
> all.
You understand what I mean - that is good! I have added to the
language,
not corrupted or subtracted anything.
> > Pedants (as primary
> >schoolteachers) work hard to impart the ability of proper communication to
> >children, in the hope that they will not turn out to be disaffected
> >drug-pushers and mass murderers.
> >
> You don't understand the "proper" role of a school teacher -
I do understand - I am married to a school teacher.
> which is
> not the pedantic instruction of communication - but the development of
> the "full child." Having grammar beaten into a child will not prevent
> latter criminal activity. Showing that they are valued by others might.
And why should anyone value someone "normal" who cannot even speak
properly, let
alone write?
> >> Humm? doesn't "the forgetting" in some way belong to you?
> >>
> >> > It is
> >> >not
> >> >mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
> >> >machines and humans.
> >>
> >> Communication is not an issue - even between computers ASCII to BCD etc.
> >
> >Oh, it was an issue all right - till they had universally accepted standards.
> >
>
> Well if i say "your on fire" i guess you'd want to just burn.
Here you are speaking, not writing.
> >> as long as you see that my "your" is = "you are" - which you do! then
> >> there is no bar to communication.
> >
> >Why not corrupt and debase everything else then, accordingly?
> >
>
> If that's how you regard evolution then everything else is. You are (:-)
> a TV watcher .... "To boldly go" requires infinitive splitting! Make it
> so!
They are spoken, not written - and then they go well with the mood of
the drama.
So they do not amount to any unnecessary fouling or wilful debasement
of
the communication process.
>
> >"your" is not "you are". You are creating confusion.
> in who - you are not confused - neither am i on the matter - i'm a bit
> sloppy on the net - like your btw. its o.k. in this context. Notice i'm
> trying to get it right and so not annoy you. Gosh it seems so important
> -more than the original discussion, or is it a red herring.
>
> > And yes, you are
> >annoying me by that, and if you do persist, I shall not reply any more, so
> >there will be no more communication.
>
> "if you persist" - i think the do is misplaced? It seems to be a
> tautology.
It was placed for emphasis, and to indicate that I had been irritated
by similar past behaviour. Anyway, English is not my language; it is
an
unfortunate colonial imposition, and I am not obliged to attain
perfection
in this medium.
> >> >> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
> >> >
> >> >A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
> >> >of
> >> >good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
> >>
> >> If only you could listen to yourself - its you who wants to behave so
> >> sheepishly with regard to english grammar.
> >
> >Not sheepishly, correctly. We must have uniformity in basic methods of
> >communication, to begin with. After that we want improvements, not debasements.
>
> Blimey - that would have put paid to Shakespeare amongst many others!
He certainly added much to the language, though I often lament his
usage of same. Far too wordy. Marlowe was better.
> >> Who says that poetry has to
> >> have a purpose... it might and then it might not.
> >
> >Did I talk of purpose?
>
> yes you did - its right there - about 16 lines above.
No, I did not. As I wrote below, and above, I talked of logic.
> > I talked of logic. Purpose and logic are different
> >things.
So there.
> >> >> > When Blake uses the imaginary
> >> >> >> of a "Burning Tiger" it creates deliberately an image greater than that
> >> >> >> of a just a logical tiger.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He had no idea of an actual tiger, let alone a logical tiger. When the
> >> >> >Brits who presumably read his works came to India, they killed as many
> >> >> >tigers as they could. Since the tigers did not do them harm, one can
> >> >> >logically state that morally they were worse than the tigers.
> >> >>
> >> >> The poem is nothing to do with the history you relate - which is open to
> >> >> dispute - well is simply not true.
> >> >
> >> >What do you mean it is not true? The other day I saw a TV program
> >> >here
> >> >which told me that 60,000 tigers were killed by the British and their
> >> >followers in India - they wanted to kill all the tigers.
> >>
> >> When i was studying Hinduism - a term which is not good in describing
> >> the "religion" that westerns attempted to give a taxonomy to - an
> >> interesting anecdote was related concerning local, house and village,
> >> gods and deities.
> >
> >If that is what you know of "Hinduism" then I have nothing to say...
> >
> Its something - It was a university text which made the point that to
> study a religion - even one we are familiar with - like Christianity -
> to read about its doctrines etc. will in no way equip you for
> understanding how its practitioners regard it.
So it is okay to regard them a bunch of cowardly and superstitious
fools,
especially when you are out to rob them. Gives you that much of a
better conscience.
obArticle: "About ugly idols", a missionary progaganda item in
"Little Wide Awake - An anthology of Victorian Childrens' Literature".
> For instance many
> Christians who regularly attend church are unaware of the meaning of the
> immaculate conception - and of the 39 articles. Now an academic might
> think that these are important to know about in order to understand the
> faith. This would not be true however as it fails to appreciate the way
> in which people live within the faith. That though we in the west would
> assume some universal hierarchy of divinities within Hinduism -
Big assumption!
> (the
> word itself having no meaning in some cases) this is not the case in
> practice.
>
> >It was a village that was plagued with tigers until an
> >> English colonialist began hunting them.
> >
> >In the television documentary that told us how the tigers are becoming
> >extinct, they showed villagers in a tiger-infested place. They had no
> >hatred for the tiger, only awe and reverence. Having awe and reverence for
> >the tiger made Indians a great people in the past, for the wonderful qualities
> >of the tiger was something to match, as they set such a high standard. Indeed,
> >the noble qualities existing in our literature have no doubt been influenced
> >by the quality of our wildlife. By destroying them, we become just monkeys.
>
> Sounds like blatant propaganda - tiger hunting existed in India before
> the Raj.
Not on such an organised scale, with elephants and beaters and high
power
rifles. Anyway, the figure of 60,000 tigers shot during the Raj, and
the
map showing diminishing of tiger territory, is not my imagination - it
comes
from the television documentary. It is not propaganda. In so many
photos
I have seen British pose over dead tigers, and I have seen a photo of
King
George on an elephant, with the caption reading how many tigers he had
shot. It is true that many Indian rajas and nabobs followed this
practice,
taking the lead from the British.
> > After his death he was buried in
> >> a cemetery and ever after when tigers would pray on the poor villages
> >> they would put a cigar and a glass of brandy on the grave.
> >
> >The only Britisher honoured for killing tigers was Jim Corbett.
>
> My example wasn't of him - so you are wrong on this matter i think.
I am not wrong about Jim Corbett. There is a national park in India
named
after him. As for your miserable anecdote, no one knows that in
modern India. It is
nothing in comparison to what Jim Corbett did, and is remembered for.
> > And he was
> >and is honoured (they have named a national park after him) because he
> >shot man-eating tigers, on foot. Unlike the colonialists who used hundred
> >of beaters and shot the tigers from elephants.
>
> Yes the colonialists adopted the existing traditions of the previous
> rulers.
No, Sher Shah earned his name after killing a tiger on foot without
any
firearms. It may be true that beaters and elephants were used by
prior
foreign elements such as the Mughals (Mongols). It is not unnatural
that
the worst of their habits were taken up by the British.
> >> He had in
> >> effect entered into their pantheon of gods and was "offered" appropriate
> >> gifts to defend them from tigers.
> >
> >No doubt, this is an exercise in demeaning Hindus and Hinduism. A colonialist
> >experiment, quite familiar.
>
> Nothing like this - the catholic church has a pantheon of saints for
> every conceivable problem. Your prejudiced attitude - no doubt supported
> by state T.V. is dreadful.
So when I object to an anecdote showing Hindus as cowardly, fearful
creatures,
I am prejudiced. Did you write anything positive about the natives?
No.
Your object was to demean. You are prejudiced, and to be fair I cannot
really
blame you.
The fact is that Hindu villagers and tigers have lived in relative
harmony
for many thousands of years. When "Bagh Mama" (Maternal Uncle Tiger)
would pay
a visit - only to inquire about the health of the cattle, nothing more
- the
lady of the house would chase him away with a broom or whatever she
could
find. She was far more afraid of hyaenas and jackals, who would sneak
up
and carry off the baby.
The tigers avoid humans as much as they can - it is rare sight. Only
when
they turn old, or get injured, that they turn to the villages for
cattle.
And only very rarely do they become man-eaters. In a well-provided
jungle,
tigers are rarely seen.
obBook: Anything by Jim Corbett, most famous being "Man Eaters of
Kumaon".
>
> >
> >> Furthermore the Victorian interest in
> >> zoological gardens was founded partly on the wish to conserve...
> >
> >...their egos?
>
> the animals...
> >> >Your hatred for the west is clouding
> >> >> your "open mind".
> >> >
> >> >I admire the good about the West, not the bad.
> >> >You are sadly descending to personal attacks, which are unfounded.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This was not a personal attack
> >
> >Oh yes it was. You are imputing the quality of hatred to me. You are making
> >me look like an illogical hateful creature.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. But you seem to have nothing good to say of the
> west.
Not when it comes to the thirdworld, no. Otherwise, I do admire their
ability to build, to organise, their system of fairness in laws
(though
that applies only to them and their supporters). I admire them for
making the piano, but I do not completely admire their ways of playing
it.
In short, I admire their hardware, not software. Life becomes very
good
for me, here, because I have learnt to use their hardware, using my
own software. So I use their microwave oven/oven etc., their
supermarkets,
their various gadgets to make such Indian food which would have been
much
more difficult to cook in India. I am happy to hear Indian songs and
music
on good sound systems. I am pleased with the Usenet!
So there.
> >- i was remarking on how you condemn
> >> such things as a poem by Blake on the basis of its colonialism -
> >
> >No, I condemned a line of a poem by Blake on the grounds of its being
> >intrinsically fuzzy nonsense at best, and very wicked at worst. I said
> >that such a line could be used to justify exploitation, such as
> >colonialism.
>
> Yes and this was not based on any sympathetic consideration of the poet
> - who you called mad - but on your own bigotry.
What bigotry? You cannot be a bigot unless you subscribe to some
dogma,
and I have no dogma. You are confusing my distaste for exploitation
with
a bigoted attitude.
As for Blake, he did write some good lines, but his poem on the tiger
really
sucks. On the whole, I do not feel any sympathy for him. A poet
should
know what he is writing about.
Arindam Banerjee
Lewis Mammel
James Whitehead wrote:
>
> ................. - the catholic church has a pantheon of saints for
> every conceivable problem. .....
wow.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
atto
James Whitehead wrote ...
> In article <a5bltm$t4k$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, atto
> <ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
> >James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> >One
> >> more point - according to your theory mathematics makes a difference
and
> >> changes one for the better it seems - yet they are not a particularly
> >> happy lot - i know of two who committed suicide. It seems their
> >> knowledge in no way better equips them for life, we are governed by
> >> fools - not mathematicians.
> >
> >without really needing to diagree, your comments lend themselves to a
> >consideration if the old platonic parable of the cave. The mathematicians
> >have ascended the heights of understanding, and are then forced to endure
> >the pain of descending to the everyday world, and deal with fools -
however
> >necessary, of course, is this task.
>
> No - they are just ordinary guys no better equipped in many respects
> than anyone else. They may be good at their sums - but their
> understanding (of other things) is often poor, like any obsessive.
> One's expertise in a certain field is just that.
You're confusing mathamatics with arithmetic. Its like the difference
between giving the right change and macro-economic theory. Indeed,
ecomonists presume people can give the right change - its part of their
model - although the public participate in a model without the barest
conception they are doing anything of the sort - only arithmetic.
You're also once again describing mathematics as merely a field, like you
did with science, the implication they have no signification outside of the
fields thesmelves. This standpoint is always the point of view of someone
outside the field, say X, who content themselves that its practioners are
engaged in either an irrelvance, or just merely the activity of "X", in a
self-reflexive fashion. (Scientists do science). Its like with philosophy.
People have this conception that there is this activity called philosophy,
or neatly demarcated subject-matter called 'philosophy'. From within
philosophy of course nothing is so ludicrous.
Part of the problem of course is inter-disclinary boundaries. Disciplines
are granted autonomy on the understanding they do not disrupt any other
disciplinary boundaries. Within a discipline itself, of course, every
discipline believes in the totality of its signification, although political
correctness determines practitioners keep themselves to themselves. Hence
the pain of returning to the cave, on the platonic parable.
Going right back to Pythagoras mathematics was believed to embody the
fundamental structure of reality. In recent times fractal geometry has
demonstrated that the world is structured according to fractals. This is to
say, mathematics has real signification (e.g. in nature), and, even total
from the point of view of the (mathematical) universe. For instance,
medieval philosophy sought to understand the symmetric relation between the
microcosm (e.g. the earthly realm) and the macrocosm (e.g. the cosmos). The
very fractal relation of self-similarity models a microsm within a macrosm
(imagine zooming iin on a mandelbrot). Similarly, 20th C Existentialists
such as Merly-Ponty made pronouncements such as I am entirely in My World,
and My World is entirely in me. Only fractal mathematics would have the
capacity to precisely model such a sentiment beyond such verbal airy
paradoxicality (as befits so much art and philosophy).
> >
> >>
> >> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
> >
> >better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a
crude
> >question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
> >
> If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
> impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do i
> want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or a
> Socrates.
I say again there is no choice but to understand everything or nothing. So
Socrates claimed to know nothing? But did he know this? Perhaps either
possibility yields a contradiction, yet he needs an answer if he is to be
coherent in the first place. Indeed, much philosophy is grounded on the idea
that we do suceed in making sense in everyday life, the question is how,
otherwise we simply wouldn't make sense in the first place. Understanding is
thereby an imperative (not a luxury) if we are to be sure we can make sense.
If mathematics can prove some proof to be unknowable, then at least it
understands that, and the chain of understanding is complete. A chink in the
chain brings the whole edifice down. Ignorance and bluffing invariably
catches one out. Just as conmen go to jail. (If they don't, they're
obviously too clever).
With regard to your contention that it is somehow ridiculous to want to
understand everything, I say again, we must learn the lesson of the pensee
sauvage. It has been man's imperative to understand everything since time
immerorial. Even if the sea and the stars can merely be put in some
conceptual relationship, then there is a total structure of understanding.
Without this man is adrift in the world.
> It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
> have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make life
> enjoyable.
You're quite perversely attempting to justify your life (just the 'right'
amount of dissatisfaction!) in terms which lack any external justification.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with science
> >> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
> >
> >well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
> >adulation of the aphorism.
>
> It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
I said that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific understanding. You
were the one to pick me on science because you bore a prejudice against
science. I was merely justifying myself.
>
>
> >I like rhetoric. I dislike logic. All good art is
> >a form of rhetoric.
>
> I'm in need of clarification - especially when you say *All* *good* art.
> What often goes for good art these days was often first thought shoddy.
Evidently we divine something in the art which was not at first apparent. I
daresay art is prone to being the subject of misunderstanding...
>
> > Rhetoric has the greatest possibilities, but also
> >greatest danger of directionless and shoddiness. This is why I believe it
> >has to secured to understanding.
>
> Again please help me over this with some examples. I really have
> problems here - is understanding necessary to our appreciation of art,
> clearly it should be of science?
It depends how you define appreciation of art. Does a dog turd help you to
some new insight? The nature of art, of course, is that anything can count
as art, even dog turds no less. A random piece of shit, in general, is a
fraud though and does not qualify as rhetoric, in the same way that monkeys
do not randomly churn out Shakespeare. What counts as logic, conversely, is
far more constrained, and constraining as a result.
>
> >People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
> >departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides philosophical
> >vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is
presumed
> >dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
>
> However this is still not art - or is it?
Why not? (Or is it?)
>
> >
> >'Women, children, animals - we must not be afraid of assimilations - do
not
> >just have a subject-consciousness, they have a kind of objective ironic
> >presentiment that the category into which they have been placed does not
> >exist'
> >
> >Now, there is no argument here in the traditional sense, moving from
> >premises to conclusion. The argument is perfectly self-contained, simply
a
> >function of the concepts Baudrillard invokes. In this sense it is
analytic,
> >although rather at a remove from all bachelors are unmarried. Obviously
you
> >cannot argue 'analytically' whether or not particular individuals exist.
> >This would be to misunderstand the sort of presumptions we are dealing
with
> >and Baudrillard subverts through the category of existence. The genius of
> >the statement is in the assimilation. Obviously women believe they exist,
> >and animal liberationists believe animals 'exist' (against the
patriarchal
> >structure)
>
> Hold on - but do animals? And do things called women always believe they
> exist.
Baudrillard believes they hold a objective ironic presentiment of existence.
Obviously a radical idea. We are presupposing of course that women exist in
the usual sense. Feel free to argue against.
Why do you separate animals? Women and children are just as much distinct
categories. You mean because animals are not humans? Their 'category' does
not exist then. I believe thats the whole point.
> The nature of existence - and category here is being discussed
> (or is attempted at) philosophically - so does the philosophy of
> Baudrillard believe... and what is this but redundant metaphysics again.
On the contrary, metaphysics which is on the ball and radically up to the
minute. How much metaphysics can say that for itself.
Not that your sentence terribly makes sense by the way. Rather redundant
itself.
> Made to seem a little shocking.
True metaphysics must be conservative, is it? Or are you just confessing
that ur a little shocked?
>
> >Baudrillard unites them in the commonplace of existence, which
> >ironically nonetheless will be seen as either misogynistic or
> >anthropomorphic. The beauty is we need not become embroiled in any of
this,
> >because there was no argument in any case and all interpretation is a
> >super-imposition (as I said before, interpretation only takes place
within a
> >paradigm) All feminist, and animals rights, literature conversely tries
to
> >construct arguments, or moan, which is a fallacy.
> >
>
> How on earth can moaning be a fallacy.
It tries to pass itself off as argument. In itself it just fails to achieve
anything. For example, when feminists moan women on average are not paid as
much as men, then they confuse a statement of fact - a comparison of
categories - with an argument. They fail to engage with their own ironic
presentiment of existence, perhaps utilise it as a strength. Somewhere along
the line, furthermore, feminists invariably wish to root their 'argument' in
the idea that we 'obviously' live in a patriarchy, we just do, the source of
all evils.
> But i must admit this doesn't
> follow from the Baudrillard quote - for me at least, it simply seems to
> say that categories are arbitrary.
I didn't say it did follow. I'm simply placing it my personal context. On
the contrary, I argued that nothing followed from his quote.
So, how can they be arbitrary if they all such 'arbitrary' categories have
functional non-existence in common? This, to be fair, is the idea of the
quote. This is the genius of his assimilation. Arbitrary categories will
>exist< unproblematically because they are irrelevant, like Borges'
fictional 21 categories of Chinese classification (e.g. embalmed, stray
dogs, fabulous etc), ie in the name of classifying existence. Non-arbitrary
categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men, women,
children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as innocent, for
instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
> But neither is the above art or
> aphorism as far as i can see. The only irony i can find is the
> consciousness of the subjective prejudice which one wishes to overcome.
What is ironic is that you are unthinkingly taking the position of the
'subject', which is constituted by the adult male, and reinforcing it. Have
you the concept of a female subject-position? Baudrillard is interested in
the very fate of the object. Here the true irony lies.
> In the case of the persecution of the Jews it might be possible to argue
> that your not a Jew - but feminism accepts the title to which it
> complains.
This would only go to prove that women accept the innately patriarchal
category of women. Thus 'moaning' will only go to be subsumed under the
female category and fail to transcend it. Just as in the the pay-complaint,
the moan merely serves to confirm the binary logic of gender. For hundreds
of years women complained about their lot but were always thought unladylike
for it, such that it merely confirmed people's prejudices concerning the
necessary subordination of the female gender. (Catch 22)
> I suppose it is then the argument over the differences in
> rights etc. between Men and Women.
Not at all. The irony is within feminist literature men don't actually
exist, if you happen to have read any. Men are only relevant in so far they
have a bearing on the female experience. Men in themselves function as pure
signs of patriarchy (the given reality for feminism, its raison d'etre).
"Objectivity" is in any case thought a male construct.
If it there were merely an issue of 'men and women', the ideology would be
humanism, not feminism.
> But i don't see the need to say -
> just because there is an implicit acceptance or denial of the term
> "woman" - or "nigger" that it makes it "objective".
Thats the whole point. Objectivity transcends categories. What is objective
is the thing in itself. Being me is objective solely from my point of view,
from everyone else's (the rest of the world's) i exist under categories. I
would seem to fall down by weight of numbers, yet what is ironic is that i
do in actual fact exist. In the case of women (as opposed to nigger) it is a
necessary classificatory category in any case, there is no choice but to
accept it. The declaration 'I am a woman' is thereby superficial and no
proof of existence.
So you do believe metaphyics is redundant (ur usual drop-in position) or you
don't? Make up ur mind, please.
Atto
James Whitehead
>F...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
>> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
>> >> Your welcome - You're getting so upset over a ' and an e, but are quite
>> >> happy to use "Internet" jargon -
>> >
>> >I used an abbreviation "btw" which is not jargon.
>>
>> Of course it is. It relates to the Internet like SPAM etc.
>
>It may relate to Usenet, but it means "By the way" which is not
>jargon.
>
>> > Jargon is "okay", under
>> >certain circumstances.
>>
>> Why? And who makes and legitimates it?
>
>It fosters a sense of camaraderie, among colleagues. It also makes
>things
>clear. So it can and does improve communication.
Slang - which BTW is an example does form a sense of camaraderie - which
is always at the expense of excluding others. For instance Cockney
Rhyming slang was developed to exclude Irish immigrants from the local
east enders conversations, Homosexuals developed another language to do
much the same and avoid arrest. Within any language accents and usage
will mean quite allot, i'm often criticised by ex public school boys for
my bad grammar, its a form elitism and snobbishness. It moves the focus
from the message to the social status of the person- excluding anyone
who doesn't have these credentials. I'm aware that in India being able
to speak English is highly thought of socially- and its adopted by
middle classes as a token of their superiority. Much the same way in
Britain if you enter a Welsh bar the locals immediately switch from
English to Welsh if they recognise a stranger.
>
>> > What you are doing is mutilating the language, and
>> >so corrupting the course of proper communication.
>>
>> And the same could be said of using btw.
>
>No, it is not a corruption of grammar and a fouling of the
>communication
>process, given the Usenet context. If I used it in an essay to be
>published in a newspaper, then yes, it would not be understood and
>would
>mean a fouling of communication. In any case, an abbreviation is
>never
>a corruption of communication, unlike deliberate misuse of grammar.
same follows for my annoying habit of using "your", which i have tried
to stop doing. It was never deliberate - you might as well say someone
with a speech impediment is annoying and not worth talking to - or
someone who for that matter hasn't a BBC accent. Such attitudes are
deeply ingrained in the English - and Indian (still it seems) cultures.
>
>> >> as i said english is a living language,
>> >> what kills a language is pedantry.
>> >
>> >What kills a language results from what uglifies it.
>>
>> Well i know what you mean by uglifies it - but i'm not sure of its being
>> a "proper" word - and i'm not sure you can claim good grammar here at
>> all.
>
>You understand what I mean - that is good! I have added to the
>language,
>not corrupted or subtracted anything.
And you always understood what i meant when i used *your* - but neither
so much adds - its just that we have sufficient redundancy in our
language to correct any errors. Whether these errors form the impetus
for evolution of the language is interesting, like the mutations of
biology.. may well create new forms. Are you familiar with the story
behind the spelling of ghost. What's your spelling of colour or centre?
>
>> > Pedants (as primary
>> >schoolteachers) work hard to impart the ability of proper communication to
>> >children, in the hope that they will not turn out to be disaffected
>> >drug-pushers and mass murderers.
>> >
>> You don't understand the "proper" role of a school teacher -
>
>I do understand - I am married to a school teacher.
I don't think that's sufficient basis for legitimating what primary
education should be. I would want some study at least of child
development - and some basic psychology to begin.
Then want to know something of your aims- you have elsewhere shown a
degree of indifference (even hostility) to others - especially those not
so "open minded". Look how you picked on my "bad grammar" - but hey
what's happened to your "uglifies". Are you just a snob? And i mean this
not as an insult - its a genuine question.
>
>> which is
>> not the pedantic instruction of communication - but the development of
>> the "full child." Having grammar beaten into a child will not prevent
>> latter criminal activity. Showing that they are valued by others might.
>
>And why should anyone value someone "normal" who cannot even speak
>properly, let
>alone write?
Because they *are* a human being - Both Ghandi and Christ teach this.
I'm getting a creepy feeling about you.
>
>> >> Humm? doesn't "the forgetting" in some way belong to you?
>> >>
>> >> > It is
>> >> >not
>> >> >mine, but I do value proper communication, as it is good for both
>> >> >machines and humans.
>> >>
>> >> Communication is not an issue - even between computers ASCII to BCD etc.
>> >
>> >Oh, it was an issue all right - till they had universally accepted standards.
>> >
>>
>> Well if i say "your on fire" i guess you'd want to just burn.
>
>Here you are speaking, not writing.
And above you said if you didn't like they way i spoke you wouldn't
value me. But would you value what i said? or in your arrogance just
burn to death? I think this poses a real dilemma for you either way.
>
>> >> as long as you see that my "your" is = "you are" - which you do! then
>> >> there is no bar to communication.
>> >
>> >Why not corrupt and debase everything else then, accordingly?
>> >
>>
>> If that's how you regard evolution then everything else is. You are (:-)
>> a TV watcher .... "To boldly go" requires infinitive splitting! Make it
>> so!
>
>They are spoken, not written - and then they go well with the mood of
>the drama.
Once again you included spoken in your devaluation of a person above, so
you appear to contradict yourself. Anyway the line in Star Trek was
written - before being spoken.
>So they do not amount to any unnecessary fouling or wilful debasement
>of
>the communication process.
They created much fuss in the UK as they debased good English.
>>
>> >"your" is not "you are". You are creating confusion.
>> in who - you are not confused - neither am i on the matter - i'm a bit
>> sloppy on the net - like your btw. its o.k. in this context. Notice i'm
>> trying to get it right and so not annoy you. Gosh it seems so important
>> -more than the original discussion, or is it a red herring.
>>
>> > And yes, you are
>> >annoying me by that, and if you do persist, I shall not reply any more, so
>> >there will be no more communication.
>>
>> "if you persist" - i think the do is misplaced? It seems to be a
>> tautology.
>
>It was placed for emphasis, and to indicate that I had been irritated
>by similar past behaviour. Anyway, English is not my language; it is
>an
>unfortunate colonial imposition, and I am not obliged to attain
>perfection
>in this medium.
Oh - so you can make mistakes because your Indian - and English was
imposed on you by the British - well only if you were born before 1947.
After that date the excuse is just that.. But again a majority of
English users use "color" and "center" are they wrong - does this
prevent them from perfection. As for being "unfortunate" - well i'd say
its been fortunate - i happen to have been brought up in England - and
so also have the benefit of the lingua franca ("American") being my
native language. German and French ex colonial states have three
languages to bother with at least. Such ingratitude - reminds me of the
Monty Python "What have the Romans ever done for us....." sketch.
>
>> >> >> >Good poetry is never really illogical.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another opinion masquerading as a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >A fact deliberately screwed by those who wish to corrupt the purpose
>> >> >of
>> >> >good poetry, and wish to convert humanity to media-driven sheep.
>> >>
>> >> If only you could listen to yourself - its you who wants to behave so
>> >> sheepishly with regard to english grammar.
>> >
>> >Not sheepishly, correctly. We must have uniformity in basic methods of
>> >communication, to begin with. After that we want improvements, not
>debasements.
>>
>> Blimey - that would have put paid to Shakespeare amongst many others!
>
>He certainly added much to the language, though I often lament his
>usage of same. Far too wordy. Marlowe was better.
What about both of them and their constant bad English and miss-
spellings?
No - i would regard them as having a culture which is particular even
down to having family gods - i'm particularly touched by the sincerity
of the "ordinariness" of their relationship to the "holy". I was always
impressed by the high culture of Hinduism - and its music - it was a
great gift for us in England. But how this is practised in the various
themes we call Hinduism is both interesting and enlightening. Very much
a "living" religion - and not wrapped up in dead dogma - at the level of
the "ordinary". The class of Englishmen that robbed these did the same
to ordinary folk in England, they - the establishment - are not my
heroes - despite their mastery of the English language.
>
>obArticle: "About ugly idols", a missionary progaganda item in
>"Little Wide Awake - An anthology of Victorian Childrens' Literature".
Sure i'm probably in complete agreement on the nature of English
missionary work. Its best to condemn the whole lot - despite this not
being perhaps justified. No one these days is able to give a fair
appraisal of colonialism. However lets see how the Americans do - they
don't seem to want to hang about - or engage in the local culture.
Only time - maybe - will help - as i said "what did the Romans ever do
for us" We no longer see the roman colonisation of Britain so cut and
dried as you seem to regard the British colonisation of the Indian sub-
continent. Before you go off - much the same "problems" can be raised in
the judgement of the industrial revolution and the working classes in
the UK.
>
>> For instance many
>> Christians who regularly attend church are unaware of the meaning of the
>> immaculate conception - and of the 39 articles. Now an academic might
>> think that these are important to know about in order to understand the
>> faith. This would not be true however as it fails to appreciate the way
>> in which people live within the faith. That though we in the west would
>> assume some universal hierarchy of divinities within Hinduism -
>
>Big assumption!
