>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
Hi Platt,
Amilcar: "The slippery thing about consciousness is that is a presupposition
>that we can't get around and still be consistent and sane. You have to
>be conscious to think about consciousness. Otherwise, you fall into a
>kind of solipism. So the two truths on which all, yes I said all, sane
>thoughts are based on "consciousness" and "existence."
PLATT:what if anything do you disagree with in this passage? I remind
>you that the word "all" means 100 percent.
ERIN: I do agree that I am partly conscious, therefore I partly exist
according to Amilcar's definition of existence. Call me crazy, but can we
substitute consistency with static?
Thank you for telling me what "all" means now let me share with you some of my
knowledge of "is"
PLATT:What does the word "is" mean to you?
ERIN: I will show you this little article about E and E prime By Wilson
but to express why truth = beauty is not the same to me as truthbeauty is that
the first is a duality (Dr.Jekyll & Mr Hyde type thing) and the latter is a
coexistence. So with the