Yes and wrong - so i'm led to believe - some villagers not even being
aware of some of the "Bigger" names. Within the High Church here - Mary
"seems" to take predominance... I live in a village which has the most
important shrine to her in the U.K. (well we have two - one *Roman* one
C of E ish)
Firstly Tiger hunting was around before the Raj - that it was better
organised is not in question. We organised everything!... (how the
British East India Company slowly took over from the Mogul empire is
interesting...) Or that the Upper Classes enjoy hunting, they still do!
there is a current debate here about banning fox hunting. Another
interesting tangent - but hunting seems to be the sport of the upper and
lower classes - but not the middle. We have no big animals left in the
UK - all hunted to extinction. What are the figures for the tiger
population since 1947? I would presume a steady rise?
>
>> > After his death he was buried in
>> >> a cemetery and ever after when tigers would pray on the poor villages
>> >> they would put a cigar and a glass of brandy on the grave.
>> >
>> >The only Britisher honoured for killing tigers was Jim Corbett.
>>
>> My example wasn't of him - so you are wrong on this matter i think.
>
>I am not wrong about Jim Corbett. There is a national park in India
>named
>after him. As for your miserable anecdote, no one knows that in
>modern India. It is
>nothing in comparison to what Jim Corbett did, and is remembered for.
miserable eh! Your the first Indian i've met who has been so rude.. its
maybe an internet thing.
Yes - because it actually shows that religion as practised thus is very
particular and closely bound in their cultural matrix - that was the
point of the text, and to appreciate the value of such practice. That
unlike the Vedas - which can appear cold and distant - and academic -
the description of a mother in her kitchen practising her religion is
very alive - real - human - beautiful - meaningful - in a way that is
hard to describe. Sure some sneer and call it superstition- they do the
same for Catholics and their plastic virgins on top of the TV sets. I
don't. Its usually the pseudo- intellectual who regards others - and
their faith so. So i think you are prejudiced - almost ashamed that this
form of devotion should exist. However I find it admirable.
>Did you write anything positive about the natives?
>No.
The anecdote was to try to get over to a western mind that expects to
see a structure - that it might not be there - like the lack of a clear
separation between philosophy and religion. To regard another culture
using ones own framework will skew the result. It was therefore
important to me in studying other religions to worship with them - not
just read the texts. And i would say such experiences are more valuable,
not to demean the academic study, but to contextualise it.
Your sound system is probably Japanese. :-)
As for fairness in laws - well no - our laws are roman - and property
based, our religions are from the middle east and beyond in the main.
Our philosophy from Greece.
>
>> >- i was remarking on how you condemn
>> >> such things as a poem by Blake on the basis of its colonialism -
>> >
>> >No, I condemned a line of a poem by Blake on the grounds of its being
>> >intrinsically fuzzy nonsense at best, and very wicked at worst. I said
>> >that such a line could be used to justify exploitation, such as
>> >colonialism.
>>
>> Yes and this was not based on any sympathetic consideration of the poet
>> - who you called mad - but on your own bigotry.
>
>What bigotry? You cannot be a bigot unless you subscribe to some
>dogma,
>and I have no dogma. You are confusing my distaste for exploitation
>with
>a bigoted attitude.
Well for one you assume that the third world is separate to the first -
as if here we have no poverty - crime - disease - exploitation...
>
>As for Blake, he did write some good lines, but his poem on the tiger
>really
>sucks. On the whole, I do not feel any sympathy for him. A poet
>should
>know what he is writing about.
>
your line wrap seems to have gone wrong - very annoying.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> writes
My prayers to the saint of "is semiotics a science" has worked!
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>> of your own making which rules out much of what is generally considered
>> poetry.
>
>If you do not agree with the arbitrary rule then there is no further
>communication on that issue.
There isn't if i agree with it.
>
>- snip -
>
>> Just so - your own terms. And within these you are yet to show that the
>> proposition is true - that nothing is lost in translation.
>
>I never said that "nothing is lost" in translation. I said that a translation
>could be deemed less, equal or more than the original,
... but this is completely at odds with computer algorithms - especially
modern object orientated systems.
> depending upon who
>is translating, and all dependant upon the opinion of one who is qualified
>to understand the meanings of the original and the translation. Usually
>translations of Indian poetry to English are very bad, and much is lost.
>That does not mean that such must always happen.
Again - then these are not essentially algorithms.
>
>> But then you
>> seemed to say it might be - but that contradicts your proposition.
>
>You put up your own proposition, not mine. If you really want to make
>sense then please quote me, and then indicate the exact areas where your
>unhappiness exists.
I've done this - its your equation of an Aphorism with a *definite*
logical proposition and so translatable into a computer algorithm. Then
you say translations can be less or more. A computer algorithm can be
expressed in a variety of ways - with no loss - or addition - the means
of expression is therefore arbitrary. I'm saying that this in my opinion
is not true of the aphorism - you don't agree? - that like poetry its
form contributes to its meaning- and so change of form changes meaning.
Why did for instance want to use the form - because of its power - its
directness? So if we translate and expand on the aphorism this
directness is lost - while its meanings explored.
"To close your ears to even the best counter-argument once the decision
has been taken: the sign of a string character. Thus an occasional will
to stupidity."
>
>> >> You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
>> >> the open fields and hills.
>> >
>> >Very well. If you don't want my meaning for the sound "aphorism" let
>> >us
>> >find some other meaningful sound that makes my meaning in this
>> >language.
>> >"Laws", "axioms", "proverbs" etc. are not satisfying, in this matter.
>>
>> Maybe logic is translatable as you see it - without loss of meaning - in
>> literature however the form does make a difference- that's all i was
>> offering. You cant accurately translate a sonnet into an equation.
>
>Did I ever say that one could translate a sonnet into an equation? I may
>translate a Rabindrasangeet into a sonnet, though. In fact, I think I did
>that, once. I was talking about translating aphorisms into computer algorithms,
>which are logical and mathematical constructions.
And i was saying that the aphorism having a definite form - and when
chosen for this as a means - has something more than what you say. You
then feel into the error of simply saying anything which is presented as
a aphorism which is not a logical construct is not an aphorism. A
circular argument - which is an error or the kind "All swans are white".
"There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a
cause."
"The sense of the tragic increases and diminishes with sensuality"
finally...
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth comes only
from the senses."
>
>- snip -
>
>> >You cannot disprove any definition. If you did that, dictionaries
>> >would
>> >make no sense. We would become a bunch of apes, when we quit giving
>> >particular meanings to particular sounds. Popper or no Popper, that
>> >is what
>> >will happen.
>>
>> I think you've lost the plot my friend. Take the proposition that a
>> noble gas is one that cannot be oxidized.
>
>Was that a definition or a proposition? Is a noble gas defined as one
>that cannot be oxidised, or one that naturally exists in an unoxidised
>state?
>
>I am not saying that dictionary definitions are immutable. The meanings
>of words certainly change, but not rapidly.
So if they Aphorism is written in a dynamic language - and if your
thesis is true - logic and mathematics must also change?
>
>> This was disproved by doing
>> just that.
>
>Yes, a wrong proposition was struck down. That usually happens, and should
>happen. I hope to do the same thing with Einstein's Special Theory of
>Relativity. However, that process will not involve changing any meaning to
>words, or screwing up grammar and mathematics.
But if on one side you have changing words - and the other you have
fixed logic - you have a problem.
>
>Or Swans are white birds. The dictionary definition of
>> "Atom" has undergone some change.
>
>Hardly.
Chambers Etymological Dictionary of 1929 (my mothers)
Atom at'om , n a particle of matter so small that it *cannot be cut* or
*divided* ... [Gr atomos- a, not, temno, to cut]
>The atom is still the smallest unit of matter relating to an element.
>We cannot confuse between such a definition and theories relating to how
>the atom is constituted.
The word Atom means that which cannot be divided - the atomists use the
atom as a fundamental particle. Hence the fuss when that which cannot be
cut was split. The fuss involves philosophy and physics and forms part
of the decline in philosophy.
>
>> >I make logical/factual constructions from definitions, to come to
>> >conclusions.
>> >This is very different from making baseless assertions.
>> >
>> >> Are you saying aphorisms can be nonsensical?
>> >
>> >No. I am saying exactly the opposite. An aphorism has to be clear and
>> >it
>> >must make sense.
>>
>> But this is just something you've decided.
>
>Certainly, following the dictionary meaning. There is no other word in
>the language which conveys more than this, for the purpose. If there is
>any other, then I'll stand corrected, and substitute all instances of
>"aphorism" with say "ahorism". But then, that will be coining a word, and
>one has to be a recognised great master to do that and get away with it.
Firstly beware of "dictionary" definitions - as Rutherford did re -
atom.
Here then is your problem - even if you find some dictionary definition
to the effect that an Aphorism is equivalent to a logical proposition -
and has to make sense - you have no guarantee - you admit yourself
dictionary definitions alter. They alter in relation to what happens is
the outside world - and so if a black swan is presented the definition
"all swans are white" is falsified. Not - that the black bird is not a
swan. If then i can present a aphorism which cannot be equivalent
expressed in a computer algorithm or mathematical construct - i have
presented you with a black swan - i have shown that atoms can be split.
You need therefore to revise your definition - and not deny the
actuality.
Here is Neitzsche again "the aphorism, the apophthegm, are forms of
eternity; my ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says
in a book - what everyone else does not say in a book".
You have a choice as far as i can see - to deny that Neitzsche used
aphorisms - despite his saying so - and being generally accepted as
being closely associated with the form - (Black swans aren't swans) or
maybe coining a new word - though *algorithm* would do i think. Here we
can say some aphorisms can be algorithms - as some swans are white - but
its not an equivalence. Lots of Algorithms are not aphorisms, cake
recipes for instance - and some aphorism are not mathematical
propositions.
Not always in art.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
writes
>
>James Whitehead wrote ...
>> In article <a5bltm$t4k$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, atto
>> <ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >James Whitehead wrote:
>> >
>> >One
>> >> more point - according to your theory mathematics makes a difference
>and
>> >> changes one for the better it seems - yet they are not a particularly
>> >> happy lot - i know of two who committed suicide. It seems their
>> >> knowledge in no way better equips them for life, we are governed by
>> >> fools - not mathematicians.
>> >
>> >without really needing to diagree, your comments lend themselves to a
>> >consideration if the old platonic parable of the cave. The mathematicians
>> >have ascended the heights of understanding, and are then forced to endure
>> >the pain of descending to the everyday world, and deal with fools -
>however
>> >necessary, of course, is this task.
>>
>> No - they are just ordinary guys no better equipped in many respects
>> than anyone else. They may be good at their sums - but their
>> understanding (of other things) is often poor, like any obsessive.
>> One's expertise in a certain field is just that.
>
>You're confusing mathamatics with arithmetic. Its like the difference
>between giving the right change and macro-economic theory.
Your confusing humour with arithmetic - subtraction to be precise :-)
"doing sums" a demeaning and light hearted way of describing maths -
c.f. Accountant = bean counters... Computer Programmers = anoraks /
train spotters etc.
>Indeed,
>ecomonists presume people can give the right change - its part of their
>model - although the public participate in a model without the barest
>conception they are doing anything of the sort - only arithmetic.
i never count my change...
>
>You're also once again describing mathematics as merely a field, like you
>did with science, the implication they have no signification outside of the
>fields thesmelves.
wow - its a field - it has significance outside - in other fields. I've
even used maths in art...
>This standpoint is always the point of view of someone
>outside the field, say X,
why not instead of X say - "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..."
>who content themselves that its practioners are
>engaged in either an irrelvance, or just merely the activity of "X", in a
>self-reflexive fashion. (Scientists do science). Its like with philosophy.
>People have this conception that there is this activity called philosophy,
>or neatly demarcated subject-matter called 'philosophy'. From within
>philosophy of course nothing is so ludicrous.
You have said it seems that there is no boundary - then used the phrase
.."from within.." You also assume that "people" are not philosophers -
people have this conception... which from within philosophy is
ludicrous. Maybe someone working in a maths or philosophy dept could get
away with *just* smoking dope all day - well its only boundary
demarcation that would say this is not what i should expect to do.
>
>Part of the problem of course is inter-disclinary boundaries. Disciplines
>are granted autonomy on the understanding they do not disrupt any other
>disciplinary boundaries. Within a discipline itself, of course, every
>discipline believes in the totality of its signification, although political
>correctness determines practitioners keep themselves to themselves. Hence
>the pain of returning to the cave, on the platonic parable.
not sure what you mean by this - boundary drawing is just what science -
and maths seems to be about. OK and in the past it has had its uses - so
has agriculture.
>
>Going right back to Pythagoras
do we have to - what about art...
>mathematics was believed to embody the
>fundamental structure of reality. In recent times fractal geometry has
>demonstrated that the world is structured according to fractals.
no it has not... its demonstrated a "likeness" and not a very good one
when looked at closely.
> This is to
>say, mathematics has real signification (e.g. in nature), and, even total
>from the point of view of the (mathematical) universe.
The mathematical universe is an abstract concept in the mind of the
mathematician. All this is old stuff. No where in my universe can i find
mcircles, mtriangles and the like. I can square a circle with a piece of
string. *m = mathematical*
> For instance,
>medieval philosophy sought to understand the symmetric relation between the
>microcosm (e.g. the earthly realm) and the macrocosm (e.g. the cosmos).
Sigh... it was a fixed well defined discipline then.
> The
>very fractal relation of self-similarity models a microsm within a macrosm
>(imagine zooming iin on a mandelbrot).
i've done this - more and more paisley - i hate paisley.
> Similarly, 20th C Existentialists
>such as Merly-Ponty made pronouncements such as I am entirely in My World,
>and My World is entirely in me. Only fractal mathematics would have the
>capacity to precisely model such a sentiment beyond such verbal airy
>paradoxicality (as befits so much art and philosophy).
Oh god- just buy the kid a spiragraph someone! (who then needs art)
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
>> >
>> >better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a
>crude
>> >question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
>> >
>> If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
>> impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do i
>> want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or a
>> Socrates.
>
>I say again there is no choice but to understand everything or nothing.
i understand somethings - i can make tea for instance. I have a choice,
i might make a cup any moment.
> So
>Socrates claimed to know nothing? But did he know this? Perhaps either
>possibility yields a contradiction, yet he needs an answer if he is to be
>coherent in the first place. Indeed, much philosophy is grounded on the idea
>that we do suceed in making sense in everyday life, the question is how,
>otherwise we simply wouldn't make sense in the first place. Understanding is
>thereby an imperative (not a luxury) if we are to be sure we can make sense.
The above is hard to follow - wasn't philosophy (R.I.P.) about ontology.
>
>If mathematics can prove some proof to be unknowable, then at least it
>understands that, and the chain of understanding is complete. A chink in the
>chain brings the whole edifice down. Ignorance and bluffing invariably
>catches one out. Just as conmen go to jail. (If they don't, they're
>obviously too clever).
The edifice has been brought down...
>
>With regard to your contention that it is somehow ridiculous to want to
>understand everything, I say again, we must learn the lesson of the pensee
>sauvage. It has been man's imperative to understand everything since time
>immerorial. Even if the sea and the stars can merely be put in some
>conceptual relationship, then there is a total structure of understanding.
>Without this man is adrift in the world.
Well your right here - we are adrift. "Understanding" - "structures" are
arbitrary.
>
>> It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
>> have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make life
>> enjoyable.
>
>You're quite perversely attempting to justify your life (just the 'right'
>amount of dissatisfaction!) in terms which lack any external justification.
I've no need to justify my life - its before justification. Why
shouldn't understanding be any different to all my other needs - oxygen,
food, water etc. Sufficient unto the day..
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with science
>> >> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
>> >
>> >well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
>> >adulation of the aphorism.
>>
>> It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
>
>I said that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific understanding. You
>were the one to pick me on science because you bore a prejudice against
>science. I was merely justifying myself.
I'm a great fan of science, but i do object to its rolling its tanks
onto my lawn. So i get out my spanner and start taking them apart. I
don't think your justified in saying that given a spiragraph you can
ignore the rest of what's called art, i don't think i want to be thought
of as some X having a relationship of 45 degrees to some Y. I'd rather
be in love and be happy. But your welcome to your life in the land of
algebra. When you say that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific
understanding i merely want to point out that i don't think so. And if
you are only able to approach Art via maths you are being an
intellectual colonialist.
>
>>
>>
>> >I like rhetoric. I dislike logic. All good art is
>> >a form of rhetoric.
>>
>> I'm in need of clarification - especially when you say *All* *good* art.
>> What often goes for good art these days was often first thought shoddy.
>
>Evidently we divine something in the art which was not at first apparent. I
>daresay art is prone to being the subject of misunderstanding...
its often more often prone to being understood - to death. I refer to my
conversations with Arindam regarding religion. "Understanding" and
"doing" being different. You may see understanding as paramount - well i
don't. I'm quite fond of the sticky smelly engagement - with all kinds
of things...
>
>>
>> > Rhetoric has the greatest possibilities, but also
>> >greatest danger of directionless and shoddiness. This is why I believe it
>> >has to secured to understanding.
>>
>> Again please help me over this with some examples. I really have
>> problems here - is understanding necessary to our appreciation of art,
>> clearly it should be of science?
>
>It depends how you define appreciation of art. Does a dog turd help you to
>some new insight? The nature of art, of course, is that anything can count
>as art, even dog turds no less. A random piece of shit, in general, is a
>fraud though and does not qualify as rhetoric, in the same way that monkeys
>do not randomly churn out Shakespeare. What counts as logic, conversely, is
>far more constrained, and constraining as a result.
A fraud - Picasso was once asked to confirm a painting as being genuine
- he asked how much had the collector paid - several thousands of
dollars came the reply - in that case its genuine he said.
>
>>
>> >People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
>> >departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides philosophical
>> >vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is
>presumed
>> >dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
>>
>> However this is still not art - or is it?
>
>Why not? (Or is it?)
well if it is - and it might be then meaning begins to become more
subjective. Is semiotics a science or an art. Now the reason science has
rolled its tanks on my lawn is i suspect it no longer got one of its
own.
Baudrillard is playing with the "usual" and is so thought radical - i'd
say from experience, women, negros, animals do not exist in the
particular. They may exist as Xs and Ys do- but thats not the same. I
think the objective presentment of existence is wrong, that the irony is
in saying so. Militant feminists perhaps do not even have the irony.
Xs exist "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..." exists - etc etc
- its all a question of direction i think - from some standpoint you (as
mathematician) want equations - Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised
= X, where perhaps i want the ... to continue.... which might upset some
feminists - so i should fudge it and say its an art thing - artists and
models you know?
>
>Why do you separate animals? Women and children are just as much distinct
>categories. You mean because animals are not humans? Their 'category' does
>not exist then. I believe thats the whole point.
No- i noticed how you saw women as believing they exist but not animals.
If you are saying categories are mental constructs - or Baudrillard is -
then its not radical is it?
>
>> The nature of existence - and category here is being discussed
>> (or is attempted at) philosophically - so does the philosophy of
>> Baudrillard believe... and what is this but redundant metaphysics again.
>
>On the contrary, metaphysics which is on the ball and radically up to the
>minute. How much metaphysics can say that for itself.
>Not that your sentence terribly makes sense by the way. Rather redundant
>itself.
I think the exercise of categories and the philosophical problems of
same have been done to death - re-wrapping in Baudrillards rhetoric may
well be a Big Mac. But thats all it is. Radical here like a radical new
car from Ford. Oh yes - what does it run on - petrol - oh? and wheels -
yes four of course... Where then is the irony - i think i know.
>
>> Made to seem a little shocking.
>
>True metaphysics must be conservative, is it? Or are you just confessing
>that ur a little shocked?
metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even put
on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
>
>>
>> >Baudrillard unites them in the commonplace of existence, which
>> >ironically nonetheless will be seen as either misogynistic or
>> >anthropomorphic. The beauty is we need not become embroiled in any of
>this,
>> >because there was no argument in any case and all interpretation is a
>> >super-imposition (as I said before, interpretation only takes place
>within a
>> >paradigm) All feminist, and animals rights, literature conversely tries
>to
>> >construct arguments, or moan, which is a fallacy.
>> >
>>
>> How on earth can moaning be a fallacy.
>
>It tries to pass itself off as argument. In itself it just fails to achieve
>anything. For example, when feminists moan women on average are not paid as
>much as men, then they confuse a statement of fact - a comparison of
>categories - with an argument. They fail to engage with their own ironic
>presentiment of existence, perhaps utilise it as a strength. Somewhere along
>the line, furthermore, feminists invariably wish to root their 'argument' in
>the idea that we 'obviously' live in a patriarchy, we just do, the source of
>all evils.
Again i fear its you who have made a category mistake - certain radical
feminists see the need to rid the world of men. I don't think this has
to be an argument. The mistake is to assume that we all live in a
rational and liberal world. In my little knowledge of feminism the "on
average" remark is often used the other way around. Its the idea that on
average males are stronger - run faster which is opposed by certain
feminists.
>
>> But i must admit this doesn't
>> follow from the Baudrillard quote - for me at least, it simply seems to
>> say that categories are arbitrary.
>
>I didn't say it did follow. I'm simply placing it my personal context. On
>the contrary, I argued that nothing followed from his quote.
>
>So, how can they be arbitrary if they all such 'arbitrary' categories have
>functional non-existence in common? This, to be fair, is the idea of the
>quote. This is the genius of his assimilation. Arbitrary categories will
>>exist< unproblematically because they are irrelevant, like Borges'
>fictional 21 categories of Chinese classification (e.g. embalmed, stray
>dogs, fabulous etc), ie in the name of classifying existence. Non-arbitrary
>categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
>themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men, women,
>children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as innocent, for
>instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
How are these non-arbitrary? Where the hell does Baudrillard get his
"objective" from. What it seems to me is that to be radical means to
take the given radical position and reverse it in some way, this is
post-modernism at its finest. I just don't recognise the clichéd
feminism you describe, other than as the cliché... Derrida and Marx is
a fine example. The joke is watching the hounds follow the new scent.
The irony is in you seeing something called rhetoric, unless you are
aware of this.
>
>> But neither is the above art or
>> aphorism as far as i can see. The only irony i can find is the
>> consciousness of the subjective prejudice which one wishes to overcome.
>
>What is ironic is that you are unthinkingly taking the position of the
>'subject', which is constituted by the adult male, and reinforcing it. Have
>you the concept of a female subject-position? Baudrillard is interested in
>the very fate of the object. Here the true irony lies.
>
>> In the case of the persecution of the Jews it might be possible to argue
>> that your not a Jew - but feminism accepts the title to which it
>> complains.
>
>This would only go to prove that women accept the innately patriarchal
>category of women. Thus 'moaning' will only go to be subsumed under the
>female category and fail to transcend it. Just as in the the pay-complaint,
>the moan merely serves to confirm the binary logic of gender. For hundreds
>of years women complained about their lot but were always thought unladylike
>for it, such that it merely confirmed people's prejudices concerning the
>necessary subordination of the female gender. (Catch 22)
This is so naive in relation to feminism i'm not sure what to say.
A liberal may regard pay as a function of the work done - an old time
Marxist of the needs... a radical feminist might just want power. A post
feminist might look like the former sex-object... So Madonna - genius or
naive sex object? Baudrillard same?
>
>> I suppose it is then the argument over the differences in
>> rights etc. between Men and Women.
>
>Not at all. The irony is within feminist literature men don't actually
>exist, if you happen to have read any. Men are only relevant in so far they
>have a bearing on the female experience. Men in themselves function as pure
>signs of patriarchy (the given reality for feminism, its raison d'etre).
>"Objectivity" is in any case thought a male construct.
I think "feminist literature" is not universally characterised by your
comments - perhaps the more radical - but as i say i've not read much.
Certainly its origins were more about a kind of recognition of rights,
if *not* equality.
>
>If it there were merely an issue of 'men and women', the ideology would be
>humanism, not feminism.
And much of the early movements were. Socialism also.
>
>> But i don't see the need to say -
>> just because there is an implicit acceptance or denial of the term
>> "woman" - or "nigger" that it makes it "objective".
>
>Thats the whole point. Objectivity transcends categories. What is objective
>is the thing in itself. Being me is objective solely from my point of view,
>from everyone else's (the rest of the world's) i exist under categories. I
>would seem to fall down by weight of numbers, yet what is ironic is that i
>do in actual fact exist. In the case of women (as opposed to nigger)
why - (this is interesting) do you say as opposed to?
> it is a
>necessary classificatory category in any case,
again why is it and not ethnicity.
> there is no choice but to
>accept it.
in terms of classification there is - gay rights promotes a direct
challenge to this.
> The declaration 'I am a woman' is thereby superficial and no
>proof of existence.
I think the only way i can see any sense in this is to regard the
statement as a statement of bad faith. But certainly some feminists were
objecting to "You are a woman".
I think - i think - metaphysics has become like anything else. Its not
necessarily redundant, or finished - over. Though its had that
experience. When i say redundant like anything else - like science, art
religion or mathematics. Surely these days we have the choice as
consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff of
post-modernity.
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >> You talk of agreement in communication then lay down an arbitrary rule
> >> of your own making which rules out much of what is generally considered
> >> poetry.
> >
> >If you do not agree with the arbitrary rule then there is no further
> >communication on that issue.
>
> There isn't if i agree with it.
That's a matter of choice.
>
> >
> >- snip -
> >
> >> Just so - your own terms. And within these you are yet to show that the
> >> proposition is true - that nothing is lost in translation.
> >
> >I never said that "nothing is lost" in translation. I said that a translation
> >could be deemed less, equal or more than the original,
>
> ... but this is completely at odds with computer algorithms - especially
> modern object orientated systems.
I was talking of poetry.
> > depending upon who
> >is translating, and all dependant upon the opinion of one who is qualified
> >to understand the meanings of the original and the translation. Usually
> >translations of Indian poetry to English are very bad, and much is lost.
> >That does not mean that such must always happen.
>
> Again - then these are not essentially algorithms.
I was talking of poetry. A single line from a poem could be seen as
an
aphorism, which could lead to an algorithm. However a poem as a whole
is
much bigger in scope than any single aphorism.
>
> >
> >> But then you
> >> seemed to say it might be - but that contradicts your proposition.
> >
> >You put up your own proposition, not mine. If you really want to make
> >sense then please quote me, and then indicate the exact areas where your
> >unhappiness exists.
>
> I've done this - its your equation of an Aphorism with a *definite*
> logical proposition and so translatable into a computer algorithm.
Yes.
> Then
> you say translations can be less or more.
With respect to a poem, from one language to another, yes. Usually it
is
less if the original language/culture is superior in terms of imagery,
grammar, music, meaning.
With respect to an aphorism, yes, it is as I said earlier. A single
line
of a poem/speech/essay could be considered an aphorism. And yes, that
single line could be translated without too much loss or gain in
meaning,
that understood by some statistical peer review process. That is, if
say 90% of those skilled in both languages agree that 90% or more
meaning
has been achieved, then the translation is defined valid by the
authority
co-ordinating the peers.
The translation of a poem from one language to another is bound to
create
far more controversy than the translation of a single line. How good
that translation is, ultimately becomes a purely subjective issue.
So there is far more scope for objectivity in the translation of an
aphorism,
as opposed to a poem.
Which means, that my translations of ChanakyaSutra should be taken
more
seriously on objective grounds, than my translations of Tagore and
Hindi songs.
> A computer algorithm can be
> expressed in a variety of ways - with no loss - or addition - the means
> of expression is therefore arbitrary.
Yes, but they must all depend upon the algorithm. An algorithm can be
extended/modified, also arbitrarily. Just as a recipe can be extended
or
modified.
> I'm saying that this in my opinion
> is not true of the aphorism - you don't agree?
No, I don't. An aphorism could lead to a number of different
algorithms,
which have a common base depending upon the nature of the aphorism.
> - that like poetry its
> form contributes to its meaning- and so change of form changes meaning.
You are placing too much emphasis upon form. You are stating that you
will *never* accept that anything can be meaningfully translated. I
consider
this standpoint to be rubbish. You may as well argue that
Shakespeare's
sonnets have lost meaning when they were printed in a different font
from
some original font.
We disagree here.
> Why did for instance want to use the form - because of its power - its
> directness?
A good translator will take the form into account in his translation.
In
my case, the ChanakyaSutra being very terse and very clear, the
translations are also clear
terse, in the same style. I would not have done justice to the spirit
of the original if I had written
a long essay for every Sutra.
Also, when I am translating Bengali or Hindi songs into English, I
take the
tune into consideration, so much that in my private moments
they become inter-changeable.
> So if we translate and expand on the aphorism this
> directness is lost - while its meanings explored.
True. For once we are in agreement. But then, when you will expand
(as
opposed to translate) you work will not be the translation, it will be
some other work - an essay, poem, epic, whatever. When you restrict
yourself to just the translation, as honestly as possible, the meaning
can
be retained. Extra explanations can always be given, to provide more
elaboration
to the translations. They are not part of the translated work.
> "To close your ears to even the best counter-argument once the decision
> has been taken: the sign of a string character. Thus an occasional will
> to stupidity."
>
> >
> >> >> You may be laying down avenues - others might enjoy walking in
> >> >> the open fields and hills.
> >> >
> >> >Very well. If you don't want my meaning for the sound "aphorism" let
> >> >us
> >> >find some other meaningful sound that makes my meaning in this
> >> >language.
> >> >"Laws", "axioms", "proverbs" etc. are not satisfying, in this matter.
> >>
> >> Maybe logic is translatable as you see it - without loss of meaning - in
> >> literature however the form does make a difference- that's all i was
> >> offering. You cant accurately translate a sonnet into an equation.
> >
> >Did I ever say that one could translate a sonnet into an equation? I may
> >translate a Rabindrasangeet into a sonnet, though. In fact, I think I did
> >that, once. I was talking about translating aphorisms into computer algorithms,
> >which are logical and mathematical constructions.
>
> And i was saying that the aphorism having a definite form - and when
> chosen for this as a means - has something more than what you say.
An aphorism is just a set of very few statements, usually in prose.
Form
matters in lyrical poetry. You are simply confusing the issue, by
giving extra emphasis to form. Nobody says that aphorisms have to be
sung!
You
> then feel into the error of simply saying anything which is presented as
> a aphorism which is not a logical construct is not an aphorism.
Hardly, you have failed to understand anything I said. I said that I
use
the word aphorism because there is none other for the meaning I have
in mind,
in the English language. If there was some other word, I would have
used
that word.
A
> circular argument - which is an error or the kind "All swans are white".
I never made that statement. Nor did I make any circular argument.
Since
you had touchingly admitted that you are a confused person, out of
kindness
I have given you enough of my time.
> "There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a
> cause."
You should know about lying, with all your ifs and maybes! Please
excuse
me, I am really getting tired of you.
Arindam Banerjee.
"I have answered three questions, and that is enough.
Young man, do not give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off now - or I'll kick you downstairs." - Lewis Carroll
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<7KD5kGAe0le8Ewv
> >F...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <890e65ea.02022...@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> >> Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> writes
> >> >> Your welcome - You're getting so upset over a ' and an e, but are quite
> >> >> happy to use "Internet" jargon -
> >> >
> >> >I used an abbreviation "btw" which is not jargon.
> >>
> >> Of course it is. It relates to the Internet like SPAM etc.
> >
> >It may relate to Usenet, but it means "By the way" which is not
> >jargon.
> >
> >> > Jargon is "okay", under
> >> >certain circumstances.
> >>
> >> Why? And who makes and legitimates it?
> >
> >It fosters a sense of camaraderie, among colleagues. It also makes
> >things
> >clear. So it can and does improve communication.
>
> Slang - which BTW is an example does form a sense of camaraderie - which
> is always at the expense of excluding others.
- snip -
So who I am excluding here with use of btw ?
Arindam Banerjee.
James Whitehead
>Y...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
Ok - how is it "bigger" or more than a collection of aphorisms. You need
some non-logical non aphoristic lines... ?
>>
>> >
>> >> But then you
>> >> seemed to say it might be - but that contradicts your proposition.
>> >
>> >You put up your own proposition, not mine. If you really want to make
>> >sense then please quote me, and then indicate the exact areas where your
>> >unhappiness exists.
>>
>> I've done this - its your equation of an Aphorism with a *definite*
>> logical proposition and so translatable into a computer algorithm.
>
>Yes.
>
>> Then
>> you say translations can be less or more.
>
>With respect to a poem, from one language to another, yes. Usually it
>is
>less if the original language/culture is superior in terms of imagery,
>grammar, music, meaning.
>
>With respect to an aphorism, yes, it is as I said earlier. A single
>line
>of a poem/speech/essay could be considered an aphorism. And yes, that
>single line could be translated without too much loss or gain in
>meaning,
wow - that's not the same as translating algorithms -
>that understood by some statistical peer review process. That is, if
>say 90% of those skilled in both languages agree that 90% or more
>meaning
>has been achieved, then the translation is defined valid by the
>authority
>co-ordinating the peers.
You have now moved your position - lets say 10% of the meaning is lost -
that's not a translation in the original sense -
>> I've done this - its your equation of an Aphorism with a *definite*
>> logical proposition and so translatable into a computer algorithm.
>
>Yes.
equation - surly that means 100% If your comparing two algorithms which
equate to one another i would assume the output is 100% the same.
Otherwise they are not the same. Your definition has failed - equate
means just that.
>
>The translation of a poem from one language to another is bound to
>create
>far more controversy than the translation of a single line.
Why - take each line - how do the previous 100 makes 101 more difficult?
> How good
>that translation is, ultimately becomes a purely subjective issue.
>
>So there is far more scope for objectivity in the translation of an
>aphorism,
>as opposed to a poem.
Only if the error is a result of the quantity of data. But i don't see
this as following. What your saying is that a compiler is likely to make
more mistakes the more lines of code it has to translate. How! If this
is itself a purely algorithmic process. If you equate a single line with
a definite logical proposition translatable into a computer algorithm
then adding more lines (as far as i can see) doesn't change anything.
Unless the translator gets tired - but as its a mechanical process that
needn't bother us.
>
>Which means, that my translations of ChanakyaSutra should be taken
>more
>seriously on objective grounds, than my translations of Tagore and
>Hindi songs.
Why?
>
>> A computer algorithm can be
>> expressed in a variety of ways - with no loss - or addition - the means
>> of expression is therefore arbitrary.
>
>Yes, but they must all depend upon the algorithm. An algorithm can be
>extended/modified, also arbitrarily. Just as a recipe can be extended
>or
>modified.
But that's not at issue. A translator - compiler which does this is
faulty.
>
>> I'm saying that this in my opinion
>> is not true of the aphorism - you don't agree?
>
>No, I don't. An aphorism could lead to a number of different
>algorithms,
>which have a common base depending upon the nature of the aphorism.
Then you've changed your position - unless you say these are in effect
"black boxes". However you now seem to imply that algorithm "A" can be
translated to give other algorithms - and this is OK. But the only
source of difference arises in the translation - which must have
therefore some error.
>
>> - that like poetry its
>> form contributes to its meaning- and so change of form changes meaning.
>
>You are placing too much emphasis upon form. You are stating that you
>will *never* accept that anything can be meaningfully translated. I
>consider
>this standpoint to be rubbish. You may as well argue that
>Shakespeare's
>sonnets have lost meaning when they were printed in a different font
>from
>some original font.
>
>We disagree here.
If the poet decided that the font was significant - then yes - even in a
modern standpoint. My emphasis on form is placed because in my examples
of Nietzsche - the emphasis was his! Again i'm not - (as yet) saying
anything cannot be meaningfully translated. We wont go down that road as
we are too far apart on the simple mechanics. I might well be able to
construct logical propositions which are aphorisms which can be
meaningfully translated. It might be possible to construct a pithy
statement... in pure formal logic. Again within the "modernist"
framework.
>
>> Why did for instance want to use the form - because of its power - its
>> directness?
>
>A good translator will take the form into account in his translation.
>In
>my case, the ChanakyaSutra being very terse and very clear, the
>translations are also clear
>terse, in the same style. I would not have done justice to the spirit
>of the original if I had written
>a long essay for every Sutra.
"spirit" i think is difficult to encapsulate in an algorithm. But i'm
open to examples.
Singing them or not - does a tune not follow the formal laws then?
>
>
> You
>> then feel into the error of simply saying anything which is presented as
>> a aphorism which is not a logical construct is not an aphorism.
>
>Hardly, you have failed to understand anything I said. I said that I
>use
>the word aphorism because there is none other for the meaning I have
>in mind,
>in the English language. If there was some other word, I would have
>used
>that word.
Then you are using the wrong word. You made a claim about aphorisms -
one which you now yourself have even retracted. 90% is not equal to
100%.
>
> A
>> circular argument - which is an error or the kind "All swans are white".
>
>I never made that statement. Nor did I make any circular argument.
>Since
>you had touchingly admitted that you are a confused person, out of
>kindness
>I have given you enough of my time.
Again your making a category mistake - sometimes i'm confused -
sometimes i sit... but the confusion regarding what an aphorism is now
seems yours.
>
>> "There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a
>> cause."
>
>You should know about lying, with all your ifs and maybes! Please
>excuse
>me, I am really getting tired of you.
Your excused.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>W...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
annoying - there are other examples someone using "pov" which threw me
- i guess its "point of view".... i'm still a little uncertain as to
what a Troll is - again i guess someone being a deliberate nuisance.
Perhaps someone could write a newsreader with a database which
aromatically translated these...
--
James Whitehead
Arindam Banerjee
Only some daft pricks may have been excluded, then.
Arindam Banerjee.
Lewis Mammel
But you didn't say there's a saint for every problem, you said
there's a pantheon for every problem. Thus I might justifiably
ask, to which saint among the pantheon devoted to the problem
of "is semiotics a science" did you pray?
"It is not that semiotics is a science, but that science belongs to semiotics."
- St. Sucre Syntaxius MMDCCXXI, called "The Bloviator"
Lew Mammel, Jr.
James Whitehead
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>
>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <3C7B00B7...@worldnet.att.net>, Lewis Mammel
>> <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >James Whitehead wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> ................. - the catholic church has a pantheon of saints for
>> >> every conceivable problem. .....
>> >
>> >wow.
>> >
>> >Lew Mammel, Jr.
>>
>> My prayers to the saint of "is semiotics a science" has worked!
>
>But you didn't say there's a saint for every problem, you said
>there's a pantheon for every problem.
Depends how you read it - i could say i've a remedy for every
conceivable disease and its alcohol - or the US has an army of forces
for every conceivable foreign difficulty - same army - like wise one
pantheon - though i suspect my collective noun(?) is wrong. Perhaps a
"genuflexion" of saints?
>Thus I might justifiably
>ask, to which saint among the pantheon devoted to the problem
>of "is semiotics a science" did you pray?
of lost causes...
Jude Thaddeus
Gregory Thaumaturgus
Philomena
Rita of Cascia wow! that rita...
i must admit i made the saint of "is semiotics a science" up but see
that there is three! for
Belgian air crew
(must be similar!)
Joseph of Cupertino
Our Lady of Loreto
Therese of Lisieux
and one
against moles
Ulric
philosophers- 4
Albert the Great
Catherine of Alexandria
Justin Martyr
Thomas Aquinas
oh - if your bored try some more-
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm
>
>"It is not that semiotics is a science, but that science belongs to semiotics."
>
thought as much...
>- St. Sucre Syntaxius MMDCCXXI, called "The Bloviator"
>
>
>Lew Mammel, Jr.
--
James Whitehead
Lewis Mammel
James Whitehead wrote:
>
> In article <3C7D9316...@worldnet.att.net>, Lewis Mammel
> <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> writes
...
> >But you didn't say there's a saint for every problem, you said
> >there's a pantheon for every problem.
>
> Depends how you read it - i could say i've a remedy for every
> conceivable disease and its alcohol
What you said would be like saying we have a panoply of remedies for
every conceivable disease, and so yeah, it might be just one panoply,
but then why say it? Well, it can be seen as an elision, "A panoply
of remedies, one for every disease" Yeah, that's the ticket, an elision.
> - or the US has an army of forces
> for every conceivable foreign difficulty - same army - like wise one
> pantheon - though i suspect my collective noun(?) is wrong. Perhaps a
> "genuflexion" of saints?
Yes, "pantheon" is a collection of gods. So "pantheon of gods" is
redundant, and "pantheon of saints" would be inconsistent, but wait ...
4.Figurative. Any group of exalted persons or things ...
"The teeming pantheon of guided missles" - Time
You're in the clear!
But in the end, what you really wanted to say was "... the catholic
church has a saint for every conceivable problem ..."
So you made a little tiny mistake that amounts to nothing, but I
just thought it was a funny image, you know? ... a pantheon of
saints for every conceivable problem ... ha ha ?
[ patron saints of ... ]
> philosophers- 4
> Albert the Great
> Catherine of Alexandria
> Justin Martyr
> Thomas Aquinas
Albertus Magnus is the patron saint of science, but I consider
this an outrage. Any ounce of decency would require the elevation
of Giordano Bruno to that position.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
atto
So again, you are not concerned with mathematics in itself, only with
"mathematicians", and to make a sweeping, demeaning (light-hearted?)
generalisation concerning the span of their capabilities, divorcing them
form the world rather than wedding them to it by the nature fo their
fundamental endeavour.
>
> >Indeed,
> >ecomonists presume people can give the right change - its part of their
> >model - although the public participate in a model without the barest
> >conception they are doing anything of the sort - only arithmetic.
>
> i never count my change...
Precisely because you presume you will be *given* the right change; that
people are skilled in arithmetic. Arithmetic is then a sort of nothing, or
instinctive exercise at most.
>
> >
> >You're also once again describing mathematics as merely a field, like you
> >did with science, the implication they have no signification outside of
the
> >fields thesmelves.
>
> wow - its a field - it has significance outside - in other fields. I've
> even used maths in art...
To be honest i have no idea if you're trying to be ironic. Indeed, fractals
are an admirable form of art, painting by numbers it could be called.
>
> >This standpoint is always the point of view of someone
> >outside the field, say X,
>
> why not instead of X say - "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..."
you have completely lost me. X, in my context, is the name of a field. You
need to be able to substitute X correctly if algebra is to be meaningful.
Perhaps Bijou is walking in the field. But from a long way off (hot-air
balloon) you could only see the field.
>
> >who content themselves that its practioners are
> >engaged in either an irrelvance, or just merely the activity of "X", in a
> >self-reflexive fashion. (Scientists do science). Its like with
philosophy.
> >People have this conception that there is this activity called
philosophy,
> >or neatly demarcated subject-matter called 'philosophy'. From within
> >philosophy of course nothing is so ludicrous.
>
> You have said it seems that there is no boundary - then used the phrase
> .."from within.."
I said there is no boundary from within. Think of it like a Tardis. While
your implication is that i am being paradoxical i am in actual fact being
perfectly coherent.
> You also assume that "people" are not philosophers -
> people have this conception... which from within philosophy is
> ludicrous.
You assume that people are the object of discourse (""). Who is the category
of people? Do you not necessarily speak from within the hypothesised
category? Why do you put people in quotes, but not philosophers? Because
*you* are not a philosopher?
Maybe someone working in a maths or philosophy dept could get
> away with *just* smoking dope all day - well its only boundary
> demarcation that would say this is not what i should expect to do.
I dare say you expect them to bury their heads in work producing tedious
papers just so long as they keep themsleves busy.
>
>
> >
> >Part of the problem of course is inter-disclinary boundaries. Disciplines
> >are granted autonomy on the understanding they do not disrupt any other
> >disciplinary boundaries. Within a discipline itself, of course, every
> >discipline believes in the totality of its signification, although
political
> >correctness determines practitioners keep themselves to themselves. Hence
> >the pain of returning to the cave, on the platonic parable.
>
> not sure what you mean by this - boundary drawing is just what science -
> and maths seems to be about.
I am not aware of any specific boundaries pertaining to science or
mathemetics. I dare say you believe in various mickey-mouse boundaries,
exemplifying ur own personal prejudices (e.g. in ur perverted vision of the
mathematical universe) but i can assure you these are not relevant or
functional boundaries, because there are none.
> OK and in the past it has had its uses - so
> has agriculture.
>
> >
> >Going right back to Pythagoras
>
> do we have to - what about art...
Pythagoras invented the musical scales... art, maybe? Music is founded in
pure mathemtics, if u were unaware.
>
> >mathematics was believed to embody the
> >fundamental structure of reality. In recent times fractal geometry has
> >demonstrated that the world is structured according to fractals.
>
> no it has not... its demonstrated a "likeness" and not a very good one
> when looked at closely.
There is no likeness about it. I think it is hilarious when u go on to say
and not a very good likeness. Firstly, the world is necessarily fractal -
there is no other possibility. Secondly, fractals are by their nature, one
might say, fuzzy. It is nonsensical to talk of a better or worse likeness.
>
> > This is to
> >say, mathematics has real signification (e.g. in nature), and, even total
> >from the point of view of the (mathematical) universe.
>
> The mathematical universe is an abstract concept in the mind of the
> mathematician. All this is old stuff. No where in my universe can i find
> mcircles, mtriangles and the like.
Thats because circles and triangles are Euclidean. The whole point of
fractal mathematics was that squares and triangles were never found in
nature. This led to the discovery of non-Euclidean mathematics and the
realisation that the world itself was fractal and non-Euclidean. Old is it?
> I can square a circle with a piece of
> string. *m = mathematical*
i don't know what you mean, but well done anyway!
nb James just trying out his substituion skills
>
> > For instance,
> >medieval philosophy sought to understand the symmetric relation between
the
> >microcosm (e.g. the earthly realm) and the macrocosm (e.g. the cosmos).
>
> Sigh... it was a fixed well defined discipline then.
Well you can read about it in Foucault's The Order of Things. Its a question
of epistemes.
>
> > The
> >very fractal relation of self-similarity models a microsm within a
macrosm
> >(imagine zooming iin on a mandelbrot).
>
> i've done this - more and more paisley - i hate paisley.
>
> > Similarly, 20th C Existentialists
> >such as Merly-Ponty made pronouncements such as I am entirely in My
World,
> >and My World is entirely in me. Only fractal mathematics would have the
> >capacity to precisely model such a sentiment beyond such verbal airy
> >paradoxicality (as befits so much art and philosophy).
>
> Oh god- just buy the kid a spiragraph someone! (who then needs art)
ummm
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
> >> >
> >> >better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a
> >crude
> >> >question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
> >> >
> >> If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
> >> impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do i
> >> want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or a
> >> Socrates.
> >
> >I say again there is no choice but to understand everything or nothing.
>
> i understand somethings - i can make tea for instance. I have a choice,
> i might make a cup any moment.
Man cannot live by Tea alone.
>
> > So
> >Socrates claimed to know nothing? But did he know this? Perhaps either
> >possibility yields a contradiction, yet he needs an answer if he is to be
> >coherent in the first place. Indeed, much philosophy is grounded on the
idea
> >that we do suceed in making sense in everyday life, the question is how,
> >otherwise we simply wouldn't make sense in the first place. Understanding
is
> >thereby an imperative (not a luxury) if we are to be sure we can make
sense.
>
> The above is hard to follow - wasn't philosophy (R.I.P.) about ontology.
I thought philosophy was about lots of things. You can have a degree in
philosophy, not ontology. I suppose philosophy is a process of crititique.
No one has ever granted the first thing about ontology.
>
> >
> >If mathematics can prove some proof to be unknowable, then at least it
> >understands that, and the chain of understanding is complete. A chink in
the
> >chain brings the whole edifice down. Ignorance and bluffing invariably
> >catches one out. Just as conmen go to jail. (If they don't, they're
> >obviously too clever).
>
> The edifice has been brought down...
only if the edifice is constituted by a sort of mass confusion. The edifice,
in so far as we perceive it as such (e.g. the establishment), is a
simulation. Still, insofar as the world presupposes knowledge (both
metaphysically, and socially), it is our duty to understand it, or else fail
in entirety (the irony being we still have to explain the simulation). The
merits of lifelong bluffing are still undecided. One may be hauled up at any
moment. For one thing, one faces death alone.
>
> >
> >With regard to your contention that it is somehow ridiculous to want to
> >understand everything, I say again, we must learn the lesson of the
pensee
> >sauvage. It has been man's imperative to understand everything since time
> >immerorial. Even if the sea and the stars can merely be put in some
> >conceptual relationship, then there is a total structure of
understanding.
> >Without this man is adrift in the world.
>
> Well your right here - we are adrift. "Understanding" - "structures" are
> arbitrary.
if we are adrift then as i say the irony is that the simulation falls down .
Yet my point is that the choice is still understanding everything or
nothing; whatever our actual state of affairs, from my own particular point
of view and the coherence of my world, the latter clearly remains the
imperative (necessary not arbitrary). Understanding cannot be arbitrary if
it is to serve its purpose.
>
> >
> >> It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
> >> have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make
life
> >> enjoyable.
> >
> >You're quite perversely attempting to justify your life (just the 'right'
> >amount of dissatisfaction!) in terms which lack any external
justification.
>
> I've no need to justify my life - its before justification. Why
> shouldn't understanding be any different to all my other needs - oxygen,
> food, water etc. Sufficient unto the day..
If you were an astronaut and the oxygen seeped out of your module i suppose
u merely shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't live without it.
We rarely perceive the deep socio-metaphysical structures which make any
experience possible (e.g. breathing, being alive, shelter, the existence of
state, civilisation etc) even though any one of them is relatively arbitrary
and reversible. You're only possible bulwark is understanding.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with
science
> >> >> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
> >> >
> >> >well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
> >> >adulation of the aphorism.
> >>
> >> It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
> >
> >I said that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific understanding.
You
> >were the one to pick me on science because you bore a prejudice against
> >science. I was merely justifying myself.
>
> I'm a great fan of science, but i do object to its rolling its tanks
> onto my lawn.
You're lawn obviously isn't an object of science. Only all the other lawns.
:-p
> So i get out my spanner and start taking them apart. I
> don't think your justified in saying that given a spiragraph you can
> ignore the rest of what's called art, i don't think i want to be thought
> of as some X having a relationship of 45 degrees to some Y.
Yes the peverted conception of the mathematical universe already alluded to
above.
> I'd rather
> be in love and be happy.
So love and happiness is a special case is it? You either have it or you
don't? Indeed, i suppose Giddens believes that in high-modernity the special
relationship serves as a bulwark against the encroachments of modern
society, for whatever rewards it may yield of itself. Still, i have to say
it sounds like a rather half-arsed solution to a corrupted alienated
society.
I am reminded of my posts on morality in which i suggested that everybody
should be in a relationship with everybody else, as per a mathematical
model. All the great religions teach love to everybody in any case, as
opposed to some sort of bourgeois privilege divorced from the real problems
of the real world. In any case, a general wishy washy attitude of 'love'
always seems pretty half-arsed in any case, if we are to be pragmatic about
things.
> But your welcome to your life in the land of
> algebra.
Algebra is merely symbolic. Just as x can stand in a relationship with x,
say x^2, so we could say any entity (person, planet etc) stands in a
relation to any other. A relation of x^2 is not purely abstract in any case.
If x is a distance, then x^2 represents an area. The domain of signification
can be anything. The language of Mathematics, in any case, is infinitely
expandable.
> When you say that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific
> understanding i merely want to point out that i don't think so. And if
> you are only able to approach Art via maths you are being an
> intellectual colonialist.
It is an untapped resource with the greastest and unlimited of
possibilities. I hardly think intellectual "colonialist" is fair. You don't
even comprehend the "paradigm" i am supposed to be imposing in anything
other than childish mickey-mouse terms of reference. How then am i being a
colonialist? If anything its the native fertile land which represents the
untapped resource of mathematics in this analogy. The colonisers thank god
would be too stupid too know what to do with it (thats the fuck maths
brigade). They would have to come crawling for explanation.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >I like rhetoric. I dislike logic. All good art is
> >> >a form of rhetoric.
> >>
> >> I'm in need of clarification - especially when you say *All* *good*
art.
> >> What often goes for good art these days was often first thought shoddy.
> >
> >Evidently we divine something in the art which was not at first apparent.
I
> >daresay art is prone to being the subject of misunderstanding...
>
> its often more often prone to being understood - to death. I refer to my
> conversations with Arindam regarding religion. "Understanding" and
> "doing" being different. You may see understanding as paramount - well i
> don't. I'm quite fond of the sticky smelly engagement - with all kinds
> of things...
sure - well thats the way of rhetoric then, sometimes grandiose and
sweeping, sometimes pitter-pattering hither and thither.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Rhetoric has the greatest possibilities, but also
> >> >greatest danger of directionless and shoddiness. This is why I believe
it
> >> >has to secured to understanding.
> >>
> >> Again please help me over this with some examples. I really have
> >> problems here - is understanding necessary to our appreciation of art,
> >> clearly it should be of science?
> >
> >It depends how you define appreciation of art. Does a dog turd help you
to
> >some new insight? The nature of art, of course, is that anything can
count
> >as art, even dog turds no less. A random piece of shit, in general, is a
> >fraud though and does not qualify as rhetoric, in the same way that
monkeys
> >do not randomly churn out Shakespeare. What counts as logic, conversely,
is
> >far more constrained, and constraining as a result.
>
> A fraud - Picasso was once asked to confirm a painting as being genuine
> - he asked how much had the collector paid - several thousands of
> dollars came the reply - in that case its genuine he said.
Perhaps you are refering to the issue of authenticity in art, and how
important this should be. At the other extreme there's the idea that a 4 yr
old can draw a turd, having it displayed in a gallery, and the experts think
it a masterpiece. Obviously this makes fools out of the experts, as opposed
to demonstrating the kid was actually an artistic genius.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
> >> >departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides
philosophical
> >> >vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is
> >presumed
> >> >dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
> >>
> >> However this is still not art - or is it?
> >
> >Why not? (Or is it?)
>
> well if it is - and it might be then meaning begins to become more
> subjective.
Meaning always was subjective. However, this is obviously rather academic in
the case of some complex analytic proposition. The irony in Baudrillard's
case is that on a superficial level it is *perfectly apparent* what he means
(as opposed to the above) but the legacy of subjectivity makes it far harder
to brush aside his meaning, particularly he is playing games with those very
issues analytic philosophy has been unsuccessfully grappling with (e.g. if
you say something, u must believe it) Similarly with Foucault, he batters
you down with the force of his rhetoric before you have the slightest chance
to follow up the coherence of his logic.
>Is semiotics a science or an art. Now the reason science has
> rolled its tanks on my lawn is i suspect it no longer got one of its
> own.
how so?
I suppose the question is do you believe individuals exist? If not, what is
the alternative?
>
> Xs exist "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..." exists - etc etc
> - its all a question of direction i think - from some standpoint you (as
> mathematician) want equations - Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised
> = X, where perhaps i want the ... to continue.... which might upset some
> feminists - so i should fudge it and say its an art thing - artists and
> models you know?
all directions are reversible. Compare, reversibility between individuals
(above) and within argument (below). From the point of view of categories,
however, standpoint is the crucial issue; we are not interested in
categories in themselves as an analytic construct.
Perhaps art does not perceive its own reversibility, as if it simply had a
divine right to say/appear as it pleased. Well, for Camus, of course, the
potential for destruction of the artwork itself is inherent to its nature.
Fromt the point of view of rhetoric, the sysphean labour is to to succeed in
saying anything.
> >
> >Why do you separate animals? Women and children are just as much distinct
> >categories. You mean because animals are not humans? Their 'category'
does
> >not exist then. I believe thats the whole point.
>
> No- i noticed how you saw women as believing they exist but not animals.
By analogy of women, animals believe they exist. The very reason Baudrillard
does not break down his argument is that it would become reversible. He does
not draw distinctions within its makeup (indeed his genius was
assimilation). I drew a hermeneutic distinction beween women and animals on
the very basis that it would not be reversed (which it has been!) on the
basis of the prejudices i thought i was dealing with. Ultimately, we are
saying that women *and* animals believe they exist. I would more than happy
just to let it pass like this...
> If you are saying categories are mental constructs - or Baudrillard is -
> then its not radical is it?
Where does mental constructs come from? You're analyticising the whole
thing. You're desperate to say something completely unsupported and
irrelevant about categories. Last time it was, well all i get from it (ho
hum) is that categories are arbitrary. As if in rhetoric we would sneeze at
such a simple truth in any case (if it had any foundation)!
>
> >
> >> The nature of existence - and category here is being discussed
> >> (or is attempted at) philosophically - so does the philosophy of
> >> Baudrillard believe... and what is this but redundant metaphysics
again.
> >
> >On the contrary, metaphysics which is on the ball and radically up to the
> >minute. How much metaphysics can say that for itself.
> >Not that your sentence terribly makes sense by the way. Rather redundant
> >itself.
>
> I think the exercise of categories and the philosophical problems of
> same have been done to death - re-wrapping in Baudrillards rhetoric may
> well be a Big Mac.
Lets put it more simply. Baudrillard doesn't give a shit about categories.
He's not involved in the analytic endeavour. He scorns it. Doesn't the very
notion of being placed it no a category which does not exist suggest, in its
uncaring paradoxicality, that metaphysical concepts are the last thing he
cares about. As if the whole thing might be a subtext for the time-worn
Artistotelian/Platonic dispute over whether concepts are universal or
particular!
> But thats all it is. Radical here like a radical new
> car from Ford. Oh yes - what does it run on - petrol - oh? and wheels -
> yes four of course... Where then is the irony - i think i know.
Sure, Baurdillard breathes like the rest of us (see above comments on
breathing). But had you stopped to consider this fact until i brought it to
light? Oh, so Baurdillard must be a 'human being'. Well, glad to have
pigeon-holed him at last.
Irony?
>
> >
> >> Made to seem a little shocking.
> >
> >True metaphysics must be conservative, is it? Or are you just confessing
> >that ur a little shocked?
>
> metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even put
> on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
I think this is a bit like ur saying ur life had just the right amount of
dissatisfaction - ie lacking any external terms of reference. Provide me
with an example of this specific brand of metaphysics please (only so i may
lust accordingly u should know)
No thats only one response to patriarchy (ie assuming this to be even
possible) Patriarchy is a one-size fits all argument. The
moral/anthropological status of patriarchy is also, in fact, undetermined.
E.g. for the Romans it was a good. From the point of view of nature, its
grounded in sexual diamorphism.
> The mistake is to assume that we all live in a
> rational and liberal world. In my little knowledge of feminism the "on
> average" remark is often used the other way around. Its the idea that on
> average males are stronger - run faster which is opposed by certain
> feminists.
Well this is true on both accounts of strength and speed! The irony is, of
course, strength and speed does males no favours nowadays (leaving sexual
violence aside as a brush to tar all males). Manual labour such as
ship-building is on the way out, clerical is on the way in.
>
> >
> >> But i must admit this doesn't
> >> follow from the Baudrillard quote - for me at least, it simply seems to
> >> say that categories are arbitrary.
> >
> >I didn't say it did follow. I'm simply placing it my personal context. On
> >the contrary, I argued that nothing followed from his quote.
> >
> >So, how can they be arbitrary if they all such 'arbitrary' categories
have
> >functional non-existence in common? This, to be fair, is the idea of the
> >quote. This is the genius of his assimilation. Arbitrary categories will
> >>exist< unproblematically because they are irrelevant, like Borges'
> >fictional 21 categories of Chinese classification (e.g. embalmed, stray
> >dogs, fabulous etc), ie in the name of classifying existence.
Non-arbitrary
> >categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
> >themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men, women,
> >children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as innocent,
for
> >instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
>
> How are these non-arbitrary?
My response is perfectly clear. I am not going to dissect my argument,
because as soon as i do that, like with women and animals, the argument
becomes reversible. If u wish go through my response classifying my
vocabulary and forms of expression as suggesting 'arbitrariness' or
'non-arbitrariness' of category. As it stands you don't even give a sod
about my argument.
Your ever-present wish to analyticise is only detrimental and serves no
purpose.
> Where the hell does Baudrillard get his
> "objective" from. What it seems to me is that to be radical means to
> take the given radical position and reverse it in some way, this is
> post-modernism at its finest. I just don't recognise the clichéd
> feminism you describe, other than as the cliché... Derrida and Marx is
> a fine example. The joke is watching the hounds follow the new scent.
> The irony is in you seeing something called rhetoric, unless you are
> aware of this.
The rhetorical cat is out of the bag. Do with it as you please. Expel it
from ur consciousness. Theres no scent to follow, its just out of the bag. I
have understanding in anycase. You should try it sometime.
>
> >
> >> But neither is the above art or
> >> aphorism as far as i can see. The only irony i can find is the
> >> consciousness of the subjective prejudice which one wishes to overcome.
> >
> >What is ironic is that you are unthinkingly taking the position of the
> >'subject', which is constituted by the adult male, and reinforcing it.
Have
> >you the concept of a female subject-position? Baudrillard is interested
in
> >the very fate of the object. Here the true irony lies.
> >
> >> In the case of the persecution of the Jews it might be possible to
argue
> >> that your not a Jew - but feminism accepts the title to which it
> >> complains.
> >
> >This would only go to prove that women accept the innately patriarchal
> >category of women. Thus 'moaning' will only go to be subsumed under the
> >female category and fail to transcend it. Just as in the the
pay-complaint,
> >the moan merely serves to confirm the binary logic of gender. For
hundreds
> >of years women complained about their lot but were always thought
unladylike
> >for it, such that it merely confirmed people's prejudices concerning the
> >necessary subordination of the female gender. (Catch 22)
>
> This is so naive in relation to feminism i'm not sure what to say.
I don't give a fuck in relation to feminism. I'm talking about the binary
logic of gender, and the *surpression* of feminism. I'm not saying i'm a
feminist, but then its perverse you have to declare one way to the other
nowadays, as if it constituted a new binary of gender, pomo and sexless. How
many times have you heard a woman say, i'm not pro-feminist, i'm pro-woman?
>
> A liberal may regard pay as a function of the work done - an old time
> Marxist of the needs... a radical feminist might just want power. A post
> feminist might look like the former sex-object... So Madonna - genius or
> naive sex object? Baudrillard same?
You're bringing in extra categories which are a diversion. Whatever a
radical feminist wants, its for radical feminists, by the very nature of her
radical feminism. Shes certainly not on the lookout for better quality
covergirls for lads mags. Post-feminism's just an ironic postie, and
Madonna's just Madonna - yes probably genius and naive sex object okay? I
dare say she's fucked the world through her life and holds some sort of
ironic presentiment of existence, although we certainly don't need to
bolster it.
>
> >
> >> I suppose it is then the argument over the differences in
> >> rights etc. between Men and Women.
> >
> >Not at all. The irony is within feminist literature men don't actually
> >exist, if you happen to have read any. Men are only relevant in so far
they
> >have a bearing on the female experience. Men in themselves function as
pure
> >signs of patriarchy (the given reality for feminism, its raison d'etre).
> >"Objectivity" is in any case thought a male construct.
>
> I think "feminist literature" is not universally characterised by your
> comments - perhaps the more radical - but as i say i've not read much.
> Certainly its origins were more about a kind of recognition of rights,
> if *not* equality.
rights are part of the partriarchal model of the world of work. Hence women
didn't need rights before they had jobs. Once you get into the personal is
political, however, then you're in the territory of marriage as enforced
prostitution and waging war against our boyfriends and husbands - as i read
it somewhere. Men and women become divorced at their origins, yet gender
relations become more crucial than ever.
>
> >
> >If it there were merely an issue of 'men and women', the ideology would
be
> >humanism, not feminism.
>
> And much of the early movements were. Socialism also.
We've never had socialism.
>
> >
> >> But i don't see the need to say -
> >> just because there is an implicit acceptance or denial of the term
> >> "woman" - or "nigger" that it makes it "objective".
> >
> >Thats the whole point. Objectivity transcends categories. What is
objective
> >is the thing in itself. Being me is objective solely from my point of
view,
> >from everyone else's (the rest of the world's) i exist under categories.
I
> >would seem to fall down by weight of numbers, yet what is ironic is that
i
> >do in actual fact exist. In the case of women (as opposed to nigger)
>
> why - (this is interesting) do you say as opposed to?
because nigger is an optional vocabularly innit? Attempts at reclassifying
women as wymyn were just perverse in my opinion and grounded in no objective
reality.
>
> > it is a
> >necessary classificatory category in any case,
>
> again why is it and not ethnicity.
partly because sex is the most fundamental distinction not only between
societies but within society. Ethnicity is only relevant in so far as
ethnicities are mixed, for the most part they exist separately, yet -
schemings of the rad fems aside - males and females are necessarily
intermingled all the way down.
i suppose the interesting question si to what extent when you need to make
reference to a black man - you make specific reference to 'black' - social
makeup is obviously a factor. It has been argued by Segelan that the radical
otherness of race is an extension of the radical otherness of individuals.
Childern is an interesting case. Foucault argues that children had no sex -
perhaps they have been like a third gender - yet within the structure of
society - family, pedagogy, etc - nevertheless forms a necessary
classificatory category.
>
> > there is no choice but to
> >accept it.
>
> in terms of classification there is - gay rights promotes a direct
> challenge to this.
perhaps you need to explain. A challenge to the classificatory model of
gender? I can see various undertones to your assertion but i would rather
you made yourself explicit.
that would be a more sweeping statement in need of much further
justification - you don't craftily get out of saying something metaphysical
that easily. Indeed the postmodern assertion that we live in a temporally
"unique" age (as in terms of traditional understandings) was just the sort
of thing whose coherence i questioned and you specifically came down
against.
> Surely these days we have the choice as
> consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff of
> post-modernity.
are you suggesting that culture determines metaphysics? This would certainly
be a subversion of the traditional foundational conception of
spatio-temporal metaphysics. Alternatively, if you're not saying anything
explicit (just gibbering) you still need to give me an example of
metaphysics wearing a skirt and sitting on ur lap. Sounds great so long as
it works.
Atto
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
[..]
>> "doing sums" a demeaning and light hearted way of describing maths -
>> c.f. Accountant = bean counters... Computer Programmers = anoraks /
>> train spotters etc.
>
>So again, you are not concerned with mathematics in itself, only with
>"mathematicians", and to make a sweeping, demeaning (light-hearted?)
>generalisation concerning the span of their capabilities, divorcing them
>form the world rather than wedding them to it by the nature fo their
>fundamental endeavour.
I don't see how maths is different to football- so without the players
there is no game. But feel free to show otherwise. But as for maths
being a fundamental endeavour - well you need to show this - how making
up some axioms and generating an abstract system is "fundamental".
>
>>
>> >Indeed,
>> >ecomonists presume people can give the right change - its part of their
>> >model - although the public participate in a model without the barest
>> >conception they are doing anything of the sort - only arithmetic.
>>
>> i never count my change...
>
>Precisely because you presume you will be *given* the right change; that
>people are skilled in arithmetic. Arithmetic is then a sort of nothing, or
>instinctive exercise at most.
The reason is not that i expect it to be correct - but i shy away from
the engagement with the other person as to why it isn't. Given a few
pence either way i'm not bothered.
>
>>
>> >
>> >You're also once again describing mathematics as merely a field, like you
>> >did with science, the implication they have no signification outside of
>the
>> >fields thesmelves.
>>
>> wow - its a field - it has significance outside - in other fields. I've
>> even used maths in art...
>
>To be honest i have no idea if you're trying to be ironic. Indeed, fractals
>are an admirable form of art, painting by numbers it could be called.
You might admire fractals - however they are not considered "art". From
reading what you write below you use the word quite differently to what
you will find in the art section of the library - in museums and
galleries etc. You are simply wrong about this.
>
>>
>> >This standpoint is always the point of view of someone
>> >outside the field, say X,
>>
>> why not instead of X say - "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..."
>
>you have completely lost me. X, in my context, is the name of a field. You
>need to be able to substitute X correctly if algebra is to be meaningful.
But my point is that your equations are not "real" - they attempt to
account... reality is not meaningful...
>
>Perhaps Bijou is walking in the field. But from a long way off (hot-air
>balloon) you could only see the field.
But we engage in the stickiness of reality - especially in art.
>
>>
>> >who content themselves that its practioners are
>> >engaged in either an irrelvance, or just merely the activity of "X", in a
>> >self-reflexive fashion. (Scientists do science). Its like with
>philosophy.
>> >People have this conception that there is this activity called
>philosophy,
>> >or neatly demarcated subject-matter called 'philosophy'. From within
>> >philosophy of course nothing is so ludicrous.
>>
>> You have said it seems that there is no boundary - then used the phrase
>> .."from within.."
>
>I said there is no boundary from within. Think of it like a Tardis. While
>your implication is that i am being paradoxical i am in actual fact being
>perfectly coherent.
Course there are boundaries - otherwise it makes this a piece of physics
and maths etc.. its not?
>
>> You also assume that "people" are not philosophers -
>> people have this conception... which from within philosophy is
>> ludicrous.
>
>You assume that people are the object of discourse (""). Who is the category
>of people? Do you not necessarily speak from within the hypothesised
>category? Why do you put people in quotes, but not philosophers? Because
>*you* are not a philosopher?
I'm only aware of people as philosophers, again they have boundaries,
which they want to discuss.
>
>Maybe someone working in a maths or philosophy dept could get
>> away with *just* smoking dope all day - well its only boundary
>> demarcation that would say this is not what i should expect to do.
>
>I dare say you expect them to bury their heads in work producing tedious
>papers just so long as they keep themsleves busy.
Yes - or do they smoke dope all day - and that's ok re doing maths?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Part of the problem of course is inter-disclinary boundaries. Disciplines
>> >are granted autonomy on the understanding they do not disrupt any other
>> >disciplinary boundaries. Within a discipline itself, of course, every
>> >discipline believes in the totality of its signification, although
>political
>> >correctness determines practitioners keep themselves to themselves. Hence
>> >the pain of returning to the cave, on the platonic parable.
>>
>> not sure what you mean by this - boundary drawing is just what science -
>> and maths seems to be about.
>
>I am not aware of any specific boundaries pertaining to science or
>mathemetics. I dare say you believe in various mickey-mouse boundaries,
>exemplifying ur own personal prejudices (e.g. in ur perverted vision of the
>mathematical universe) but i can assure you these are not relevant or
>functional boundaries, because there are none.
Well for starters is nbvnb=hmb,b878678hf897nbv34435v located within
science?
>
>
>> OK and in the past it has had its uses - so
>> has agriculture.
>>
>> >
>> >Going right back to Pythagoras
>>
>> do we have to - what about art...
>
>Pythagoras invented the musical scales...
No he didn't! He wrote about some particular harmonics which were well
known about. Megalithic structures have been examined and some sketchy
ideas of the music of the period produced - its harmonic structures.
Musical scales differ - in the east for instance - and even with the
fairly mathematical atonal western system the mathematically correct
tunings are modified to give a greater aesthetic feel.
> art, maybe? Music is founded in
>pure mathemtics, if u were unaware.
>
Neither music or art is founded in pure mathematics. Mathematics can be
used to explore music and art, all the algorithmic systems in art
usually produce dull results. Like your fractals. You may live in a
mathematical world - but this will not account for what is commonly
called music and art.
>>
>> >mathematics was believed to embody the
>> >fundamental structure of reality. In recent times fractal geometry has
>> >demonstrated that the world is structured according to fractals.
>>
>> no it has not... its demonstrated a "likeness" and not a very good one
>> when looked at closely.
>
>There is no likeness about it. I think it is hilarious when u go on to say
>and not a very good likeness. Firstly, the world is necessarily fractal -
>there is no other possibility. Secondly, fractals are by their nature, one
>might say, fuzzy. It is nonsensical to talk of a better or worse likeness.
"the world is necessarily fractal"? well i'm in the world so all my
comments are too- they are no better or worse than yours then?
>
>>
>> > This is to
>> >say, mathematics has real signification (e.g. in nature), and, even total
>> >from the point of view of the (mathematical) universe.
>>
>> The mathematical universe is an abstract concept in the mind of the
>> mathematician. All this is old stuff. No where in my universe can i find
>> mcircles, mtriangles and the like.
>
>Thats because circles and triangles are Euclidean. The whole point of
>fractal mathematics was that squares and triangles were never found in
>nature. This led to the discovery of non-Euclidean mathematics and the
>realisation that the world itself was fractal and non-Euclidean. Old is it?
>
But some of these geometries are. You seem to have such an extreme
apriori position on the nature of maths that we are not going to get
very far i think.
>
>> I can square a circle with a piece of
>> string. *m = mathematical*
>
>i don't know what you mean, but well done anyway!
No - because i'm living in another universe to you. Mathematically its
been demonstrated that squaring the circle is impossible - yet in this
world groundsmen do this all the time on soccer pitches.
>
>nb James just trying out his substituion skills
>
>>
>> > For instance,
>> >medieval philosophy sought to understand the symmetric relation between
>the
>> >microcosm (e.g. the earthly realm) and the macrocosm (e.g. the cosmos).
>>
>> Sigh... it was a fixed well defined discipline then.
>
>Well you can read about it in Foucault's The Order of Things. Its a question
>of epistemes.
>
>>
>> > The
>> >very fractal relation of self-similarity models a microsm within a
>macrosm
>> >(imagine zooming iin on a mandelbrot).
>>
>> i've done this - more and more paisley - i hate paisley.
>>
>> > Similarly, 20th C Existentialists
>> >such as Merly-Ponty made pronouncements such as I am entirely in My
>World,
>> >and My World is entirely in me. Only fractal mathematics would have the
>> >capacity to precisely model such a sentiment beyond such verbal airy
>> >paradoxicality (as befits so much art and philosophy).
>>
>> Oh god- just buy the kid a spiragraph someone! (who then needs art)
>
>ummm
yes indeed! ummm.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
>> >> >
>> >> >better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its a
>> >crude
>> >> >question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
>> >> >
>> >> If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
>> >> impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do i
>> >> want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or a
>> >> Socrates.
>> >
>> >I say again there is no choice but to understand everything or nothing.
>>
>> i understand somethings - i can make tea for instance. I have a choice,
>> i might make a cup any moment.
>
>Man cannot live by Tea alone.
or by maths.
>>
>> > So
>> >Socrates claimed to know nothing? But did he know this? Perhaps either
>> >possibility yields a contradiction, yet he needs an answer if he is to be
>> >coherent in the first place. Indeed, much philosophy is grounded on the
>idea
>> >that we do suceed in making sense in everyday life, the question is how,
>> >otherwise we simply wouldn't make sense in the first place. Understanding
>is
>> >thereby an imperative (not a luxury) if we are to be sure we can make
>sense.
>>
>> The above is hard to follow - wasn't philosophy (R.I.P.) about ontology.
>
>I thought philosophy was about lots of things.
i'll float ontology...
> You can have a degree in
>philosophy, not ontology.
You can have a degree in lots of things - that are not philosophy.
>I suppose philosophy is a process of crititique.
>No one has ever granted the first thing about ontology.
I still think ontology has it. Post-modernity not withstanding.
>
>>
>> >
>> >If mathematics can prove some proof to be unknowable, then at least it
>> >understands that, and the chain of understanding is complete. A chink in
>the
>> >chain brings the whole edifice down. Ignorance and bluffing invariably
>> >catches one out. Just as conmen go to jail. (If they don't, they're
>> >obviously too clever).
>>
>> The edifice has been brought down...
>
>only if the edifice is constituted by a sort of mass confusion. The edifice,
>in so far as we perceive it as such (e.g. the establishment), is a
>simulation. Still, insofar as the world presupposes knowledge (both
>metaphysically, and socially), it is our duty to understand it, or else fail
> in entirety (the irony being we still have to explain the simulation). The
>merits of lifelong bluffing are still undecided. One may be hauled up at any
>moment. For one thing, one faces death alone.
maths is not consistent.
>
>>
>> >
>> >With regard to your contention that it is somehow ridiculous to want to
>> >understand everything, I say again, we must learn the lesson of the
>pensee
>> >sauvage. It has been man's imperative to understand everything since time
>> >immerorial. Even if the sea and the stars can merely be put in some
>> >conceptual relationship, then there is a total structure of
>understanding.
>> >Without this man is adrift in the world.
>>
>> Well your right here - we are adrift. "Understanding" - "structures" are
>> arbitrary.
>
>if we are adrift then as i say the irony is that the simulation falls down .
>Yet my point is that the choice is still understanding everything or
>nothing; whatever our actual state of affairs, from my own particular point
>of view and the coherence of my world, the latter clearly remains the
>imperative (necessary not arbitrary). Understanding cannot be arbitrary if
>it is to serve its purpose.
what purpose?
>
>>
>> >
>> >> It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
>> >> have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make
>life
>> >> enjoyable.
>> >
>> >You're quite perversely attempting to justify your life (just the 'right'
>> >amount of dissatisfaction!) in terms which lack any external
>justification.
>>
>> I've no need to justify my life - its before justification. Why
>> shouldn't understanding be any different to all my other needs - oxygen,
>> food, water etc. Sufficient unto the day..
>
>If you were an astronaut and the oxygen seeped out of your module i suppose
>u merely shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't live without it.
Or that i carry around sufficient tanks of it to last a lifetime!
>
>We rarely perceive the deep socio-metaphysical structures which make any
>experience possible
not so - its the other way round.
>(e.g. breathing, being alive, shelter, the existence of
>state, civilisation etc) even though any one of them is relatively arbitrary
>and reversible. You're only possible bulwark is understanding.
This creates the structures you long for.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with
>science
>> >> >> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about that...
>> >> >
>> >> >well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and the
>> >> >adulation of the aphorism.
>> >>
>> >> It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
>> >
>> >I said that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific understanding.
>You
>> >were the one to pick me on science because you bore a prejudice against
>> >science. I was merely justifying myself.
>>
>> I'm a great fan of science, but i do object to its rolling its tanks
>> onto my lawn.
>
>You're lawn obviously isn't an object of science. Only all the other lawns.
>:-p
its a fractal according to you.
>
>> So i get out my spanner and start taking them apart. I
>> don't think your justified in saying that given a spiragraph you can
>> ignore the rest of what's called art, i don't think i want to be thought
>> of as some X having a relationship of 45 degrees to some Y.
>
>Yes the peverted conception of the mathematical universe already alluded to
>above.
How perverted - its governed by your laws of mathematics. So you say.
>
>> I'd rather
>> be in love and be happy.
>
>So love and happiness is a special case is it?
I'd like you to answer that. I'd rather live with a person than a slide
rule.
>You either have it or you
>don't? Indeed, i suppose Giddens believes that in high-modernity the special
>relationship serves as a bulwark against the encroachments of modern
>society, for whatever rewards it may yield of itself. Still, i have to say
>it sounds like a rather half-arsed solution to a corrupted alienated
>society.
What corrupted alienated society - this is after all a fractal
phenomenon - are you saying that some equations are corrupted? By what?
>
>I am reminded of my posts on morality in which i suggested that everybody
>should be in a relationship with everybody else, as per a mathematical
>model. All the great religions teach love to everybody in any case, as
>opposed to some sort of bourgeois privilege divorced from the real problems
>of the real world. In any case, a general wishy washy attitude of 'love'
>always seems pretty half-arsed in any case, if we are to be pragmatic about
>things.
Why be pragmatic? In your system i cant see how you generate good and
bad fractals.
>
>> But your welcome to your life in the land of
>> algebra.
>
>Algebra is merely symbolic. Just as x can stand in a relationship with x,
>say x^2, so we could say any entity (person, planet etc) stands in a
>relation to any other. A relation of x^2 is not purely abstract in any case.
>If x is a distance, then x^2 represents an area. The domain of signification
>can be anything. The language of Mathematics, in any case, is infinitely
>expandable.
Not what i've been told. There are some infinities it cant reach. Big
omega for instance.
>
>> When you say that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific
>> understanding i merely want to point out that i don't think so. And if
>> you are only able to approach Art via maths you are being an
>> intellectual colonialist.
>
>It is an untapped resource with the greastest and unlimited of
>possibilities. I hardly think intellectual "colonialist" is fair. You don't
>even comprehend the "paradigm" i am supposed to be imposing in anything
>other than childish mickey-mouse terms of reference. How then am i being a
>colonialist? If anything its the native fertile land which represents the
>untapped resource of mathematics in this analogy. The colonisers thank god
>would be too stupid too know what to do with it (thats the fuck maths
>brigade). They would have to come crawling for explanation.
Your off on your own trip here. I also said "fuck art". I dont
comprehend you - that's true - because i don't think what your saying
makes sense. Your ideas of maths seem - from my little knowledge - well
- wrong - and when you move towards discussing art then your error
becomes obvious. Your sounding like a fanatic - to put it politely.
You need to see how this came to be exhibited and the context. The
person who displays the turd - in order to fool the experts is in fact
the artist - and is making quite a serious comment - exposition of the
art scene. Though this has been done - and there are better real
examples. The famous Lennon/Ono B side which was in fact just some test
tones.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >People like Baudrillard epitomise a modern
>> >> >departure in philosophy in favour of rhetoric. He provides
>philosophical
>> >> >vignettes, but you won't find an argument. Analytic philosophy is
>> >presumed
>> >> >dead. He is also full of aphorisms. Let me give you an example:
>> >>
>> >> However this is still not art - or is it?
>> >
>> >Why not? (Or is it?)
>>
>> well if it is - and it might be then meaning begins to become more
>> subjective.
>
>Meaning always was subjective. However, this is obviously rather academic in
>the case of some complex analytic proposition. The irony in Baudrillard's
>case is that on a superficial level it is *perfectly apparent* what he means
>(as opposed to the above) but the legacy of subjectivity makes it far harder
>to brush aside his meaning, particularly he is playing games with those very
>issues analytic philosophy has been unsuccessfully grappling with (e.g. if
>you say something, u must believe it) Similarly with Foucault, he batters
>you down with the force of his rhetoric before you have the slightest chance
>to follow up the coherence of his logic.
>
>
>>Is semiotics a science or an art. Now the reason science has
>> rolled its tanks on my lawn is i suspect it no longer got one of its
>> own.
>
>how so?
Its ran out of things to do.
No - its "do you operate in the world by asking such questions - do you
use an alternative - or is the matter completely different." Can the
ideas about existence and individuals have any real "meaning" in the
world of experiences of real people, comic books, TV personalities - are
they all "individuals" - this means are they all X. Only out of a
metaphysical desire need they be.
>
>>
>> Xs exist "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..." exists - etc etc
>> - its all a question of direction i think - from some standpoint you (as
>> mathematician) want equations - Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised
>> = X, where perhaps i want the ... to continue.... which might upset some
>> feminists - so i should fudge it and say its an art thing - artists and
>> models you know?
>
>all directions are reversible.
your life -the argument with that person -?
>Compare, reversibility between individuals
not possible?
>(above) and within argument (below). From the point of view of categories,
>however, standpoint is the crucial issue; we are not interested in
>categories in themselves as an analytic construct.
You seem to be asking for alternatives- its just that the world as is
needn't be so - and i suspect isn't. Take the idea - idea of individuals
- its imposed - does that mean i operate differently? Of course not, the
problem of individuals doesn't bother my dog. Its a philosophical puzzle
- that's all. Its resolution - like the value of Pi is not going to help
me in my relationships with the people i meet today. And these people
could be real or not - it makes no difference. Baudrillard is wrong -
(and he knows it!) and fooling you.
>
>Perhaps art does not perceive its own reversibility, as if it simply had a
>divine right to say/appear as it pleased. Well, for Camus, of course, the
>potential for destruction of the artwork itself is inherent to its nature.
>
>Fromt the point of view of rhetoric, the sysphean labour is to to succeed in
>saying anything.
Your mistake is to see art and not artist. And no right - in spite of
the world and its gods he labours and is happy.
>
>> >
>> >Why do you separate animals? Women and children are just as much distinct
>> >categories. You mean because animals are not humans? Their 'category'
>does
>> >not exist then. I believe thats the whole point.
>>
>> No- i noticed how you saw women as believing they exist but not animals.
>
>By analogy of women, animals believe they exist.
no they don't - fleas believe they exist? Coral? come on!
>The very reason Baudrillard
>does not break down his argument is that it would become reversible. He does
>not draw distinctions within its makeup (indeed his genius was
>assimilation). I drew a hermeneutic distinction beween women and animals on
>the very basis that it would not be reversed (which it has been!) on the
>basis of the prejudices i thought i was dealing with. Ultimately, we are
>saying that women *and* animals believe they exist. I would more than happy
>just to let it pass like this...
>
You might like to explain the above.
>> If you are saying categories are mental constructs - or Baudrillard is -
>> then its not radical is it?
>
>Where does mental constructs come from? You're analyticising the whole
>thing. You're desperate to say something completely unsupported and
>irrelevant about categories. Last time it was, well all i get from it (ho
>hum) is that categories are arbitrary. As if in rhetoric we would sneeze at
>such a simple truth in any case (if it had any foundation)!
>
Mental constructs are what we do - like coral makes calcium ...
unfortunately though these constructs are useful they have problems.
Understanding is limited like any other biological function. So
philosophy - and science/maths when it ventures there is simply out of
its area of being useful, worse it becomes pathological, so the lungs
are such under water. Understanding cant do this, lungs cant take in
oxygen underwater. Here is your boundary, and what does understanding
give us - the nonsense of metaphysics.
>>
>> >
>> >> The nature of existence - and category here is being discussed
>> >> (or is attempted at) philosophically - so does the philosophy of
>> >> Baudrillard believe... and what is this but redundant metaphysics
>again.
>> >
>> >On the contrary, metaphysics which is on the ball and radically up to the
>> >minute. How much metaphysics can say that for itself.
>> >Not that your sentence terribly makes sense by the way. Rather redundant
>> >itself.
>>
>> I think the exercise of categories and the philosophical problems of
>> same have been done to death - re-wrapping in Baudrillards rhetoric may
>> well be a Big Mac.
>
>Lets put it more simply. Baudrillard doesn't give a shit about categories.
>He's not involved in the analytic endeavour. He scorns it.
****
>Doesn't the very
>notion of being placed it no a category which does not exist suggest, in its
>uncaring paradoxicality,
****
?
> that metaphysical concepts are the last thing he
>cares about. As if the whole thing might be a subtext for the time-worn
>Artistotelian/Platonic dispute over whether concepts are universal or
>particular!
This is not simple...
>
>> But thats all it is. Radical here like a radical new
>> car from Ford. Oh yes - what does it run on - petrol - oh? and wheels -
>> yes four of course... Where then is the irony - i think i know.
>
>Sure, Baurdillard breathes like the rest of us (see above comments on
>breathing). But had you stopped to consider this fact until i brought it to
>light? Oh, so Baurdillard must be a 'human being'. Well, glad to have
>pigeon-holed him at last.
Are we saying the same thing - i think not. My Baudrillard certainly
doesn't breathe... is not like the rest of us...
>
>Irony?
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Made to seem a little shocking.
>> >
>> >True metaphysics must be conservative, is it? Or are you just confessing
>> >that ur a little shocked?
>>
>> metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even put
>> on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
>
>I think this is a bit like ur saying ur life had just the right amount of
>dissatisfaction - ie lacking any external terms of reference. Provide me
>with an example of this specific brand of metaphysics please (only so i may
>lust accordingly u should know)
As i said it comes in whatever form you want - you seem to like
Baudrillard's.
You miss the point - you are not able i suspect to out run some woman
athlete.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> But i must admit this doesn't
>> >> follow from the Baudrillard quote - for me at least, it simply seems to
>> >> say that categories are arbitrary.
>> >
>> >I didn't say it did follow. I'm simply placing it my personal context. On
>> >the contrary, I argued that nothing followed from his quote.
>> >
>> >So, how can they be arbitrary if they all such 'arbitrary' categories
>have
>> >functional non-existence in common? This, to be fair, is the idea of the
>> >quote. This is the genius of his assimilation. Arbitrary categories will
>> >>exist< unproblematically because they are irrelevant, like Borges'
>> >fictional 21 categories of Chinese classification (e.g. embalmed, stray
>> >dogs, fabulous etc), ie in the name of classifying existence.
>Non-arbitrary
>> >categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
>> >themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men, women,
>> >children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as innocent,
>for
>> >instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
>>
>> How are these non-arbitrary?
>
>My response is perfectly clear. I am not going to dissect my argument,
>because as soon as i do that, like with women and animals, the argument
>becomes reversible.
I'm not sure what you mean here at all.
> If u wish go through my response classifying my
>vocabulary and forms of expression as suggesting 'arbitrariness' or
>'non-arbitrariness' of category. As it stands you don't even give a sod
>about my argument.
>
>Your ever-present wish to analyticise is only detrimental and serves no
>purpose.
Well its not to be done then - we accept whole?
Hum! "the binary logic of gender" - i'm not sure you know what you are
doing? Other than engaging in a pseduo-metaphyiscal word game with
yourself.
This is wrong. Might be true in the USA - but that's its social
construct. Segregation was based on race even there. Certainly in Nazi
germany race was a more fundamental distinction. And within many
societies race, social position and skin colour are important
distinctions - more important than gender.
>Ethnicity is only relevant in so far as
>ethnicities are mixed, for the most part they exist separately,
both class and ethnicity co-exist - and seek to separate themselves.
> yet -
>schemings of the rad fems aside - males and females are necessarily
>intermingled all the way down.
>
>i suppose the interesting question si to what extent when you need to make
>reference to a black man - you make specific reference to 'black' - social
>makeup is obviously a factor. It has been argued by Segelan that the radical
>otherness of race is an extension of the radical otherness of individuals.
>
>Childern is an interesting case. Foucault argues that children had no sex -
>perhaps they have been like a third gender - yet within the structure of
>society - family, pedagogy, etc - nevertheless forms a necessary
>classificatory category.
>
>>
>> > there is no choice but to
>> >accept it.
>>
>> in terms of classification there is - gay rights promotes a direct
>> challenge to this.
>
>perhaps you need to explain. A challenge to the classificatory model of
>gender? I can see various undertones to your assertion but i would rather
>you made yourself explicit.
Explicitly open gay activity is not part of your binary whatever.
Borrowing a computer term i think was trendy but dangerous for Derrida.
One wants to ask why only two?
We don't live in an age - as everything by which we live relates to
another age. Back to gender- even that is blurred - even that is choice.
>
>> Surely these days we have the choice as
>> consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff of
>> post-modernity.
>
>are you suggesting that culture determines metaphysics?
yes.
>This would certainly
>be a subversion of the traditional foundational conception of
>spatio-temporal metaphysics. Alternatively, if you're not saying anything
>explicit (just gibbering) you still need to give me an example of
>metaphysics wearing a skirt and sitting on ur lap. Sounds great so long as
>it works.
OK you need to show me how your metaphysics isn't doing what you want it
to. And by that i include the idea of S&M.
--
James Whitehead
Ersatz Haderach
> the holy grail of the theory of everything can be printed on a tee shirt.
"Shit happens."
HTH,
The
--
"You're such a wonderful person, but you got problems." -David Bowie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2002 by David A.H. Perry [a.k.a. 'TheDavid(TM)']
atto
> In article <a5q3r1$kq2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, atto
> <ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
> [..]
> >> "doing sums" a demeaning and light hearted way of describing maths -
> >> c.f. Accountant = bean counters... Computer Programmers = anoraks /
> >> train spotters etc.
> >
> >So again, you are not concerned with mathematics in itself, only with
> >"mathematicians", and to make a sweeping, demeaning (light-hearted?)
> >generalisation concerning the span of their capabilities, divorcing them
> >form the world rather than wedding them to it by the nature fo their
> >fundamental endeavour.
>
> I don't see how maths is different to football- so without the players
> there is no game. But feel free to show otherwise.
You might as well say you don't see how maths is different to Giant Slalom.
Its a completely random analogy which proves nothing whatsoever. You are
incessant by the way. I show how maths is fundamental every time. And now
you're suggesting its encumbent upon me to show how maths is different to
football. I'm not aware of one way Maths is the same as football. How about
Maths is a commercial populist spectator sport? Your reversion to an utterly
random analogy by the way is a perversion of the notion of equivalence you
so deride. Oh and - if i might join u in ur silliness - Levi-Strauss showed
how football was diametrically opposed to the pensee sauvage i keep alluding
to, being founded in separation as opposed to unification.
> But as for maths
> being a fundamental endeavour - well you need to show this - how making
> up some axioms and generating an abstract system is "fundamental".
Firstly, i'm not making up any axioms. Secondly, aren't "axioms" supposed to
be "fundamental"? Or do you have a different notion of "fundamental"?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Indeed,
> >> >ecomonists presume people can give the right change - its part of
their
> >> >model - although the public participate in a model without the barest
> >> >conception they are doing anything of the sort - only arithmetic.
> >>
> >> i never count my change...
> >
> >Precisely because you presume you will be *given* the right change; that
> >people are skilled in arithmetic. Arithmetic is then a sort of nothing,
or
> >instinctive exercise at most.
>
> The reason is not that i expect it to be correct - but i shy away from
> the engagement with the other person as to why it isn't. Given a few
> pence either way i'm not bothered.
either way of what? the right amount?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You're also once again describing mathematics as merely a field, like
you
> >> >did with science, the implication they have no signification outside
of
> >the
> >> >fields thesmelves.
> >>
> >> wow - its a field - it has significance outside - in other fields. I've
> >> even used maths in art...
> >
> >To be honest i have no idea if you're trying to be ironic. Indeed,
fractals
> >are an admirable form of art, painting by numbers it could be called.
>
> You might admire fractals - however they are not considered "art". From
> reading what you write below you use the word quite differently to what
> you will find in the art section of the library - in museums and
> galleries etc. You are simply wrong about this.
i am "wrong" about calling something "art"? So much the worse for "art"
then, or whatever dumb-ass definition you are using.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >This standpoint is always the point of view of someone
> >> >outside the field, say X,
> >>
> >> why not instead of X say - "Bijou, the sex organ walking
undisguised..."
> >
> >you have completely lost me. X, in my context, is the name of a field.
You
> >need to be able to substitute X correctly if algebra is to be meaningful.
>
> But my point is that your equations are not "real" - they attempt to
> account... reality is not meaningful...
Derrida uses theoretical mathematics in the use of its grapheme as evidence
for the death of the sensible signifier as practised by logocentric
metaphysics. ... Anyway, you're not making a coherent point in any case in
that your notion of real and reality seem rather confused.
>
> >
> >Perhaps Bijou is walking in the field. But from a long way off (hot-air
> >balloon) you could only see the field.
>
> But we engage in the stickiness of reality - especially in art.
Well engage in the stickiness of mathematics rather than prodding it with a
long stick from the point of view of a ridiculous somewhat populist analogy.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >who content themselves that its practioners are
> >> >engaged in either an irrelvance, or just merely the activity of "X",
in a
> >> >self-reflexive fashion. (Scientists do science). Its like with
> >philosophy.
> >> >People have this conception that there is this activity called
> >philosophy,
> >> >or neatly demarcated subject-matter called 'philosophy'. From within
> >> >philosophy of course nothing is so ludicrous.
> >>
> >> You have said it seems that there is no boundary - then used the phrase
> >> .."from within.."
> >
> >I said there is no boundary from within. Think of it like a Tardis. While
> >your implication is that i am being paradoxical i am in actual fact being
> >perfectly coherent.
>
> Course there are boundaries - otherwise it makes this a piece of physics
> and maths etc.. its not?
I have already explained but u were not listening. Inter-disciplinary
boundaries are political and external. Politically-correct is in fact
overtly non-sticky, having nothing to do with the internal stickiness u
desire with respect to which there are no boundaries.
>
> >
> >> You also assume that "people" are not philosophers -
> >> people have this conception... which from within philosophy is
> >> ludicrous.
> >
> >You assume that people are the object of discourse (""). Who is the
category
> >of people? Do you not necessarily speak from within the hypothesised
> >category? Why do you put people in quotes, but not philosophers? Because
> >*you* are not a philosopher?
>
> I'm only aware of people as philosophers, again they have boundaries,
> which they want to discuss.
'is a philosopher' is a predicate with its own unique truth conditions which
does not bear into the concept of a person. Not least in the context of the
human sciences. The most we can grant of people is as a
empirico-transcendental doublet
>
> >
> >Maybe someone working in a maths or philosophy dept could get
> >> away with *just* smoking dope all day - well its only boundary
> >> demarcation that would say this is not what i should expect to do.
> >
> >I dare say you expect them to bury their heads in work producing tedious
> >papers just so long as they keep themsleves busy.
>
> Yes - or do they smoke dope all day - and that's ok re doing maths?
possibly as a useful supplement. Come to think of it most advanced maths is
probably done on drugs. Those mathematicians aren't as uptight and
conservative as you'd imagine... As for whether smoking dope in itself is
doing maths, well its not an equivalence... Ah buts whats doing maths? Does
it matter if you have no *mathematical* understanding of doing maths in any
case?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Part of the problem of course is inter-disclinary boundaries.
Disciplines
> >> >are granted autonomy on the understanding they do not disrupt any
other
> >> >disciplinary boundaries. Within a discipline itself, of course, every
> >> >discipline believes in the totality of its signification, although
> >political
> >> >correctness determines practitioners keep themselves to themselves.
Hence
> >> >the pain of returning to the cave, on the platonic parable.
> >>
> >> not sure what you mean by this - boundary drawing is just what
science -
> >> and maths seems to be about.
> >
> >I am not aware of any specific boundaries pertaining to science or
> >mathemetics. I dare say you believe in various mickey-mouse boundaries,
> >exemplifying ur own personal prejudices (e.g. in ur perverted vision of
the
> >mathematical universe) but i can assure you these are not relevant or
> >functional boundaries, because there are none.
>
> Well for starters is nbvnb=hmb,b878678hf897nbv34435v located within
> science?
ah you cant bluff me that easily. Thats a random piece of shit.
>
> >
> >
> >> OK and in the past it has had its uses - so
> >> has agriculture.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Going right back to Pythagoras
> >>
> >> do we have to - what about art...
> >
> >Pythagoras invented the musical scales...
>
> No he didn't! He wrote about some particular harmonics which were well
> known about. Megalithic structures have been examined and some sketchy
> ideas of the music of the period produced - its harmonic structures.
> Musical scales differ - in the east for instance - and even with the
> fairly mathematical atonal western system the mathematically correct
> tunings are modified to give a greater aesthetic feel.
thats a contradiction in terms, if its mathemetically 'correct'. In fact the
notion of aesthetic feel is limited to timbre which does not affect
frequency and wavelength (albeit if they are perceived aesthetically in the
broadest sense)
>
> > art, maybe? Music is founded in
> >pure mathemtics, if u were unaware.
> >
>
> Neither music or art is founded in pure mathematics. Mathematics can be
> used to explore music and art, all the algorithmic systems in art
> usually produce dull results. Like your fractals. You may live in a
> mathematical world - but this will not account for what is commonly
> called music and art.
Who says mathematics is algorithmic? On the quantum level all is pure
randomness. All arbitriness in the human world is similarly a product of
chaos (simulated randomness) and actual randomness. Even free-will insofar
as it is 'willed' is thought made possible by quantum randomness. Oh I won't
account for whats 'called' art? Well we've already seen that whats called
art is completely arbitrary in any case!
>
>
> >>
> >> >mathematics was believed to embody the
> >> >fundamental structure of reality. In recent times fractal geometry has
> >> >demonstrated that the world is structured according to fractals.
> >>
> >> no it has not... its demonstrated a "likeness" and not a very good one
> >> when looked at closely.
> >
> >There is no likeness about it. I think it is hilarious when u go on to
say
> >and not a very good likeness. Firstly, the world is necessarily fractal -
> >there is no other possibility. Secondly, fractals are by their nature,
one
> >might say, fuzzy. It is nonsensical to talk of a better or worse
likeness.
>
> "the world is necessarily fractal"? well i'm in the world so all my
> comments are too- they are no better or worse than yours then?
perhaps morally, or politically correctly. Logically there is no other
possibility than that the world is fractal. Its either Euclidean or
Fractal...
>
> >
> >>
> >> > This is to
> >> >say, mathematics has real signification (e.g. in nature), and, even
total
> >> >from the point of view of the (mathematical) universe.
> >>
> >> The mathematical universe is an abstract concept in the mind of the
> >> mathematician. All this is old stuff. No where in my universe can i
find
> >> mcircles, mtriangles and the like.
> >
> >Thats because circles and triangles are Euclidean. The whole point of
> >fractal mathematics was that squares and triangles were never found in
> >nature. This led to the discovery of non-Euclidean mathematics and the
> >realisation that the world itself was fractal and non-Euclidean. Old is
it?
> >
> But some of these geometries are. You seem to have such an extreme
> apriori position on the nature of maths that we are not going to get
> very far i think.
we can go as far as we want...
> >
> >> I can square a circle with a piece of
> >> string. *m = mathematical*
> >
> >i don't know what you mean, but well done anyway!
>
> No - because i'm living in another universe to you. Mathematically its
> been demonstrated that squaring the circle is impossible - yet in this
> world groundsmen do this all the time on soccer pitches.
do u mean that a square circle is impossible? I feel that whatever
groundsmen do it can't be very relevant in the context.
oh are we communicating?
aaaaahhhhh
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My two dogs understand very little - but seem to enjoy life.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >better to be your socrates dissatisfied, or your dog satisfied? Its
a
> >> >crude
> >> >> >question, but it has an important point in the scheme of things.
> >> >> >
> >> >> If you want to understand everything then you are howling for the
> >> >> impossible. Even the mathematicians will prove that for you. Nor do
i
> >> >> want to be such a creature that understands everything, or a dog, or
a
> >> >> Socrates.
> >> >
> >> >I say again there is no choice but to understand everything or
nothing.
> >>
> >> i understand somethings - i can make tea for instance. I have a choice,
> >> i might make a cup any moment.
> >
> >Man cannot live by Tea alone.
>
> or by maths.
there's nothing to stop him...
...
I wonder what place Tea would have? I have often wondered what people did
before there was tea.
>
> >>
> >> > So
> >> >Socrates claimed to know nothing? But did he know this? Perhaps either
> >> >possibility yields a contradiction, yet he needs an answer if he is to
be
> >> >coherent in the first place. Indeed, much philosophy is grounded on
the
> >idea
> >> >that we do suceed in making sense in everyday life, the question is
how,
> >> >otherwise we simply wouldn't make sense in the first place.
Understanding
> >is
> >> >thereby an imperative (not a luxury) if we are to be sure we can make
> >sense.
> >>
> >> The above is hard to follow - wasn't philosophy (R.I.P.) about
ontology.
> >
> >I thought philosophy was about lots of things.
>
> i'll float ontology...
if it makes u happy - ontology's an ever-so minor field. As a general rule
ontology conflicts with epistemology, and ontology was killed by the 20th
Century linguistic turn. Some fanatics have since reinstated ontology.
>
> > You can have a degree in
> >philosophy, not ontology.
>
> You can have a degree in lots of things - that are not philosophy.
yes great isn't it? :-D Thank our educational policies.
>
> >I suppose philosophy is a process of crititique.
> >No one has ever granted the first thing about ontology.
>
> I still think ontology has it. Post-modernity not withstanding.
ontology has 'it'! One wonders what!!
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If mathematics can prove some proof to be unknowable, then at least it
> >> >understands that, and the chain of understanding is complete. A chink
in
> >the
> >> >chain brings the whole edifice down. Ignorance and bluffing invariably
> >> >catches one out. Just as conmen go to jail. (If they don't, they're
> >> >obviously too clever).
> >>
> >> The edifice has been brought down...
> >
> >only if the edifice is constituted by a sort of mass confusion. The
edifice,
> >in so far as we perceive it as such (e.g. the establishment), is a
> >simulation. Still, insofar as the world presupposes knowledge (both
> >metaphysically, and socially), it is our duty to understand it, or else
fail
> > in entirety (the irony being we still have to explain the simulation).
The
> >merits of lifelong bluffing are still undecided. One may be hauled up at
any
> >moment. For one thing, one faces death alone.
>
> maths is not consistent.
oh mathematical relativism? Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes 2+2=5. Your maths
isn't consistent anyway.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >With regard to your contention that it is somehow ridiculous to want
to
> >> >understand everything, I say again, we must learn the lesson of the
> >pensee
> >> >sauvage. It has been man's imperative to understand everything since
time
> >> >immerorial. Even if the sea and the stars can merely be put in some
> >> >conceptual relationship, then there is a total structure of
> >understanding.
> >> >Without this man is adrift in the world.
> >>
> >> Well your right here - we are adrift. "Understanding" - "structures"
are
> >> arbitrary.
> >
> >if we are adrift then as i say the irony is that the simulation falls
down .
> >Yet my point is that the choice is still understanding everything or
> >nothing; whatever our actual state of affairs, from my own particular
point
> >of view and the coherence of my world, the latter clearly remains the
> >imperative (necessary not arbitrary). Understanding cannot be arbitrary
if
> >it is to serve its purpose.
>
> what purpose?
understanding. Something that can only be comprehended through
'understanding'. Otherwise people are led to ask curiosities like 'whats the
point?', because they don't have a clue.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> It maybe - for me - a necessary part of a healthy life to
> >> >> have some dissatisfaction - but only i would think in order to make
> >life
> >> >> enjoyable.
> >> >
> >> >You're quite perversely attempting to justify your life (just the
'right'
> >> >amount of dissatisfaction!) in terms which lack any external
> >justification.
> >>
> >> I've no need to justify my life - its before justification. Why
> >> shouldn't understanding be any different to all my other needs -
oxygen,
> >> food, water etc. Sufficient unto the day..
> >
> >If you were an astronaut and the oxygen seeped out of your module i
suppose
> >u merely shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't live without it.
>
> Or that i carry around sufficient tanks of it to last a lifetime!
oh great
>
> >
> >We rarely perceive the deep socio-metaphysical structures which make any
> >experience possible
>
> not so - its the other way round.
>
> >(e.g. breathing, being alive, shelter, the existence of
> >state, civilisation etc) even though any one of them is relatively
arbitrary
> >and reversible. You're only possible bulwark is understanding.
>
> This creates the structures you long for.
no because they're reversible (its out of my hands). In which case in some
sense they exist as intelligible structures.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We've been talking allot now and your obviously infatuated with
> >science
> >> >> >> - but is there any art you like - maybe we could talk about
that...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >well you say that, but in fact my discussion started with art and
the
> >> >> >adulation of the aphorism.
> >> >>
> >> >> It did - but art sort of got lost in the equations.
> >> >
> >> >I said that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific
understanding.
> >You
> >> >were the one to pick me on science because you bore a prejudice
against
> >> >science. I was merely justifying myself.
> >>
> >> I'm a great fan of science, but i do object to its rolling its tanks
> >> onto my lawn.
> >
> >You're lawn obviously isn't an object of science. Only all the other
lawns.
> >:-p
>
> its a fractal according to you.
yes try to perceive the lawn all the way down. Tanks are not the be all and
end all, only to the bourgeois!!!
>
> >
> >> So i get out my spanner and start taking them apart. I
> >> don't think your justified in saying that given a spiragraph you can
> >> ignore the rest of what's called art, i don't think i want to be
thought
> >> of as some X having a relationship of 45 degrees to some Y.
> >
> >Yes the peverted conception of the mathematical universe already alluded
to
> >above.
>
> How perverted - its governed by your laws of mathematics. So you say.
>
> >
> >> I'd rather
> >> be in love and be happy.
> >
> >So love and happiness is a special case is it?
>
> I'd like you to answer that. I'd rather live with a person than a slide
> rule.
i would suggest love and happiness isn't a special case. Indeed, it is never
desirable to socially interact with a slide-rule, in the bank, the market
etc I daresay that isn't the purpose of a sliderule. Most maths is not
conducted with a sliderule. Although in ur mathematical universe, sliderules
have it, just like ontology. You are the one who believes in the
"mathematical universe" because its so idiosyncratic. i just believe in the
universe, which happens to be perfectly amenable to mathematics.
>
>
> >You either have it or you
> >don't? Indeed, i suppose Giddens believes that in high-modernity the
special
> >relationship serves as a bulwark against the encroachments of modern
> >society, for whatever rewards it may yield of itself. Still, i have to
say
> >it sounds like a rather half-arsed solution to a corrupted alienated
> >society.
>
> What corrupted alienated society - this is after all a fractal
> phenomenon - are you saying that some equations are corrupted? By what?
you keep confusing mathematics with equations. Is not language not the
accursed supplement? Plato explicitly foresaw how the most perfect of
societies would fall inexorably into decay. A fractal notion would merely
suggest that a phenomenon might go all the way down in an endemic fashion,
in the same way that pockets of the opposite phenomenon could likewise be
found within the structure. No point in a fractal can be proven either
inside or outside it, the two are inexorably interwoven.
Think of Foucault's notion of capillary power, inveigling its way into every
crevice, at the same time no power without resistance. Its the same thing.
>
> >
> >I am reminded of my posts on morality in which i suggested that everybody
> >should be in a relationship with everybody else, as per a mathematical
> >model. All the great religions teach love to everybody in any case, as
> >opposed to some sort of bourgeois privilege divorced from the real
problems
> >of the real world. In any case, a general wishy washy attitude of 'love'
> >always seems pretty half-arsed in any case, if we are to be pragmatic
about
> >things.
>
> Why be pragmatic?
because we live in the real world
> In your system i cant see how you generate good and
> bad fractals.
the paradigm isn't good or bad. The paradigm is merely the paradigm; there
is no meaning to the 'whole' in any case, no outside. Good and bad are value
judgements within a paradigm. I suppose it depends how deep you look. Life
may seem rosy until u look beneath the surface. You pass the tramp in the
street and perceive a microcosm of misery invading on your world. Then you
see the big picture, whatever that is. Good and bad conceivably alternate.
But where do good and bad come from? God, you're not suggesting they're
metaphysical universals are you, that would be rather foundational of you?
Lets be pragmatic about good and bad, perceive them in all their richness
and malleability as products of the system, if indeed we need make reference
to them at all.
in my system perhaps i might wonder if u understand how to generate a
fractal simpliciter.
>
> >
> >> But your welcome to your life in the land of
> >> algebra.
i don't have such a concept. Didn't i suggest i was living in the real world
in any case? Oh, you're welcome to live in a museum if the lawn's out of
action.
> >
> >Algebra is merely symbolic. Just as x can stand in a relationship with x,
> >say x^2, so we could say any entity (person, planet etc) stands in a
> >relation to any other. A relation of x^2 is not purely abstract in any
case.
> >If x is a distance, then x^2 represents an area. The domain of
signification
> >can be anything. The language of Mathematics, in any case, is infinitely
> >expandable.
>
> Not what i've been told. There are some infinities it cant reach. Big
> omega for instance.
Hey you're trying to show off now. Sounds like 'you don't wanna mess with my
mate Big Dave, keep to your own lawn'. Well i'll just keep away from
infinity shall i, it was only a limiting concept in the first place. Still,
i'll stay well away just to be safe.
>
>
> >
> >> When you say that the aphorism has an equivalent in scientific
> >> understanding i merely want to point out that i don't think so. And if
> >> you are only able to approach Art via maths you are being an
> >> intellectual colonialist.
> >
> >It is an untapped resource with the greastest and unlimited of
> >possibilities. I hardly think intellectual "colonialist" is fair. You
don't
> >even comprehend the "paradigm" i am supposed to be imposing in anything
> >other than childish mickey-mouse terms of reference. How then am i being
a
> >colonialist? If anything its the native fertile land which represents the
> >untapped resource of mathematics in this analogy. The colonisers thank
god
> >would be too stupid too know what to do with it (thats the fuck maths
> >brigade). They would have to come crawling for explanation.
>
> Your off on your own trip here. I also said "fuck art". I dont
> comprehend you - that's true - because i don't think what your saying
> makes sense. Your ideas of maths seem - from my little knowledge - well
> - wrong -
no i think your ideas of maths are wrong, caricatured in the extreme.
Slide-rules must be where you left maths all that time ago. And true
mathemeticians live in the land of algebra of course.
> and when you move towards discussing art then your error
> becomes obvious. Your sounding like a fanatic - to put it politely.
i think u r scared of the unknown. The more i demonstrate the significance
of maths, the more you are desperate to bring in slide-rules. Presumably an
*intellectual colonialist* in slide-rules no less!!!! Keep your distance
folks!
How can you talk about error in art in any case? Either i'm a victim of some
arbitrary rule, in which case we needn't worry about art, or presumably i am
lacking in understanding. Oh but art's nothing to do with understanding. You
specifically lack complete interest in understanding. So art's conveniently
a law unto itself. Its not the real world its a ghetto.
Exposition of it as a lot of crap perhaps. Its a parody. The real world just
wouldn't be fooled.
No I think its in full-swing.
Yet you believe that women and negroes exist as categories. Presumbly you
lump in porn-mag paper women to the fomer category.
There are two ways of operating in the world, one is to blithely accept
everything as images, the other is to question the simulation.
I asked you do you believe individuals exist, not whether they constitute a
catch-all inanimate category, which would be nonsensical and perfectly
inimical to the concept an individual in any case. The easy obvious answer,
untainted by celluloid, is yes. Its not daft to think that people on
television are merely actors, that child pornography involves real
exploitation of children. Or am i being metaphysical?
>
> >
> >>
> >> Xs exist "Bijou, the sex organ walking undisguised..." exists - etc etc
> >> - its all a question of direction i think - from some standpoint you
(as
> >> mathematician) want equations - Bijou, the sex organ walking
undisguised
> >> = X, where perhaps i want the ... to continue.... which might upset
some
> >> feminists - so i should fudge it and say its an art thing - artists and
> >> models you know?
> >
> >all directions are reversible.
>
> your life -the argument with that person -?
As Schopenhauer said life is like a balloon we blow up bigger and bigger
convinced it will never pop...
An argument is perfectly reversible. Reject the premises on the basis you
reject the conclusion.
Science even believes time is now reversible. We we return to the big-bang
in reverse-time.
>
> >Compare, reversibility between individuals
>
> not possible?
If James is an individual then any "person" he interacts with is also an
individual. Its not possible they feel pain too is it? Of course you will
never change places, merely the concept of the individual is reversible.
>
> >(above) and within argument (below). From the point of view of
categories,
> >however, standpoint is the crucial issue; we are not interested in
> >categories in themselves as an analytic construct.
>
> You seem to be asking for alternatives- its just that the world as is
> needn't be so - and i suspect isn't. Take the idea - idea of individuals
> - its imposed - does that mean i operate differently? Of course not, the
> problem of individuals doesn't bother my dog.
Oh so you have a concept of your dog such that it isn't bothered? Thats
ironic in view of your rejection of the individual. The reality is you are
metaphorically talking on behalf of your dog. Correlatively your dog may be
thought to possess an objective ironic presentiment of existence. The
category into which he has been placed does not exist. The alternative is
that the category does exist. All categories are reversible. Indeed we can
manipulate the scheme aginst the status quo.
> Its a philosophical puzzle
> - that's all. Its resolution - like the value of Pi is not going to help
> me in my relationships with the people i meet today.
As a victim of images you reject all help in any case. The numerical value
fo pi on paper may not help you, but as the relationship between the
diameter and circumference of a circle it will manifest itself in the
concept of a circle. Perhaps the path of the sun, a wedding ring or the
circle of life. Never felt you're going round in circles? Like Sysphus
you're happy though you don't stop to think about it you just keep on
spinning.
In general you concentrate on the writing to the detriment of the
signifiancation.
> And these people
> could be real or not - it makes no difference.
Evidently you will lack the conceptual capacity empathise with them. And you
know soap characters, they're not real by the way, just in case you've got
the whole thing on its head.
> Baudrillard is wrong -
> (and he knows it!) and fooling you.
I judge Baudrillard by the same stick as any other real person. Non-real
people and images and random art/turds have no power over me. Fool you!
>
>
> >
> >Perhaps art does not perceive its own reversibility, as if it simply had
a
> >divine right to say/appear as it pleased. Well, for Camus, of course, the
> >potential for destruction of the artwork itself is inherent to its
nature.
> >
> >Fromt the point of view of rhetoric, the sysphean labour is to to succeed
in
> >saying anything.
>
> Your mistake is to see art and not artist. And no right - in spite of
> the world and its gods he labours and is happy.
And yet rhetoric achieves saying soemthing all the time. A miracle. You
would rather reside and laze on a blank canvas by contrast.
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Why do you separate animals? Women and children are just as much
distinct
> >> >categories. You mean because animals are not humans? Their 'category'
> >does
> >> >not exist then. I believe thats the whole point.
> >>
> >> No- i noticed how you saw women as believing they exist but not
animals.
> >
> >By analogy of women, animals believe they exist.
>
> no they don't - fleas believe they exist? Coral? come on!
I am sorry I am being stupid. Now its Eastenders on and I have to catch up
on the residents of the Square.
>
> >The very reason Baudrillard
> >does not break down his argument is that it would become reversible. He
does
> >not draw distinctions within its makeup (indeed his genius was
> >assimilation). I drew a hermeneutic distinction beween women and animals
on
> >the very basis that it would not be reversed (which it has been!) on the
> >basis of the prejudices i thought i was dealing with. Ultimately, we are
> >saying that women *and* animals believe they exist. I would more than
happy
> >just to let it pass like this...
> >
>
> You might like to explain the above.
Funnily enough you have gone on to confirm what was my working prejudice
about typical beliefs. You precisely don't believe that animals exist, and
yet you critised me for only indirectly suggesting that that animals exist,
on the basis that animal liberationists believe they do. So my argument
stands, on what basis do women exist but animals don't? It is my stated
contention they both do, my hermeneutic distinction between women and
animals notwithstanding?
>
>
> >> If you are saying categories are mental constructs - or Baudrillard
is -
> >> then its not radical is it?
> >
> >Where does mental constructs come from? You're analyticising the whole
> >thing. You're desperate to say something completely unsupported and
> >irrelevant about categories. Last time it was, well all i get from it (ho
> >hum) is that categories are arbitrary. As if in rhetoric we would sneeze
at
> >such a simple truth in any case (if it had any foundation)!
> >
> Mental constructs are what we do - like coral makes calcium ...
ummm - outdated metaphysics methinks. Its dangerous to think of mental
constructs because that turns them into things like coral or calcium.
> unfortunately though these constructs are useful they have problems.
> Understanding is limited like any other biological function.
When did a good shit last help our understanding of global politics?
^_^
>
>
> > that metaphysical concepts are the last thing he
> >cares about. As if the whole thing might be a subtext for the time-worn
> >Artistotelian/Platonic dispute over whether concepts are universal or
> >particular!
>
> This is not simple...
what, the time-worn dispute? Gosh, I heard about a new book on the subject
of nominalism only today.
>
>
> >
> >> But thats all it is. Radical here like a radical new
> >> car from Ford. Oh yes - what does it run on - petrol - oh? and wheels -
> >> yes four of course... Where then is the irony - i think i know.
> >
> >Sure, Baurdillard breathes like the rest of us (see above comments on
> >breathing). But had you stopped to consider this fact until i brought it
to
> >light? Oh, so Baurdillard must be a 'human being'. Well, glad to have
> >pigeon-holed him at last.
>
> Are we saying the same thing - i think not. My Baudrillard certainly
> doesn't breathe... is not like the rest of us...
oh sure, because breathing is only a metaphyscial concept. So what does he
do? Whats the alternative?
>
> >
> >Irony?
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Made to seem a little shocking.
> >> >
> >> >True metaphysics must be conservative, is it? Or are you just
confessing
> >> >that ur a little shocked?
> >>
> >> metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even put
> >> on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
> >
> >I think this is a bit like ur saying ur life had just the right amount of
> >dissatisfaction - ie lacking any external terms of reference. Provide me
> >with an example of this specific brand of metaphysics please (only so i
may
> >lust accordingly u should know)
>
> As i said it comes in whatever form you want - you seem to like
> Baudrillard's.
>
You were suggesting that Baudrillard's metaphysics was time-worn and done to
death. Doesn't then sound like a new flavour of metaphysics to me. Explain
how it can wear a skirt and sit on ur lap. That really would be a new breed
of metaphysics.
Hang on, you're opposing the idea that on average males are not stronger and
faster. How am *I* the least bit relevant, esp. compared to a woman athlete.
Its not really much of an arguement really is it?
see above. All you were doing was playing with my argument in any case.
First you pick me up for not explicitly stating animals believe they exist,
then u reveal ur prejudice as believing the complete opposite.
>
>
> > If u wish go through my response classifying my
> >vocabulary and forms of expression as suggesting 'arbitrariness' or
> >'non-arbitrariness' of category. As it stands you don't even give a sod
> >about my argument.
> >
> >Your ever-present wish to analyticise is only detrimental and serves no
> >purpose.
>
>
> Well its not to be done then - we accept whole?
its not to be done.
no not at all, i'm suggesting there's a discrete binary logic. Males and
females function as discrete genders. I'm not doing anything - its a
perfectly straightforward sort of observation. Gender's not in the least
metaphysical - its a common or garden - even if the source of perpetual
philosophising. A pseudo-metaphysical binary is this? So - there's an
irredicable binary. So whats your metaphysical concern here anyway?
I think you're just afraid I've made an explanatory point because in ur
world there are none and you like to ghettoise every point under a
discipline you have no wish to engage in. You are compelled to describe the
most simplistic and the most significant ideas alike metaphysical.
I feel you miss my point. Gender necessarily transcends every societal
distinction. Thus even within a social position gender will cut it in two.
Even in Nazi Germany gender was fundamental and the Nazis encouraged
exagerrated gender roles on the basis of the needs of procreation and future
generations of boys and girls (thereby continuing the gender as is). In this
way gender was not even questioned yet race was problematised.
Yes it is it questions appropriate male and female behaviour and conceptions
of male and female in terms of sexual orientation.
> Borrowing a computer term i think was trendy but dangerous for Derrida.
> One wants to ask why only two?
Two principle genders?
Oh so the other ages were ages but this one isn't. The age that dare not
speak its name.
Understand age in a non-relativist sense by the way. Thats what Derrida in
talking about our epoch with respect to a historical geneaology.
> Back to gender- even that is blurred - even that is choice.
>
>
> >
> >> Surely these days we have the choice as
> >> consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff of
> >> post-modernity.
> >
> >are you suggesting that culture determines metaphysics?
>
> yes.
agreed. Cultural insights bear on metaphysics. Just as in Baudrillard's
method.
>
> >This would certainly
> >be a subversion of the traditional foundational conception of
> >spatio-temporal metaphysics. Alternatively, if you're not saying anything
> >explicit (just gibbering) you still need to give me an example of
> >metaphysics wearing a skirt and sitting on ur lap. Sounds great so long
as
> >it works.
>
> OK you need to show me how your metaphysics isn't doing what you want it
> to. And by that i include the idea of S&M.
whats my metaphysics to do with it? You're making a sweeping metaphysical
assertion about our age [sic]. I'm merely the interlocutor. I don't count.
Atto
James Whitehead
<ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>> I don't see how maths is different to football- so without the players
>> there is no game. But feel free to show otherwise.
>
>You might as well say you don't see how maths is different to Giant Slalom.
Well why isn't it?
>Its a completely random analogy which proves nothing whatsoever. You are
>incessant by the way. I show how maths is fundamental every time.
You have asserted its fundamental - neither have you shown this or
proved it. A mathematicians ability to calculate is more "fundamental"
than skiing very fast down a slope without falling over - how so? You
then need perhaps to show where your "myth" of there being "fundamental"
things came from. This is alt.pomo!
> And now
>you're suggesting its encumbent upon me to show how maths is different to
>football. I'm not aware of one way Maths is the same as football.
Both are done by humans and follow certain axiomatic rules.....
> How about
>Maths is a commercial populist spectator sport?
Its certainly a sport - though not popular and not a spectator sport.
> Your reversion to an utterly
>random analogy by the way is a perversion of the notion of equivalence you
>so deride. Oh and - if i might join u in ur silliness - Levi-Strauss showed
>how football was diametrically opposed to the pensee sauvage i keep alluding
>to, being founded in separation as opposed to unification.
I do so like it when i get this name calling - kind of locates both of
us within the framework of this game. i.e. if you can't play the ball
then foul the player. I think its Eco who sees football certainly as
more significant than mathematics - or anything else which occurs in
universities ... ".. no student movement or urban revolt or global
protest or what have you would ever be able to do. And that is to occupy
the football field on a Sunday"
>
>> But as for maths
>> being a fundamental endeavour - well you need to show this - how making
>> up some axioms and generating an abstract system is "fundamental".
>
>Firstly, i'm not making up any axioms. Secondly, aren't "axioms" supposed to
>be "fundamental"? Or do you have a different notion of "fundamental"?
Yes - i'm waiting for one - or a few, you might not make up the rules -
but *someone* did.
>>
>> The reason is not that i expect it to be correct - but i shy away from
>> the engagement with the other person as to why it isn't. Given a few
>> pence either way i'm not bothered.
>
>either way of what? the right amount?
The right amount needn't bother me - its a metaphysical illusion. Such
illusions give the myth that you can never tune a musical instrument to
give the perfect note - "close enough for jazz" though!
>> You might admire fractals - however they are not considered "art". From
>> reading what you write below you use the word quite differently to what
>> you will find in the art section of the library - in museums and
>> galleries etc. You are simply wrong about this.
>
>i am "wrong" about calling something "art"? So much the worse for "art"
>then, or whatever dumb-ass definition you are using.
Sure call the stuff that comes out of the taps that you wash with "fire"
for all it matters. This is why you are unable to discuss art - you
simply dismiss the given consensus, without engaging first with it. When
i say "wrong" all i mean is your breaking the given rules - now if your
knowingly doing this - that's one thing - and perhaps doing this from
ignorance is another. If you are going to assert what is the case out of
ignorance - it closes down our opportunity of a discussion however. Like
the football fan - your team ?(maths united) is de facto the best- erre
we go err we go err we go... init
>> But my point is that your equations are not "real" - they attempt to
>> account... reality is not meaningful...
>
>Derrida uses theoretical mathematics in the use of its grapheme as evidence
>for the death of the sensible signifier as practised by logocentric
>metaphysics. ... Anyway, you're not making a coherent point in any case in
>that your notion of real and reality seem rather confused.
Confusing or confused - in any case i've noted the mathematical tendency
to look for "what Derrida really means" has crept into this group. Your
no exception. Further what's wrong with a confusion over reality in your
case this is only the product of the underlying fractal nature of
reality... how is a clear picture significantly different to a confused
picture? (Only in that it fails to enclose the "confusion".)
>>
>> But we engage in the stickiness of reality - especially in art.
>
>Well engage in the stickiness of mathematics rather than prodding it with a
>long stick from the point of view of a ridiculous somewhat populist analogy.
So you see the difference - the given reality has no axioms.
>> >I said there is no boundary from within. Think of it like a Tardis. While
>> >your implication is that i am being paradoxical i am in actual fact being
>> >perfectly coherent.
>>
>> Course there are boundaries - otherwise it makes this a piece of physics
>> and maths etc.. its not?
>
>I have already explained but u were not listening. Inter-disciplinary
>boundaries are political and external. Politically-correct is in fact
>overtly non-sticky, having nothing to do with the internal stickiness u
>desire with respect to which there are no boundaries.
Difficult sentence - but i maintain that collecting butterflies is not
mathematics - you may want to describe it as so - ok - then what i'm
doing now could be - is - mathematics - of a highly sophisticated kind.
>
>> I'm only aware of people as philosophers, again they have boundaries,
>> which they want to discuss.
>
>'is a philosopher' is a predicate with its own unique truth conditions which
>does not bear into the concept of a person. Not least in the context of the
>human sciences. The most we can grant of people is as a
>empirico-transcendental doublet
What ever you grant needs explaining for sure. But i think i see the
source of your problem - the craving for logical definitions. Are you
and the others wanting to make the likes of Derrida new "explanations".
Strange how the king is dead - long live the king. Surly the centre
forward shouldn't be playing in that position! Its not a given truth
condition of that predicate!
>> Yes - or do they smoke dope all day - and that's ok re doing maths?
>
>possibly as a useful supplement. Come to think of it most advanced maths is
>probably done on drugs.
have you proof of this?
>Those mathematicians aren't as uptight and
>conservative as you'd imagine...
- only radicals in universities "dont take drugs" these days. Soon a
prospective US president who didn't smoke dope at university will have
some explaining to do!
> As for whether smoking dope in itself is
>doing maths, well its not an equivalence...
why?
> Ah buts whats doing maths? Does
>it matter if you have no *mathematical* understanding of doing maths in any
>case?
>> Well for starters is nbvnb=hmb,b878678hf897nbv34435v located within
>> science?
>
>ah you cant bluff me that easily. Thats a random piece of shit.
>
so is this.
>> >
>> >Pythagoras invented the musical scales...
>>
>> No he didn't! He wrote about some particular harmonics which were well
>> known about. Megalithic structures have been examined and some sketchy
>> ideas of the music of the period produced - its harmonic structures.
>> Musical scales differ - in the east for instance - and even with the
>> fairly mathematical atonal western system the mathematically correct
>> tunings are modified to give a greater aesthetic feel.
>
>thats a contradiction in terms, if its mathemetically 'correct'.
Its what happens -
> In fact the
>notion of aesthetic feel is limited to timbre which does not affect
>frequency and wavelength (albeit if they are perceived aesthetically in the
>broadest sense)
"The truth is that our musical system is based on an acoustical cheat.
Correctly calculated intervals ... produce a disturbing acoustic
phenomenon ... thus the intervals in the tempered system (bach - mozart
- beethoven - beatles et al) with the sole exception of the octave, are
slightly out of tune.." "Scales are made in the process of endeavouring
to make music, and continue to be altered and modified generation after
generation.."
>
>>
>> > art, maybe? Music is founded in
>> >pure mathemtics, if u were unaware.
>> >
>>
>> Neither music or art is founded in pure mathematics. Mathematics can be
>> used to explore music and art, all the algorithmic systems in art
>> usually produce dull results. Like your fractals. You may live in a
>> mathematical world - but this will not account for what is commonly
>> called music and art.
>
>Who says mathematics is algorithmic?
well are you saying its not. That is there are *not* given processes in
doing maths? That your free to do whatever?
2+2=i wish i was in dixie and oh not four i think but then again...
>On the quantum level all is pure
>randomness. All arbitriness in the human world is similarly a product of
>chaos (simulated randomness) and actual randomness. Even free-will insofar
>as it is 'willed' is thought made possible by quantum randomness. Oh I won't
>account for whats 'called' art? Well we've already seen that whats called
>art is completely arbitrary in any case!
So mathematics is random - so equates to shit.
>>
>> "the world is necessarily fractal"? well i'm in the world so all my
>> comments are too- they are no better or worse than yours then?
>
>perhaps morally, or politically correctly. Logically there is no other
>possibility than that the world is fractal. Its either Euclidean or
>Fractal...
How can it be necessarily one but possibly the other?
>You seem to have such an extreme
>> apriori position on the nature of maths that we are not going to get
>> very far i think.
>
>we can go as far as we want...
not in discussing art it seems, but in your ideas regarding maths maybe.
>
>> >
>> >> I can square a circle with a piece of
>> >> string. *m = mathematical*
>> >
>> >i don't know what you mean, but well done anyway!
>>
>> No - because i'm living in another universe to you. Mathematically its
>> been demonstrated that squaring the circle is impossible - yet in this
>> world groundsmen do this all the time on soccer pitches.
>
>do u mean that a square circle is impossible? I feel that whatever
>groundsmen do it can't be very relevant in the context.
Squaring the circle was and perhaps is no longer a popular waste of time
in mathematics despite J H Lambert and von Lindemann. In other words
"you can't" draw a square around a circle, as the ratio of the one to
the other is not finite.
>> >
>> >ummm
>>
>> yes indeed! ummm.
>
>oh are we communicating?
not very well.
>
>aaaaahhhhh
>> >Man cannot live by Tea alone.
>>
>> or by maths.
>
>there's nothing to stop him...
lack of oxygen - oh and a body amongst others.
>
>...
>
>I wonder what place Tea would have? I have often wondered what people did
>before there was tea.
We drank beer.
>>
>> i'll float ontology...
>
>if it makes u happy - ontology's an ever-so minor field. As a general rule
>ontology conflicts with epistemology, and ontology was killed by the 20th
>Century linguistic turn. Some fanatics have since reinstated ontology.
"The modern form of ontology is transcendental philosophy which becomes
epistemology... Epistemology and what goes under that name is at bottom
metaphysics and ontology..."
And although this question is "overcome" the ghost of it remains i
think. The ghost is perhaps the trace - the thing under erasure..
>> >I suppose philosophy is a process of crititique.
>> >No one has ever granted the first thing about ontology.
>>
>> I still think ontology has it. Post-modernity not withstanding.
>
>ontology has 'it'! One wonders what!!
That's exactly it.
>> maths is not consistent.
>
>oh mathematical relativism? Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes 2+2=5. Your maths
>isn't consistent anyway.
Neither is the Halting Problem. Only by abstracting to the point of
absurdity do you get things like 1+1 = 2. Such a process is subjective.
And denies the recent ideas (in SCIENCE) of emergence.
>> >of view and the coherence of my world, the latter clearly remains the
>> >imperative (necessary not arbitrary). Understanding cannot be arbitrary
>if
>> >it is to serve its purpose.
>>
>> what purpose?
>
>understanding. Something that can only be comprehended through
>'understanding'. Otherwise people are led to ask curiosities like 'whats the
>point?', because they don't have a clue.
What a terribly good question.
>bulwark is understanding.
>>
>> This creates the structures you long for.
>
>no because they're reversible (its out of my hands). In which case in some
>sense they exist as intelligible structures.
>
cant follow this...
>> >You're lawn obviously isn't an object of science. Only all the other
>lawns.
>> >:-p
>>
>> its a fractal according to you.
>
>yes try to perceive the lawn all the way down. Tanks are not the be all and
>end all, only to the bourgeois!!!
Oh but you are still bean counting, counting the deck chairs on the
titanic.
>> I'd like you to answer that. I'd rather live with a person than a slide
>> rule.
>
>i would suggest love and happiness isn't a special case. Indeed, it is never
>desirable to socially interact with a slide-rule,
> in the bank, the market
>etc I daresay that isn't the purpose of a sliderule. Most maths is not
>conducted with a sliderule. Although in ur mathematical universe, sliderules
>have it, just like ontology. You are the one who believes in the
>"mathematical universe" because its so idiosyncratic. i just believe in the
>universe, which happens to be perfectly amenable to mathematics.
Perfectly amenable to mathematicians - and you have it.
>> What corrupted alienated society - this is after all a fractal
>> phenomenon - are you saying that some equations are corrupted? By what?
>
>you keep confusing mathematics with equations. Is not language not the
>accursed supplement? Plato explicitly foresaw how the most perfect of
>societies would fall inexorably into decay. A fractal notion would merely
>suggest that a phenomenon might go all the way down in an endemic fashion,
>in the same way that pockets of the opposite phenomenon could likewise be
>found within the structure. No point in a fractal can be proven either
>inside or outside it, the two are inexorably interwoven.
>
>Think of Foucault's notion of capillary power, inveigling its way into every
>crevice, at the same time no power without resistance. Its the same thing.
same thing ... its you who are equating. But please if maths is not
about equating - in some way or other please show me. All i'll say is if
the = process is not allowed then what.
>>
>> Why be pragmatic?
>
>because we live in the real world
Again you equate real and world - as if there is another...
>
>> In your system i cant see how you generate good and
>> bad fractals.
>
>the paradigm isn't good or bad. The paradigm is merely the paradigm; there
>is no meaning to the 'whole' in any case, no outside. Good and bad are value
>judgements within a paradigm. I suppose it depends how deep you look. Life
>may seem rosy until u look beneath the surface. You pass the tramp in the
>street and perceive a microcosm of misery invading on your world. Then you
>see the big picture, whatever that is. Good and bad conceivably alternate.
>But where do good and bad come from? God, you're not suggesting they're
>metaphysical universals are you, that would be rather foundational of you?
>Lets be pragmatic about good and bad, perceive them in all their richness
>and malleability as products of the system, if indeed we need make reference
>to them at all.
all your doing it seems is replacing god with pragmatism. Is it a good
deal?
>
>in my system perhaps i might wonder if u understand how to generate a
>fractal simpliciter.
don't know - what one is - guess there's an algorithm. In my experience
understanding and algorithms though useful in the last result have to be
thrown away when generating art. This is where the spirograph fails you.
I wonder - given the algorithms which generate fractals - does anyone
know why? Why for instance is Pi - what it is....
> The language of Mathematics, in any case, is infinitely
>> >expandable.
>>
>> Not what i've been told. There are some infinities it cant reach. Big
>> omega for instance.
>
>Hey you're trying to show off now.
not to you - and i doubt anyone else is reading - but you never know.
But i cant show off with my maths - its rubbish. I do like it though -
the subject. I've had a PhD guy step me slowly through some bits - its
cute - but like horse ridding - i've no particular gift and not the time
or inclination - though i like horses. I think teaching art is more
difficult. Like you go through the exercises and when the student gets
it right - well they are wrong. But as a postscript re art - its history
isn't it. The spirograph did for it - and the painting by numbers kits.
> Sounds like 'you don't wanna mess with my
>mate Big Dave, keep to your own lawn'. Well i'll just keep away from
>infinity shall i, it was only a limiting concept in the first place. Still,
>i'll stay well away just to be safe.
oh - come on - its only certain infinities you cant play with. You've
lots (snigger) of others to mess about with.
>> Your off on your own trip here. I also said "fuck art". I dont
>> comprehend you - that's true - because i don't think what your saying
>> makes sense. Your ideas of maths seem - from my little knowledge - well
>> - wrong -
>
>no i think your ideas of maths are wrong, caricatured in the extreme.
>Slide-rules must be where you left maths all that time ago. And true
>mathemeticians live in the land of algebra of course.
Yes i know - the slide-rule was being used as a sign - playfully at
that. I never could see the point to the one i had. But liked algebra.
However your ideas about maths just don't resemble anything like what
i've read about or talked about, perhaps i'm missing something.
>
>> and when you move towards discussing art then your error
>> becomes obvious. Your sounding like a fanatic - to put it politely.
>
>i think u r scared of the unknown. The more i demonstrate the significance
>of maths,
but you have done no such thing. Demonstrate its significance that is.
You said that music is based on it - which is a naive mistake, as i have
shown you. That in some way - yet to be shown - the universe is
dependent on it. You've also written off the whole of the visual arts,
which again is spectacular - but out of some knowledge or ignorance i'm
not sure. As to being scared - no - neither of horses or maths.
> the more you are desperate to bring in slide-rules. Presumably an
>*intellectual colonialist* in slide-rules no less!!!! Keep your distance
>folks!
Only in a playful way - like thinking artists just use paintbrushes.
>
>How can you talk about error in art in any case?
I wasn't - i was talking about what you were saying - if you ask for
directions for the MOMA - i give them - you go in and say - but this
isn't art! Well there seems to be an error somewhere. Maybe all the
books and museums etc. are wrong - do tell.
>Either i'm a victim of some
>arbitrary rule, in which case we needn't worry about art, or presumably i am
>lacking in understanding. Oh but art's nothing to do with understanding. You
>specifically lack complete interest in understanding. So art's conveniently
>a law unto itself. Its not the real world its a ghetto.
Some of what you say above i'd agree with - but you need to put some
specifics to this argument.
[...]
>>
>> You need to see how this came to be exhibited and the context. The
>> person who displays the turd - in order to fool the experts is in fact
>> the artist - and is making quite a serious comment - exposition of the
>> art scene.
>
>Exposition of it as a lot of crap perhaps. Its a parody. The real world just
>wouldn't be fooled.
But then the experts aren't fooled - are they. The proposition regarding
art as being given status by context - isn't fooling - its the reverse -
its showing - or if it is fooling then its more honest than a
perspective drawing. In fact such a demonstration has ramifications
within mathematics.
what makes "5rythj = kb89uji" shit?
[re science having nothing left to do]
>
>No I think its in full-swing.
Come on - what's swung in the last 40 years?
[..]
>> >> in saying so. Militant feminists perhaps do not even have the irony.
>> >
>> >I suppose the question is do you believe individuals exist? If not, what
>is
>> >the alternative?
>>
>> No - its "do you operate in the world by asking such questions - do you
>> use an alternative - or is the matter completely different." Can the
>> ideas about existence and individuals have any real "meaning" in the
>> world of experiences of real people, comic books, TV personalities - are
>> they all "individuals" - this means are they all X. Only out of a
>> metaphysical desire need they be.
>
>Yet you believe that women and negroes exist as categories. Presumbly you
>lump in porn-mag paper women to the fomer category.
they exist as words also... but exist here is different to how porn
stars exist - their ontology is different.
>
>There are two ways of operating in the world, one is to blithely accept
>everything as images, the other is to question the simulation.
Well first off - are you taking your "two ways..." and blithely
accepting it or .... - whoa! there cowboy... lets see even using your
two i can divide my position infinitely between them now we have rid
ourselves of the rule of the excluded middle. But do i detect in your
"simulation" the trace of platonic reals?
>
>I asked you do you believe individuals exist, not whether they constitute a
>catch-all inanimate category, which would be nonsensical and perfectly
>inimical to the concept an individual in any case. The easy obvious answer,
>untainted by celluloid, is yes. Its not daft to think that people on
>television are merely actors, that child pornography involves real
>exploitation of children. Or am i being metaphysical?
Ah! - child pornography - the hitler of today- a platonic BAD. "Better
dead than in bed"
[..]
>> >
>> >all directions are reversible.
>>
>> your life -the argument with that person -?
>
>As Schopenhauer said life is like a balloon we blow up bigger and bigger
>convinced it will never pop...
but once popped you think its reversible - back to being a big shiny
balloon?
>
>An argument is perfectly reversible. Reject the premises on the basis you
>reject the conclusion.
This computer program will halt.
>
>Science even believes time is now reversible. We we return to the big-bang
>in reverse-time.
Some Scientists! And some that time doesn't exist.
>
>>
>> >Compare, reversibility between individuals
>>
>> not possible?
>
>If James is an individual then any "person" he interacts with is also an
>individual. Its not possible they feel pain too is it? Of course you will
>never change places, merely the concept of the individual is reversible.
Firstly this is not reversed- my pain is not equal to yours - secondly
pain is a category. You cant feel a category.
>
>>
>> >(above) and within argument (below). From the point of view of
>categories,
>> >however, standpoint is the crucial issue; we are not interested in
>> >categories in themselves as an analytic construct.
>>
>> You seem to be asking for alternatives- its just that the world as is
>> needn't be so - and i suspect isn't. Take the idea - idea of individuals
>> - its imposed - does that mean i operate differently? Of course not, the
>> problem of individuals doesn't bother my dog.
>
>Oh so you have a concept of your dog such that it isn't bothered?
No i see him asleep, now an old brown setter, his poor muzzle quite
white. I see he is still anxious about food at meal times... In
particular at the moment i see he is not aware that he is unfortunately
slowly dying of paralysis, how upsetting for me this is - as "its only
a dog". However its not - its a very old friend - who is annoying - who
the other night ruined a carpet, poor thing. That i'm trying to be aware
of its quality of life - that i might have to have him killed... that
sometime he - his name is fisher - just seems not to want to live - at
others to stand up and wag his tail, and even try to run. And the
information above in no way qualifies you with an equality of what is
going on. That i - clean his smelly teeth, he likes a drink of beer now
in the evening - which he seems to enjoy - and helps him sleep....
>Thats
>ironic in view of your rejection of the individual. The reality is you are
>metaphorically talking on behalf of your dog. Correlatively your dog may be
>thought to possess an objective ironic presentiment of existence. The
>category into which he has been placed does not exist. The alternative is
>that the category does exist. All categories are reversible. Indeed we can
>manipulate the scheme aginst the status quo.
See how you miss completely what's is the case. "Your logic ties me up
in knots and rapes me!" - Sting.
"They should have sent a poet" Judy Foster in Contact.
The "category" into which fisher has been "placed" is that which is
fisher and myself, this is not fixed i would think. I've no idea how
"reversibility" and "category" fits in - the category of "Dog" is of
little help, though it does allow me the legality of having him put down
- or killed. There is perhaps some trade off - the animals willing
domestication - but that in no way "accounts" for our relationship.
>
>> Its a philosophical puzzle
>> - that's all. Its resolution - like the value of Pi is not going to help
>> me in my relationships with the people i meet today.
>
>As a victim of images you reject all help in any case. The numerical value
>fo pi on paper may not help you, but as the relationship between the
>diameter and circumference of a circle it will manifest itself in the
>concept of a circle. Perhaps the path of the sun, a wedding ring or the
>circle of life. Never felt you're going round in circles? Like Sysphus
>you're happy though you don't stop to think about it you just keep on
>spinning.
But your above description lacks the power to move me. This is i think
where i disagree with you- the path is wonderfully unique. Though words
may be repeatable your first kiss is not. And which is of greater value
- which is more fundamental? Its all a question of what you put first i
suspect - i'm moving more to the experience of now from which
mathematics is generated - like poetry/ philosophy also. The old story
is that God became flesh in Christ, a particular *victim* - a universal
god in a particular incarnation becomes "genuine" - might it not
therefore be the other way around. From the particular compassion the
idea of an absolute is imagined, a category is generated. Why then
become prisoners of our own creations. Wasn't the law made for man - and
not the other way around - so the chap marking out the football pitch
can square the circle and the game start.
>
>In general you concentrate on the writing to the detriment of the
>signifiancation.
>
>> And these people
>> could be real or not - it makes no difference.
>
>Evidently you will lack the conceptual capacity empathise with them. And you
>know soap characters, they're not real by the way, just in case you've got
>the whole thing on its head.
>
>> Baudrillard is wrong -
>> (and he knows it!) and fooling you.
>
>I judge Baudrillard by the same stick as any other real person. Non-real
>people and images and random art/turds have no power over me. Fool you!
>
One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Perhaps art does not perceive its own reversibility, as if it simply had
>a
>> >divine right to say/appear as it pleased. Well, for Camus, of course, the
>> >potential for destruction of the artwork itself is inherent to its
>nature.
>> >
>> >Fromt the point of view of rhetoric, the sysphean labour is to to succeed
>in
>> >saying anything.
>>
>> Your mistake is to see art and not artist. And no right - in spite of
>> the world and its gods he labours and is happy.
>
>And yet rhetoric achieves saying soemthing all the time. A miracle. You
>would rather reside and laze on a blank canvas by contrast.
>
where did you get that idea from - its mathematics which seems blank.
And i've offered my reasons for why ideas of existence rather than
engage in life do just the reverse. Why philosophy is a disease. Every
time i ask for specifics you don't give any, just more and more
abstractions in which you can perform equalities.
>
>>
>>
>> >> If you are saying categories are mental constructs - or Baudrillard
>is -
>> >> then its not radical is it?
>> >
>> >Where does mental constructs come from? You're analyticising the whole
>> >thing. You're desperate to say something completely unsupported and
>> >irrelevant about categories. Last time it was, well all i get from it (ho
>> >hum) is that categories are arbitrary. As if in rhetoric we would sneeze
>at
>> >such a simple truth in any case (if it had any foundation)!
>> >
>> Mental constructs are what we do - like coral makes calcium ...
>
>ummm - outdated metaphysics methinks. Its dangerous to think of mental
>constructs because that turns them into things like coral or calcium.
Philosophy is dangerous because some people can take it too seriously -
so become very constipated because they ignore their bowels.
>
>> unfortunately though these constructs are useful they have problems.
>> Understanding is limited like any other biological function.
>
>When did a good shit last help our understanding of global politics?
What is global politics but the fabrication of people who miss having a
good shit. I think included in love thy neighbour is your arse.
[..]
>>
>> > that metaphysical concepts are the last thing he
>> >cares about. As if the whole thing might be a subtext for the time-worn
>> >Artistotelian/Platonic dispute over whether concepts are universal or
>> >particular!
>>
>> This is not simple...
>
>what, the time-worn dispute? Gosh, I heard about a new book on the subject
>of nominalism only today.
Its not possible -? I think it might be.
[..]
>> >> metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even put
>> >> on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
>> >
>> >I think this is a bit like ur saying ur life had just the right amount of
>> >dissatisfaction - ie lacking any external terms of reference. Provide me
>> >with an example of this specific brand of metaphysics please (only so i
>may
>> >lust accordingly u should know)
>>
>> As i said it comes in whatever form you want - you seem to like
>> Baudrillard's.
>>
>
>You were suggesting that Baudrillard's metaphysics was time-worn and done to
>death.
no i wasn't -
>Doesn't then sound like a new flavour of metaphysics to me. Explain
>how it can wear a skirt and sit on ur lap. That really would be a new breed
>of metaphysics.
what are you using it for, entertainment.
[..]
>> >> average males are stronger - run faster which is opposed by certain
>> >> feminists.
>> >
>> >Well this is true on both accounts of strength and speed! The irony is,
>of
>> >course, strength and speed does males no favours nowadays (leaving sexual
>> >violence aside as a brush to tar all males). Manual labour such as
>> >ship-building is on the way out, clerical is on the way in.
>>
>> You miss the point - you are not able i suspect to out run some woman
>> athlete.
>
>Hang on, you're opposing the idea that on average males are not stronger and
>faster. How am *I* the least bit relevant, esp. compared to a woman athlete.
>Its not really much of an arguement really is it?
You say strength and speed does favour males - ignoring the particular.
Your discrimination is based on some abstract "average male" - who must
have less than 2 legs and two eyes - owing to Long John Silver being
included in your category.
>> >> >categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
>> >> >themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men, women,
>> >> >children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as
>innocent,
>> >for
>> >> >instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> How are these non-arbitrary?
>> >
>> >My response is perfectly clear. I am not going to dissect my argument,
>> >because as soon as i do that, like with women and animals, the argument
>> >becomes reversible.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here at all.
>
>see above. All you were doing was playing with my argument in any case.
>First you pick me up for not explicitly stating animals believe they exist,
yes - because you didn't- you swapped from the things self awareness to
some human inference-
>then u reveal ur prejudice as believing the complete opposite.
>
not so - not the complete opposite - please i'm saying you dont have to
have either or - so you can construct a world from simple elements -
fractals if you like - you can reduce it to pixels - if you like - and
then a whole host of other shit - is possible. Now which comes close to
my experience - i've never met an average woman. An average Dog.
>>
>> > If u wish go through my response classifying my
>> >vocabulary and forms of expression as suggesting 'arbitrariness' or
>> >'non-arbitrariness' of category. As it stands you don't even give a sod
>> >about my argument.
>> >
>> >Your ever-present wish to analyticise is only detrimental and serves no
>> >purpose.
>>
>>
>> Well its not to be done then - we accept whole?
>
>its not to be done.
>
[..]
>> >
>>
>> Hum! "the binary logic of gender" - i'm not sure you know what you are
>> doing? Other than engaging in a pseduo-metaphyiscal word game with
>> yourself.
>
>no not at all, i'm suggesting there's a discrete binary logic. Males and
>females function as discrete genders. I'm not doing anything - its a
>perfectly straightforward sort of observation. Gender's not in the least
>metaphysical - its a common or garden - even if the source of perpetual
>philosophising. A pseudo-metaphysical binary is this? So - there's an
>irredicable binary. So whats your metaphysical concern here anyway?
That "gender" is metaphysics. And taking it seriously in the way you do
is not to my taste.
>
>I think you're just afraid I've made an explanatory point because in ur
>world there are none and you like to ghettoise every point under a
>discipline you have no wish to engage in. You are compelled to describe the
>most simplistic and the most significant ideas alike metaphysical.
Gosh no - i'm always ready to be slipped the truth. But i'm not sure
just what it is you think you've explained. And i'm pointing out that
explanations are problematic.
[..]
>> >partly because sex is the most fundamental distinction not only between
>> >societies but within society.
>>
>> This is wrong. Might be true in the USA - but that's its social
>> construct. Segregation was based on race even there. Certainly in Nazi
>> germany race was a more fundamental distinction. And within many
>> societies race, social position and skin colour are important
>> distinctions - more important than gender.
>
>I feel you miss my point. Gender necessarily transcends every societal
>distinction.
Within the english monarchy although the oldest males have ascendancy,
this is however only within the offspring of the monarch. So gender is
unable here to - in the case of Henry 8 transcend his offspring. So it
is not "necessarily" so. Though often the norm, the laws of inheritance
in general show another social distinction.
[..]
>>
>> Explicitly open gay activity is not part of your binary whatever.
>
>Yes it is it questions appropriate male and female behaviour and conceptions
>of male and female in terms of sexual orientation.
But its doesn't just do this does it?
>
>> Borrowing a computer term i think was trendy but dangerous for Derrida.
>> One wants to ask why only two?
>
>Two principle genders?
The idea of Binary opposition - and yes two principle genders.
[..]
>> We don't live in an age - as everything by which we live relates to
>> another age.
>
>Oh so the other ages were ages but this one isn't. The age that dare not
>speak its name.
That's true isn't it? - Post Modernity - isn't a name its a non-name.
>
>Understand age in a non-relativist sense by the way. Thats what Derrida in
>talking about our epoch with respect to a historical geneaology.
>
>
>> Back to gender- even that is blurred - even that is choice.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Surely these days we have the choice as
>> >> consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff of
>> >> post-modernity.
>> >
>> >are you suggesting that culture determines metaphysics?
>>
>> yes.
>
>agreed. Cultural insights bear on metaphysics. Just as in Baudrillard's
>method.
and culture is taste - fashion?
[..]
>> OK you need to show me how your metaphysics isn't doing what you want it
>> to. And by that i include the idea of S&M.
>
>whats my metaphysics to do with it? You're making a sweeping metaphysical
>assertion about our age [sic]. I'm merely the interlocutor. I don't count.
>
If your saying your metaphysics is just that - "yours" and "yours alone"
i'm quite happy -
--
James Whitehead
atto
> In article <a6957h$cqa$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, atto
> <ajw...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> I don't see how maths is different to football- so without the players
> >> there is no game. But feel free to show otherwise.
> >
> >You might as well say you don't see how maths is different to Giant
Slalom.
>
> Well why isn't it?
its winter only.
>
> >Its a completely random analogy which proves nothing whatsoever. You are
> >incessant by the way. I show how maths is fundamental every time.
>
> You have asserted its fundamental - neither have you shown this or
> proved it. A mathematicians ability to calculate is more "fundamental"
> than skiing very fast down a slope without falling over - how so?
The reason why the skier doesn't fall over is becasue of maths. Indeed,
maths is the fundamental tool at his disposal. As he is cornering at high
speed he must lean into the turn as much as is necessary to counter the
centrefugal force.
> You
> then need perhaps to show where your "myth" of there being "fundamental"
> things came from. This is alt.pomo!
I have no obligation to show it to be a necessary truth that fundamentalism
should be fallacious. That would be a performaive contradiction. Indeed,
from a cultural point of view mathematics has never really been understood
as fundamental - this is my friction to be overcome - so we have a different
starting point not susceptible to performative contradiction. Fundamentalism
will be inseparable from my independent extolling of mathemathetics. There
is no hidden fundamentalism. The very task will be to show it to be
fundamental. The difference with metaphysics is that metaphysics has
understood its history as foundational, which is why this had to be exposed.
From your point of view you fear the unknown - call it "myth" if u like. You
appear to independently fear fundamentalism in itself.
>
> > And now
> >you're suggesting its encumbent upon me to show how maths is different to
> >football. I'm not aware of one way Maths is the same as football.
>
> Both are done by humans and follow certain axiomatic rules.....
Are the rules of football really axiomatic? Is it axiomatically necessary
that a free-kick should given for a foul, or simply arbitrary? Remember,
axioms are supposed to be self-evident in themselves.
>
> > How about
> >Maths is a commercial populist spectator sport?
>
> Its certainly a sport - though not popular and not a spectator sport.
its in no way a sport. I never did maths in P.E., not as a sport anyway. We
did watch sports science videos about throwing the javelin. Perhaps its the
other way around. Sport is maths.
>
> > Your reversion to an utterly
> >random analogy by the way is a perversion of the notion of equivalence
you
> >so deride. Oh and - if i might join u in ur silliness - Levi-Strauss
showed
> >how football was diametrically opposed to the pensee sauvage i keep
alluding
> >to, being founded in separation as opposed to unification.
>
> I do so like it when i get this name calling - kind of locates both of
> us within the framework of this game. i.e. if you can't play the ball
> then foul the player.
I wasn't playing any ball before i joined you in the "game". My act of
fouling would appear to be the act of joining in. You play ball - I do
maths, which doesn't seem fair. Still, are we discussing maths or ball?
> I think its Eco who sees football certainly as
> more significant than mathematics - or anything else which occurs in
> universities ... ".. no student movement or urban revolt or global
> protest or what have you would ever be able to do. And that is to occupy
> the football field on a Sunday"
God another sentence which makes no sense. Thats not playing ball. Whatever
Eco was supposed to say good for football anyway.
>
> >
> >> But as for maths
> >> being a fundamental endeavour - well you need to show this - how making
> >> up some axioms and generating an abstract system is "fundamental".
Maths does not make up any axioms - (leaving quite aside your connotations
of "make-believe" in "make-up", after all we are supposedly dealing with
axioms). Thats just not how maths operates.
"In mathematics, the greatest degree of self-evidence is usually nit to be
found quite at the beginning, bit at some later point; hence the early
deductions, until they reach this point, give reasons rather for believing
the premisses because true consequences follow from them, than believing the
consequences because they follow form true premisses." (Principia
Mathematics)
Thus axioms are often provided at a later date. They ensure the system is
coherent - furthermore they ensure the system has no boundaries, to the
effect that in the limiting sense we are not dealing with a "system" at all.
For instance alegebriac has been defined as expressable in polynomial form,
thereby being sensitive to the possibility of the non-algebraic. In this way
mathematics transcends the algebra/non-algebra divide.
> >
> >Firstly, i'm not making up any axioms. Secondly, aren't "axioms" supposed
to
> >be "fundamental"? Or do you have a different notion of "fundamental"?
>
> Yes - i'm waiting for one - or a few, you might not make up the rules -
> but *someone* did.
see above. Oh, *I* don't have have to provide a different concept of
fundamental. You are the one expressing dissatisfaction with the common
notion according to which axioms are fundamental. I'm happy with it. Or do
you reject the dictionary? Perhaps you would expunge the word completely?
>
> >>
> >> The reason is not that i expect it to be correct - but i shy away from
> >> the engagement with the other person as to why it isn't. Given a few
> >> pence either way i'm not bothered.
> >
> >either way of what? the right amount?
>
> The right amount needn't bother me - its a metaphysical illusion. Such
> illusions give the myth that you can never tune a musical instrument to
> give the perfect note - "close enough for jazz" though!
I don't see how the possibility of the correct change creats the illusion
that you cannot ever have the correct note. Not that I accept any connection
in the first place, they just seem to strike in opposite directions.
Anyway, whats "close enough for your pocket"? 5p, Ł5, Ł500... ???
>
>
> >> You might admire fractals - however they are not considered "art". From
> >> reading what you write below you use the word quite differently to what
> >> you will find in the art section of the library - in museums and
> >> galleries etc. You are simply wrong about this.
> >
> >i am "wrong" about calling something "art"? So much the worse for "art"
> >then, or whatever dumb-ass definition you are using.
>
> Sure call the stuff that comes out of the taps that you wash with "fire"
> for all it matters.
Perhaps that would be a good artistic metaphor for somethign or other.
Perhaps nuking the bacteria when you wash your hands. So anything can be art
then?
> This is why you are unable to discuss art - you
> simply dismiss the given consensus, without engaging first with it.
I'm engaging with it by rejecting it. Consensus sounds institutional for
one, it suggests an inside and an outside for another. Just as in maths and
science i prefer to do without boundaries. I discuss maths and science on
their own account.
Do you share the given consensus? Either way, what need to bring the
"consensus" into it? You are unable to discuss metaphysics, on the basis it
is a question of personal taste. Its the same thing isn't it?
> When
> i say "wrong" all i mean is your breaking the given rules - now if your
> knowingly doing this - that's one thing - and perhaps doing this from
> ignorance is another.
I'm unware how rules are a virtue in themselves. So are there really
independently justifiable rules in art? You, however, merely tell me that
i'm breaking them, which hardly makes them sound independently justifiable.
Are these the same rules for creating art as for judging art? I wouldn't
have thought though there were any hard and fast rules for creating an
artwork, rather the opposite. Doesn't this lead into the possibility that
anything can be art, once we have ruled out the turds of course? (although
you might want to keep them in).
> If you are going to assert what is the case out of
> ignorance - it closes down our opportunity of a discussion however. Like
> the football fan - your team ?(maths united) is de facto the best- erre
> we go err we go err we go... init
i was suggesting that a fractal might be thought art. Thats just as
mathematical a sentiment as artistic a one.
>
>
> >> But my point is that your equations are not "real" - they attempt to
> >> account... reality is not meaningful...
> >
> >Derrida uses theoretical mathematics in the use of its grapheme as
evidence
> >for the death of the sensible signifier as practised by logocentric
> >metaphysics. ... Anyway, you're not making a coherent point in any case
in
> >that your notion of real and reality seem rather confused.
>
> Confusing or confused - in any case i've noted the mathematical tendency
> to look for "what Derrida really means" has crept into this group.
No I merely transcribed him actually. I only had to look to find the right
bit of the text in "Of Grammatology".
> Your
> no exception. Further what's wrong with a confusion over reality in your
> case this is only the product of the underlying fractal nature of
> reality... how is a clear picture significantly different to a confused
> picture? (Only in that it fails to enclose the "confusion".)
You're confused on your own account. Its much easier to merely relate this
back to yourself than the part of reality you occupy (which is merely you!)
not withstanding that you are not separate from reality. n.b. clear and
confused are merely human value judgements possessing no independent status
or need of justification. You search for a point outside of the paradigm,
which is impossible, with which to apply these judgements. Blame yourself
not the paradigm. Or search for the root of your confusion within the
paradigm.
>
> >>
> >> But we engage in the stickiness of reality - especially in art.
> >
> >Well engage in the stickiness of mathematics rather than prodding it with
a
> >long stick from the point of view of a ridiculous somewhat populist
analogy.
>
> So you see the difference - the given reality has no axioms.
ironic - considering what a fan of rules you are.
>
> >> >I said there is no boundary from within. Think of it like a Tardis.
While
> >> >your implication is that i am being paradoxical i am in actual fact
being
> >> >perfectly coherent.
> >>
> >> Course there are boundaries - otherwise it makes this a piece of
physics
> >> and maths etc.. its not?
> >
> >I have already explained but u were not listening. Inter-disciplinary
> >boundaries are political and external. Politically-correct is in fact
> >overtly non-sticky, having nothing to do with the internal stickiness u
> >desire with respect to which there are no boundaries.
>
> Difficult sentence -
but you made it :-)
> but i maintain that collecting butterflies is not
> mathematics - you may want to describe it as so - ok -
well its counting, but of course counting is a metaphysical illusion. Its
also classification in terms of equivalence and difference.
> then what i'm
> doing now could be - is - mathematics - of a highly sophisticated kind.
the question is do you wish to describe it as mathematics? After all, its
what *your* doing. Otherwise, let mathematics describe you. There isn't the
third possibility you're describing.
>
> >
> >> I'm only aware of people as philosophers, again they have boundaries,
> >> which they want to discuss.
> >
> >'is a philosopher' is a predicate with its own unique truth conditions
which
> >does not bear into the concept of a person. Not least in the context of
the
> >human sciences. The most we can grant of people is as a
> >empirico-transcendental doublet
>
> What ever you grant needs explaining for sure.
Its from Foucault's The Order of Things.
> But i think i see the
> source of your problem - the craving for logical definitions. Are you
> and the others wanting to make the likes of Derrida new "explanations".
> Strange how the king is dead - long live the king. Surly the centre
> forward shouldn't be playing in that position! Its not a given truth
> condition of that predicate!
no the predicate has truth conditions, in terms of a theory of meaning.
Please don't contradict if you're not going to be accurate. Alternatively,
if you won't grant 'is a philosopher' as a simple predicate then pray what
does constitute a philosopher? I don't think its a simple question,
certainly not simple enough to go branding everyone a philosopher.
>
>
> >> Yes - or do they smoke dope all day - and that's ok re doing maths?
> >
> >possibly as a useful supplement. Come to think of it most advanced maths
is
> >probably done on drugs.
>
> have you proof of this?
its what my housemate contends, who's a PhD in mathematics.
>
> >Those mathematicians aren't as uptight and
> >conservative as you'd imagine...
>
> - only radicals in universities "dont take drugs" these days. Soon a
> prospective US president who didn't smoke dope at university will have
> some explaining to do!
>
> > As for whether smoking dope in itself is
> >doing maths, well its not an equivalence...
>
> why?
well its not an obvious equivalence! They appear rather different, and i
wouldn't know how to equate them, to be honest.
>
> > Ah buts whats doing maths? Does
> >it matter if you have no *mathematical* understanding of doing maths in
any
> >case?
> >> Well for starters is nbvnb=hmb,b878678hf897nbv34435v located within
> >> science?
> >
> >ah you cant bluff me that easily. Thats a random piece of shit.
> >
>
> so is this.
is that a self-reflexive statement?
>
> >> >
> >> >Pythagoras invented the musical scales...
> >>
> >> No he didn't! He wrote about some particular harmonics which were well
> >> known about. Megalithic structures have been examined and some sketchy
> >> ideas of the music of the period produced - its harmonic structures.
> >> Musical scales differ - in the east for instance - and even with the
> >> fairly mathematical atonal western system the mathematically correct
> >> tunings are modified to give a greater aesthetic feel.
> >
> >thats a contradiction in terms, if its mathemetically 'correct'.
>
> Its what happens -
duh - then its not mathemtically correct then. You describe a paradox.
>
> > In fact the
> >notion of aesthetic feel is limited to timbre which does not affect
> >frequency and wavelength (albeit if they are perceived aesthetically in
the
> >broadest sense)
>
> "The truth is that our musical system is based on an acoustical cheat.
> Correctly calculated intervals ... produce a disturbing acoustic
> phenomenon ... thus the intervals in the tempered system (bach - mozart
> - beethoven - beatles et al) with the sole exception of the octave, are
> slightly out of tune.." "Scales are made in the process of endeavouring
> to make music, and continue to be altered and modified generation after
> generation.."
do you not do references? Oh but your quote provides what 'the truth is
that... '. Truth is disquotation.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > art, maybe? Music is founded in
> >> >pure mathemtics, if u were unaware.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Neither music or art is founded in pure mathematics. Mathematics can be
> >> used to explore music and art, all the algorithmic systems in art
> >> usually produce dull results. Like your fractals. You may live in a
> >> mathematical world - but this will not account for what is commonly
> >> called music and art.
> >
> >Who says mathematics is algorithmic?
>
> well are you saying its not. That is there are *not* given processes in
> doing maths? That your free to do whatever?
rationality's normally a good staple for mathematicians. When you think
rationally do you think the same three things every time?
>
> 2+2=i wish i was in dixie and oh not four i think but then again...
what algorithm stipulates 2+2=4? do you have to do it again to make it an
algorithm? isn't once (at max!) enough?
>
>
> >On the quantum level all is pure
> >randomness. All arbitriness in the human world is similarly a product of
> >chaos (simulated randomness) and actual randomness. Even free-will
insofar
> >as it is 'willed' is thought made possible by quantum randomness. Oh I
won't
> >account for whats 'called' art? Well we've already seen that whats called
> >art is completely arbitrary in any case!
>
> So mathematics is random - so equates to shit.
> >>
> >> "the world is necessarily fractal"? well i'm in the world so all my
> >> comments are too- they are no better or worse than yours then?
> >
> >perhaps morally, or politically correctly. Logically there is no other
> >possibility than that the world is fractal. Its either Euclidean or
> >Fractal...
>
> How can it be necessarily one but possibly the other?
how about : 'Either 2+2=4 or 2+2<>4' which is logically correct.
>
>
> >You seem to have such an extreme
> >> apriori position on the nature of maths that we are not going to get
> >> very far i think.
> >
> >we can go as far as we want...
>
> not in discussing art it seems, but in your ideas regarding maths maybe.
glad to know you're a mathemetical enthusiast and i'm just an artistic
stick-in-the-mud. Well lets see the evidence
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> I can square a circle with a piece of
> >> >> string. *m = mathematical*
> >> >
> >> >i don't know what you mean, but well done anyway!
> >>
> >> No - because i'm living in another universe to you. Mathematically its
> >> been demonstrated that squaring the circle is impossible - yet in this
> >> world groundsmen do this all the time on soccer pitches.
> >
> >do u mean that a square circle is impossible? I feel that whatever
> >groundsmen do it can't be very relevant in the context.
>
> Squaring the circle was and perhaps is no longer a popular waste of time
> in mathematics despite J H Lambert and von Lindemann. In other words
> "you can't" draw a square around a circle, as the ratio of the one to
> the other is not finite.
can't u just draw a square with the length of its side being the diameter of
the circle as ratio 1:1?
>
>
> >> >
> >> >ummm
> >>
> >> yes indeed! ummm.
> >
> >oh are we communicating?
>
> not very well.
oh you got me excited
> >
> >aaaaahhhhh
>
> >> >Man cannot live by Tea alone.
> >>
> >> or by maths.
> >
> >there's nothing to stop him...
>
> lack of oxygen - oh and a body amongst others.
well lets grant he already has a body, by whatever mathematico-scientific
processes of cellular division have procured this eventuality, then there's
no problem then. A principle for 'Living by' does not need to describe how
you're there in the first place, although some understanding would help, but
just how you're going to proceed with living. As, what relationships you're
going to enter into.
mathematics describes relations between entities. In the 'Game of Life', for
instance, you can mathematically model how can cells come together to form
larger organisms, and how these interact with each other.
>
> >
> >...
> >
> >I wonder what place Tea would have? I have often wondered what people did
> >before there was tea.
>
> We drank beer.
you personally?
>
> >>
> >> i'll float ontology...
> >
> >if it makes u happy - ontology's an ever-so minor field. As a general
rule
> >ontology conflicts with epistemology, and ontology was killed by the 20th
> >Century linguistic turn. Some fanatics have since reinstated ontology.
>
> "The modern form of ontology is transcendental philosophy which becomes
> epistemology... Epistemology and what goes under that name is at bottom
> metaphysics and ontology..."
well i disagree. For epistemology you can't talk about things if you don't
know about them. Even the sun and the stars are subject to the same
principles of epistemological idealism, which is embarassing to ontology.
Ontologists just want to cut the nitty gritty (as, how do i know anything?),
which may ironically in some respects be thought to constitute the whole of
philosophy, and impatiently get on with theorising the 'real world' of atoms
and small animals and planets cos they think they're falling behing with
science. Thus modern ontology is inimical to philosophy.
>
> And although this question is "overcome" the ghost of it remains i
> think. The ghost is perhaps the trace - the thing under erasure..
there's no ghost. Modern ontology is simply in bed with science. Philosophy
is happy to do its own thing
>
> >> >I suppose philosophy is a process of crititique.
> >> >No one has ever granted the first thing about ontology.
> >>
> >> I still think ontology has it. Post-modernity not withstanding.
> >
> >ontology has 'it'! One wonders what!!
>
> That's exactly it.
what?
>
> >> maths is not consistent.
> >
> >oh mathematical relativism? Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes 2+2=5. Your maths
> >isn't consistent anyway.
>
> Neither is the Halting Problem. Only by abstracting to the point of
> absurdity do you get things like 1+1 = 2. Such a process is subjective.
> And denies the recent ideas (in SCIENCE) of emergence.
well i'm unaware of this issue. perhaps you'd liek to give me an example
>
> >> >of view and the coherence of my world, the latter clearly remains the
> >> >imperative (necessary not arbitrary). Understanding cannot be
arbitrary
> >if
> >> >it is to serve its purpose.
> >>
> >> what purpose?
> >
> >understanding. Something that can only be comprehended through
> >'understanding'. Otherwise people are led to ask curiosities like 'whats
the
> >point?', because they don't have a clue.
>
> What a terribly good question.
you yob, thats self-defeating. Is self-defeatingness really an option?
[ ......... "what a terribly good question?" ]
> >bulwark is understanding.
> >>
> >> This creates the structures you long for.
> >
> >no because they're reversible (its out of my hands). In which case in
some
> >sense they exist as intelligible structures.
> >
>
> cant follow this...
you either have oxygen or you don't. This doesn't change the necessity of
oxygen to survival.
>
> >> >You're lawn obviously isn't an object of science. Only all the other
> >lawns.
> >> >:-p
> >>
> >> its a fractal according to you.
> >
> >yes try to perceive the lawn all the way down. Tanks are not the be all
and
> >end all, only to the bourgeois!!!
>
> Oh but you are still bean counting, counting the deck chairs on the
> titanic.
no i'd fast forward to thinking of eternity.
>
> >> I'd like you to answer that. I'd rather live with a person than a slide
> >> rule.
> >
> >i would suggest love and happiness isn't a special case. Indeed, it is
never
> >desirable to socially interact with a slide-rule,
> > in the bank, the market
> >etc I daresay that isn't the purpose of a sliderule. Most maths is not
> >conducted with a sliderule. Although in ur mathematical universe,
sliderules
> >have it, just like ontology. You are the one who believes in the
> >"mathematical universe" because its so idiosyncratic. i just believe in
the
> >universe, which happens to be perfectly amenable to mathematics.
>
> Perfectly amenable to mathematicians - and you have it.
i thought you maintained that mathematicians were inept in their everyday
lives, misunderstood undoubtedly by those around them. Essentially
mathematicans exist only in a minority, beyond which a social and a physical
reality extends far beyond them. Thus what is universal is the domain of
mathematics (not mathematicians).
>
> >> What corrupted alienated society - this is after all a fractal
> >> phenomenon - are you saying that some equations are corrupted? By what?
> >
> >you keep confusing mathematics with equations. Is not language not the
> >accursed supplement? Plato explicitly foresaw how the most perfect of
> >societies would fall inexorably into decay. A fractal notion would merely
> >suggest that a phenomenon might go all the way down in an endemic
fashion,
> >in the same way that pockets of the opposite phenomenon could likewise be
> >found within the structure. No point in a fractal can be proven either
> >inside or outside it, the two are inexorably interwoven.
> >
> >Think of Foucault's notion of capillary power, inveigling its way into
every
> >crevice, at the same time no power without resistance. Its the same
thing.
>
> same thing ... its you who are equating.
the 'its the same thing' was an unnecessary mere rhetorical flush. Just
think of Foucault's notion of capillary power, which is quite obviously
fractal. There are different ways of approaching mathematics. The problem
with the literary approach however is you talk of "micro-physics", like
Foucualt, and it looks like you're using terms of art. Can you study
micro-physics as an independent discipline, on the basis of Foucault's
limited comments, outside of Foucault's domain? You're just not grounded in
maths. The problem of course is to find the precise mathematical model (ie
precise model as opposed to paradigm)
> But please if maths is not
> about equating - in some way or other please show me. All i'll say is if
> the = process is not allowed then what.
>
> >>
> >> Why be pragmatic?
> >
> >because we live in the real world
>
> Again you equate real and world - as if there is another...
you equate mathemetical and universe, as if there were another. Hence i
retort with talk of real and world.
>
> >
> >> In your system i cant see how you generate good and
> >> bad fractals.
> >
> >the paradigm isn't good or bad. The paradigm is merely the paradigm;
there
> >is no meaning to the 'whole' in any case, no outside. Good and bad are
value
> >judgements within a paradigm. I suppose it depends how deep you look.
Life
> >may seem rosy until u look beneath the surface. You pass the tramp in the
> >street and perceive a microcosm of misery invading on your world. Then
you
> >see the big picture, whatever that is. Good and bad conceivably
alternate.
> >But where do good and bad come from? God, you're not suggesting they're
> >metaphysical universals are you, that would be rather foundational of
you?
> >Lets be pragmatic about good and bad, perceive them in all their richness
> >and malleability as products of the system, if indeed we need make
reference
> >to them at all.
>
>
> all your doing it seems is replacing god with pragmatism. Is it a good
> deal?
no its not a philosophy of pragmatism. There's a difference between this and
being 'pragmatic'.
Anyway, why on earth would I be replacing god with pragmatism? What makes me
being foundational with respect to pragmatism? Sure in a sense I'm being
foundational with respect to mathematics, but that mustn't be misunderstood
as if a mathematical paradigm were a point like entity. Indeed within the
paradigm we can't even perceive it as a whole, so there's no issue in trying
to uncover it for we will only understand it better (understanding being the
objective). There's no good bandying the word fractal around either in all
contexts as if it were a thing either unless it is being related to a
conceivably mathematical context.
>
> >
> >in my system perhaps i might wonder if u understand how to generate a
> >fractal simpliciter.
>
> don't know - what one is - guess there's an algorithm. In my experience
> understanding and algorithms though useful in the last result have to be
> thrown away when generating art. This is where the spirograph fails you.
> I wonder - given the algorithms which generate fractals - does anyone
> know why?
cos thats what a fractal is. Its not as if a fractal were merely the image.
Its a mathematical representation in itself. The colours represent numbers
of repetions of the algorithm to diverge. Its mathemetical through and
through. I'm not an expert although i dare say its only a question of
understanding the maths.
> Why for instance is Pi - what it is....
>
> > The language of Mathematics, in any case, is infinitely
> >> >expandable.
> >>
> >> Not what i've been told. There are some infinities it cant reach. Big
> >> omega for instance.
> >
> >Hey you're trying to show off now.
>
> not to you - and i doubt anyone else is reading - but you never know.
i think they are. Its like Big Brother.
> But i cant show off with my maths - its rubbish. I do like it though -
> the subject. I've had a PhD guy step me slowly through some bits - its
> cute - but like horse ridding - i've no particular gift and not the time
> or inclination - though i like horses. I think teaching art is more
> difficult. Like you go through the exercises and when the student gets
> it right - well they are wrong. But as a postscript re art - its history
> isn't it. The spirograph did for it - and the painting by numbers kits.
>
> > Sounds like 'you don't wanna mess with my
> >mate Big Dave, keep to your own lawn'. Well i'll just keep away from
> >infinity shall i, it was only a limiting concept in the first place.
Still,
> >i'll stay well away just to be safe.
>
> oh - come on - its only certain infinities you cant play with. You've
> lots (snigger) of others to mess about with.
untouchable sounds even more fun. Look but don't touch (snigger). If there
were a door saying it opened up onto the void, wouldn't you still wanmt to
open it?
>
> >> Your off on your own trip here. I also said "fuck art". I dont
> >> comprehend you - that's true - because i don't think what your saying
> >> makes sense. Your ideas of maths seem - from my little knowledge - well
> >> - wrong -
> >
> >no i think your ideas of maths are wrong, caricatured in the extreme.
> >Slide-rules must be where you left maths all that time ago. And true
> >mathemeticians live in the land of algebra of course.
>
> Yes i know - the slide-rule was being used as a sign - playfully at
> that. I never could see the point to the one i had.
wasn't much of a sign them
> But liked algebra.
> However your ideas about maths just don't resemble anything like what
> i've read about or talked about, perhaps i'm missing something.
well perhaps i'm pushing the concept of mathematics forwards. If you're too
busy studying the technical aspect though then you don't have time to think
about the significance/signification of what you're doing.
We worship knowledge for its own sake, yet we never get to the stage where
we start utilising what we know, because there's always the lure of more and
deeper knowledge.
That notwithstanding, every discipline strives for totality. Ask any
practioner to describe its significance and you will see this. For example,
take sociology. Sociology critiques science, ethics, and politics, believing
it trumps them all. Politics trumps science (scientists are in the hands of
the politicians). Science believes it trumps everything. Mathematicians just
stay quiet.
>
> >
> >> and when you move towards discussing art then your error
> >> becomes obvious. Your sounding like a fanatic - to put it politely.
> >
> >i think u r scared of the unknown. The more i demonstrate the
significance
> >of maths,
>
> but you have done no such thing. Demonstrate its significance that is.
> You said that music is based on it - which is a naive mistake, as i have
> shown you. That in some way - yet to be shown - the universe is
> dependent on it. You've also written off the whole of the visual arts,
> which again is spectacular - but out of some knowledge or ignorance i'm
> not sure. As to being scared - no - neither of horses or maths.
>
> > the more you are desperate to bring in slide-rules. Presumably an
> >*intellectual colonialist* in slide-rules no less!!!! Keep your distance
> >folks!
>
> Only in a playful way - like thinking artists just use paintbrushes.
so as an artist you'd like a loving relationship with a paintbrush would
you? The mind boggles.
>
> >
> >How can you talk about error in art in any case?
>
> I wasn't - i was talking about what you were saying - if you ask for
> directions for the MOMA - i give them - you go in and say - but this
> isn't art!
maybe you gave wrong directions!
Maybe i ended up in the slaughterhouse. (Is this art?)
> Well there seems to be an error somewhere. Maybe all the
> books and museums etc. are wrong - do tell.
>
> >Either i'm a victim of some
> >arbitrary rule, in which case we needn't worry about art, or presumably i
am
> >lacking in understanding. Oh but art's nothing to do with understanding.
You
> >specifically lack complete interest in understanding. So art's
conveniently
> >a law unto itself. Its not the real world its a ghetto.
>
> Some of what you say above i'd agree with - but you need to put some
> specifics to this argument.
well imagine it like mastermind. You tell me what you agree with and what
you disagree with. Then i swap the colours accordingly, building on
strengths & avoiding weaknesses.
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >> You need to see how this came to be exhibited and the context. The
> >> person who displays the turd - in order to fool the experts is in fact
> >> the artist - and is making quite a serious comment - exposition of the
> >> art scene.
> >
> >Exposition of it as a lot of crap perhaps. Its a parody. The real world
just
> >wouldn't be fooled.
>
> But then the experts aren't fooled - are they. The proposition regarding
> art as being given status by context - isn't fooling - its the reverse -
> its showing - or if it is fooling then its more honest than a
> perspective drawing. In fact such a demonstration has ramifications
> within mathematics.
>
> what makes "5rythj = kb89uji" shit?
>
> [re science having nothing left to do]
are you suggesting this is a neglected avenue of enquiry? Why don't you send
it in to New Scientist?
Or you could even send the whole question - why is it shit? - to the Last
Word, where everyone else just asks why is sky blue?
>
> >
> >No I think its in full-swing.
>
> Come on - what's swung in the last 40 years?
e.g. human genome project, string theory?
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> in saying so. Militant feminists perhaps do not even have the irony.
> >> >
> >> >I suppose the question is do you believe individuals exist? If not,
what
> >is
> >> >the alternative?
> >>
> >> No - its "do you operate in the world by asking such questions - do you
> >> use an alternative - or is the matter completely different." Can the
> >> ideas about existence and individuals have any real "meaning" in the
> >> world of experiences of real people, comic books, TV personalities -
are
> >> they all "individuals" - this means are they all X. Only out of a
> >> metaphysical desire need they be.
> >
> >Yet you believe that women and negroes exist as categories. Presumbly you
> >lump in porn-mag paper women to the fomer category.
>
> they exist as words also... but exist here is different to how porn
> stars exist - their ontology is different.
oh you're bringing it down to ontology are you, that inept ghost?
So, what makes two ontologies different? Is this a notion like substance
pluralism?
I'm sure porn stars would be fascinated to know the result of your
investigation. Maybe they could put it on their medical record?
>
> >
> >There are two ways of operating in the world, one is to blithely accept
> >everything as images, the other is to question the simulation.
>
> Well first off - are you taking your "two ways..." and blithely
> accepting it or .... - whoa! there cowboy... lets see even using your
> two i can divide my position infinitely between them now we have rid
> ourselves of the rule of the excluded middle. But do i detect in your
> "simulation" the trace of platonic reals?
No that would be a mistake. Simulation is the lack of an original. The point
is to recognise simulation, which the the act of questioning it achieves.
Simulation is founded on its own non-existence, just like the platonic reals
one might say. Thus the concept of an image, in the first way, both suggests
simulation (its do with an image) and that simulation has not been
recognised (yet nothing is lacking). The second way recognises simulation
and attempts to destroy it.
>
> >
> >I asked you do you believe individuals exist, not whether they constitute
a
> >catch-all inanimate category, which would be nonsensical and perfectly
> >inimical to the concept an individual in any case. The easy obvious
answer,
> >untainted by celluloid, is yes. Its not daft to think that people on
> >television are merely actors, that child pornography involves real
> >exploitation of children. Or am i being metaphysical?
>
> Ah! - child pornography - the hitler of today- a platonic BAD. "Better
> dead than in bed"
that would be a simulation in itself. Is it the fact that the child appears
in the (child) pornography we object to, this after all is the realm of
images, sexual fantasy, and moral repugnance, or is it the use of children
in an exploitative situation to others' ends? The irony of pornography is
that part of the act of realisation in fantasy is the felt necessity that
the scene has actually taken place.
>
> [..]
> >> >
> >> >all directions are reversible.
> >>
> >> your life -the argument with that person -?
> >
> >As Schopenhauer said life is like a balloon we blow up bigger and bigger
> >convinced it will never pop...
>
> but once popped you think its reversible - back to being a big shiny
> balloon?
Does life take place in an expanse of death, or does life always arise from
death?
>
> >
> >An argument is perfectly reversible. Reject the premises on the basis you
> >reject the conclusion.
>
> This computer program will halt.
Computer programs don't argue they do what they're told. Still a computer
malfunction is a perfect reversal of what its supposed to do, yet made
possible and necessitated by those very protocols and purposes.
>
> >
> >Science even believes time is now reversible. We we return to the
big-bang
> >in reverse-time.
>
> Some Scientists! And some that time doesn't exist.
i think most scientists merely deny that time flows as in the polular
imagination. They accept that most physical processes are temporally
asymmetric - this is the paradox.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Compare, reversibility between individuals
> >>
> >> not possible?
> >
> >If James is an individual then any "person" he interacts with is also an
> >individual. Its not possible they feel pain too is it? Of course you will
> >never change places, merely the concept of the individual is reversible.
>
> Firstly this is not reversed- my pain is not equal to yours - secondly
> pain is a category. You cant feel a category.
yet you describe both sensations as a 'pain' - interesting.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >(above) and within argument (below). From the point of view of
> >categories,
> >> >however, standpoint is the crucial issue; we are not interested in
> >> >categories in themselves as an analytic construct.
> >>
> >> You seem to be asking for alternatives- its just that the world as is
> >> needn't be so - and i suspect isn't. Take the idea - idea of
individuals
> >> - its imposed - does that mean i operate differently? Of course not,
the
> >> problem of individuals doesn't bother my dog.
> >
> >Oh so you have a concept of your dog such that it isn't bothered?
>
> No i see him asleep, now an old brown setter, his poor muzzle quite
> white. I see he is still anxious about food at meal times... In
> particular at the moment i see he is not aware that he is unfortunately
> slowly dying of paralysis, how upsetting for me this is - as "its only
> a dog". However its not - its a very old friend - who is annoying - who
> the other night ruined a carpet, poor thing. That i'm trying to be aware
> of its quality of life - that i might have to have him killed... that
> sometime he - his name is fisher - just seems not to want to live - at
> others to stand up and wag his tail, and even try to run. And the
> information above in no way qualifies you with an equality of what is
> going on. That i - clean his smelly teeth, he likes a drink of beer now
> in the evening - which he seems to enjoy - and helps him sleep....
ur dog is obviously a wonderful creature. Long may he live. God one just
doesn't know what to say in situations like this.
>
> >Thats
> >ironic in view of your rejection of the individual. The reality is you
are
> >metaphorically talking on behalf of your dog. Correlatively your dog may
be
> >thought to possess an objective ironic presentiment of existence. The
> >category into which he has been placed does not exist. The alternative is
> >that the category does exist. All categories are reversible. Indeed we
can
> >manipulate the scheme aginst the status quo.
>
> See how you miss completely what's is the case. "Your logic ties me up
> in knots and rapes me!" - Sting.
No I forgot to take into account rape - platonic bad par excellence. What
could be worse than a logical rape? God, that must be patriarchal.
>
> "They should have sent a poet" Judy Foster in Contact.
But if they did would she have know it?
(how do you identify a poet?)
>
> The "category" into which fisher has been "placed" is that which is
> fisher and myself, this is not fixed i would think. I've no idea how
> "reversibility" and "category" fits in - the category of "Dog" is of
> little help,
exactly, in itself the category could express sameness just as much as
difference, depending whether the category was meant inert or how much
import was meant by it.
If you eat meat, it would be instructive that you eat cows but you don't eat
your dog. What does this say about your concept of 'dog'? Or maybe you think
Dog is Man's best friend. Doesn't work for Cat though.
> though it does allow me the legality of having him put down
> - or killed. There is perhaps some trade off - the animals willing
> domestication - but that in no way "accounts" for our relationship.
>
> >
> >> Its a philosophical puzzle
> >> - that's all. Its resolution - like the value of Pi is not going to
help
> >> me in my relationships with the people i meet today.
> >
> >As a victim of images you reject all help in any case. The numerical
value
> >fo pi on paper may not help you, but as the relationship between the
> >diameter and circumference of a circle it will manifest itself in the
> >concept of a circle. Perhaps the path of the sun, a wedding ring or the
> >circle of life. Never felt you're going round in circles? Like Sysphus
> >you're happy though you don't stop to think about it you just keep on
> >spinning.
>
> But your above description lacks the power to move me. This is i think
> where i disagree with you- the path is wonderfully unique. Though words
> may be repeatable your first kiss is not.
is that because its your 'first'? ... What if your first kiss was a peck on
the cheek from grandma? Does it count? When do you start counting?
> And which is of greater value
> - which is more fundamental? Its all a question of what you put first i
> suspect - i'm moving more to the experience of now from which
> mathematics is generated - like poetry/ philosophy also. The old story
> is that God became flesh in Christ, a particular *victim* - a universal
> god in a particular incarnation becomes "genuine" - might it not
> therefore be the other way around. From the particular compassion the
> idea of an absolute is imagined, a category is generated. Why then
> become prisoners of our own creations.
exactly, the question remains what relations obtain between the particulars?
Yet we renounce the even-weightedness of a relation for the absoluteness of
a category or of God. We give over the great mass of the "unexplained" to
the Absolute, despite the fact that we see the simple conceptual relations
obtaining all around us. Indeed, we conflate and squash them to a reductive
notion of "reality", such that we blind ourselves to its workings,
forgetting that all is in perfect logical order.
> Wasn't the law made for man - and
> not the other way around -
you can't privelege either side. (Do you wish to privilege art or science?)
> so the chap marking out the football pitch
> can square the circle and the game start.
if the law was made for me i'd understand this analogy after all this time.
Pity you can't draw in an email.
>
> >
> >In general you concentrate on the writing to the detriment of the
> >signifiancation.
> >
> >> And these people
> >> could be real or not - it makes no difference.
> >
> >Evidently you will lack the conceptual capacity empathise with them. And
you
> >know soap characters, they're not real by the way, just in case you've
got
> >the whole thing on its head.
> >
> >> Baudrillard is wrong -
> >> (and he knows it!) and fooling you.
> >
> >I judge Baudrillard by the same stick as any other real person. Non-real
> >people and images and random art/turds have no power over me. Fool you!
> >
>
> One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.
you're rather asking to be proven wrong though. I mean the ox can't exactly
complain that the lion breathes when he's about to get eaten.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps art does not perceive its own reversibility, as if it simply
had
> >a
> >> >divine right to say/appear as it pleased. Well, for Camus, of course,
the
> >> >potential for destruction of the artwork itself is inherent to its
> >nature.
> >> >
> >> >Fromt the point of view of rhetoric, the sysphean labour is to to
succeed
> >in
> >> >saying anything.
> >>
> >> Your mistake is to see art and not artist. And no right - in spite of
> >> the world and its gods he labours and is happy.
> >
> >And yet rhetoric achieves saying soemthing all the time. A miracle. You
> >would rather reside and laze on a blank canvas by contrast.
> >
> where did you get that idea from - its mathematics which seems blank.
you said a blank canvas is perfect. I suppose equations are just waiting for
the world to be slipped into the picture.
art is very dangerous because the turd gets turned into a thing in itself
when it was only supposed to be disgarded bowel refuse.
>
> >
> >> unfortunately though these constructs are useful they have problems.
> >> Understanding is limited like any other biological function.
> >
> >When did a good shit last help our understanding of global politics?
>
> What is global politics but the fabrication of people who miss having a
> good shit. I think included in love thy neighbour is your arse.
so kiss mine.
Eminem lyric: 'I'd like a big enough arse for the whole world to kiss'
>
> [..]
>
> >>
> >> > that metaphysical concepts are the last thing he
> >> >cares about. As if the whole thing might be a subtext for the
time-worn
> >> >Artistotelian/Platonic dispute over whether concepts are universal or
> >> >particular!
> >>
> >> This is not simple...
> >
> >what, the time-worn dispute? Gosh, I heard about a new book on the
subject
> >of nominalism only today.
>
> Its not possible -? I think it might be.
whats not possible? that its a subtext for the time-worn dispute? I think
its overtly raping the dispute. No subtext about it.
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> metaphysics comes in any flavour you want these days. It will even
put
> >> >> on a skirt and sit on your lap if you like.
> >> >
> >> >I think this is a bit like ur saying ur life had just the right amount
of
> >> >dissatisfaction - ie lacking any external terms of reference. Provide
me
> >> >with an example of this specific brand of metaphysics please (only so
i
> >may
> >> >lust accordingly u should know)
> >>
> >> As i said it comes in whatever form you want - you seem to like
> >> Baudrillard's.
> >>
> >
> >You were suggesting that Baudrillard's metaphysics was time-worn and done
to
> >death.
>
> no i wasn't -
well i could quote you.
>
> >Doesn't then sound like a new flavour of metaphysics to me. Explain
> >how it can wear a skirt and sit on ur lap. That really would be a new
breed
> >of metaphysics.
>
> what are you using it for, entertainment.
no I'm merely interested in the metaphysical ramifications. As a general
rule in philosophy, or metaphysics, you don't make reference to the domain
within which you're operating. You don't define philosophy, you just do it.
If you're going to engage in metaphysics, you've accepted its necessity and
you don't question the edifice (as occurs in deconstruction). Questioning
metaphysics in this way necessarily has radical implications.
Thus when you make reference to metaphysics wearing a skirt, I'm wondering
how thats possible, if indeed you really do mean what you say. What does it
say for metaphysics?
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> average males are stronger - run faster which is opposed by certain
> >> >> feminists.
> >> >
> >> >Well this is true on both accounts of strength and speed! The irony
is,
> >of
> >> >course, strength and speed does males no favours nowadays (leaving
sexual
> >> >violence aside as a brush to tar all males). Manual labour such as
> >> >ship-building is on the way out, clerical is on the way in.
> >>
> >> You miss the point - you are not able i suspect to out run some woman
> >> athlete.
> >
> >Hang on, you're opposing the idea that on average males are not stronger
and
> >faster. How am *I* the least bit relevant, esp. compared to a woman
athlete.
> >Its not really much of an arguement really is it?
>
> You say strength and speed does favour males - ignoring the particular.
> Your discrimination is based on some abstract "average male" - who must
> have less than 2 legs and two eyes - owing to Long John Silver being
> included in your category.
I hear what you say, but in which case why do we place male athletes and
female athletes in separate races (if its just a non-issue of abstract males
and females)? If I also specifically suggest males get faster times, you
might say thats based on some abstract male. Yet it would not be thought
fair to place both sexes in the same race. Top females prefer to be judged
relative to other females, rather than the swathe of males who got a faster
time.
>
> >> >> >categories are value-laden, which is why they can be used against
> >> >> >themselves. We have no choice but to use the categories, men,
women,
> >> >> >children & animals. Hence they accrue sign-value. Children as
> >innocent,
> >> >for
> >> >> >instance. Deny them a voice and you will never prove otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >> How are these non-arbitrary?
> >> >
> >> >My response is perfectly clear. I am not going to dissect my argument,
> >> >because as soon as i do that, like with women and animals, the
argument
> >> >becomes reversible.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what you mean here at all.
> >
> >see above. All you were doing was playing with my argument in any case.
> >First you pick me up for not explicitly stating animals believe they
exist,
>
> yes - because you didn't- you swapped from the things self awareness to
> some human inference-
it wasn't a human inference - it was a human belief. You are implying
"humans" do possess self-awareness anyway, which is speciesist from the go.
You may believe women exist (albeit you tell me as a category rather than
particulars) Animal liberationists believe animals exist. Animal
liberationists are a disposable category however, which Baudrillard doesn't
require. You can't reduce animals to the other of humans, because then you
have to subdivide humans such that women are the other of men.
Self-awareness ultimately limits on itself. (But capillary-like, not on one
particular self)
>
> >then u reveal ur prejudice as believing the complete opposite.
> >
> not so - not the complete opposite - please i'm saying you dont have to
> have either or - so you can construct a world from simple elements -
> fractals if you like - you can reduce it to pixels - if you like - and
> then a whole host of other shit - is possible.
I'm not constructing from anything. Pixels are reversible with the big
picture. The smaller you make them, the more you need, yet the big picture
stays the same. (Well technically the pic gets better the smaller you make
the pixels, but then what are we making the picture relative to, its a
simulation innit?)
> Now which comes close to
> my experience - i've never met an average woman. An average Dog.
but on what basis do you make reference to a woman such that the concept of
an average woman becomes possible? Otherwise why say it? You are still
thinking in patriarchal categories after all, all the more sublime for it.
Contrast: what could be more nonsensical than to assert 'I've never met an
average man'? By comparing Tony Blair and Mike Tyson for instance. This is
because men automatically exist so we have no sense of their category in the
first place.
I am reminded of the protagonist in the Unbearable Likeness of Being who has
to keep having sex with as many different women as possible in order to gain
access to that millionth part ineffable in Woman, in an impossible struggle
to complete the platonic concept as it where.
>
> >>
> >> > If u wish go through my response classifying my
> >> >vocabulary and forms of expression as suggesting 'arbitrariness' or
> >> >'non-arbitrariness' of category. As it stands you don't even give a
sod
> >> >about my argument.
> >> >
> >> >Your ever-present wish to analyticise is only detrimental and serves
no
> >> >purpose.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well its not to be done then - we accept whole?
> >
> >its not to be done.
> >
> [..]
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hum! "the binary logic of gender" - i'm not sure you know what you are
> >> doing? Other than engaging in a pseduo-metaphyiscal word game with
> >> yourself.
> >
> >no not at all, i'm suggesting there's a discrete binary logic. Males and
> >females function as discrete genders. I'm not doing anything - its a
> >perfectly straightforward sort of observation. Gender's not in the least
> >metaphysical - its a common or garden - even if the source of perpetual
> >philosophising. A pseudo-metaphysical binary is this? So - there's an
> >irredicable binary. So whats your metaphysical concern here anyway?
>
> That "gender" is metaphysics. And taking it seriously in the way you do
> is not to my taste.
i don't think so. Try sociology. Try women's magazines. Ever read 'Men are
from Mars, Women are from Venus'? A perfect example of the binary logic of
gender by the way. Taking it way too seriously, or utterly populist?
>
> >
> >I think you're just afraid I've made an explanatory point because in ur
> >world there are none and you like to ghettoise every point under a
> >discipline you have no wish to engage in. You are compelled to describe
the
> >most simplistic and the most significant ideas alike metaphysical.
>
> Gosh no - i'm always ready to be slipped the truth. But i'm not sure
> just what it is you think you've explained. And i'm pointing out that
> explanations are problematic.
depends what the problem is your explaining.
>
> [..]
>
> >> >partly because sex is the most fundamental distinction not only
between
> >> >societies but within society.
> >>
> >> This is wrong. Might be true in the USA - but that's its social
> >> construct. Segregation was based on race even there. Certainly in Nazi
> >> germany race was a more fundamental distinction. And within many
> >> societies race, social position and skin colour are important
> >> distinctions - more important than gender.
> >
> >I feel you miss my point. Gender necessarily transcends every societal
> >distinction.
>
> Within the english monarchy although the oldest males have ascendancy,
> this is however only within the offspring of the monarch. So gender is
> unable here to - in the case of Henry 8 transcend his offspring.
I think it did unquestionably. Henry was desperate for a boy but he started
off with two girls. The boy, who came next, died young, so ironically we
were followed with two arch-queens.
The whole thing's ironic because i dare say the rule of ascendancy was
created by males in the first place who thought women were ineffectual and
couldn't rule for the life of them. Rather embarassing nowadays to think we
still have that law, if indeed we do.
> So it
> is not "necessarily" so. Though often the norm, the laws of inheritance
> in general show another social distinction.
you can't have a distinction unless its between something and something.
>
> [..]
> >>
> >> Explicitly open gay activity is not part of your binary whatever.
> >
> >Yes it is it questions appropriate male and female behaviour and
conceptions
> >of male and female in terms of sexual orientation.
>
> But its doesn't just do this does it?
i'm contending it is aren't i?
>
> >
> >> Borrowing a computer term i think was trendy but dangerous for Derrida.
> >> One wants to ask why only two?
> >
> >Two principle genders?
>
> The idea of Binary opposition - and yes two principle genders.
yes in fact in the case of male and female Derrida thought the male was
privileged. I don't believe this is necessarily true though, being grounded
in a social distinction apparent in limited patriarchal scenarios.
Ultimately we can't say either is priveleged. The situation's far too
complicated for a crude reduction.
>
> [..]
>
> >> We don't live in an age - as everything by which we live relates to
> >> another age.
> >
> >Oh so the other ages were ages but this one isn't. The age that dare not
> >speak its name.
>
> That's true isn't it? - Post Modernity - isn't a name its a non-name.
well do you accept we live in post-modernity? Some people find it hard to
accept, others swallow it willingly.
>
> >
> >Understand age in a non-relativist sense by the way. Thats what Derrida
in
> >talking about our epoch with respect to a historical geneaology.
> >
> >
> >> Back to gender- even that is blurred - even that is choice.
a choice how?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Surely these days we have the choice as
> >> >> consumers to constantly change our minds, isnt this the very stuff
of
> >> >> post-modernity.
> >> >
> >> >are you suggesting that culture determines metaphysics?
> >>
> >> yes.
> >
> >agreed. Cultural insights bear on metaphysics. Just as in Baudrillard's
> >method.
>
> and culture is taste - fashion?
it all depends if you believe there is any logic to taste and fashion.
Pierre Bourdieu's "The Logic of Distinction" is a case in point. The whole
point of sociology is the idea that there are deep social logics to be
uncovered. Baudrillard is first and foremost a sociologist.
>
> [..]
>
> >> OK you need to show me how your metaphysics isn't doing what you want
it
> >> to. And by that i include the idea of S&M.
> >
> >whats my metaphysics to do with it? You're making a sweeping metaphysical
> >assertion about our age [sic]. I'm merely the interlocutor. I don't
count.
> >
> If your saying your metaphysics is just that - "yours" and "yours alone"
> i'm quite happy -
not in the sense you mean. I don't believe in a private metaphysics. Its a
social phenomenon. No doubt conditioned by our age. S&M necessitates a
cultural logic of S&M, in the same way we have to distinguish a lap-dancer
sitting on ur lap from a metaphysics wearing a short skirt and sitting on ur
lap. However, the latter in itself clearly explains nothing. It is just
aping the former. We must dinstinguish a metaphysics from what it seeks to
explain, otherwise there is no point having it. Indeed, there is no cultural
benefit in having a metaphsics; indeed, it is not a noted cultural
phenomenon that people do have there own metaphysics. I've never seen an
opinion pole on the issue. Which leaves you to explain your sweeping
metaphysical assertions about the age in independent metaphysical terms. And
please leave me out of it.
-- Atto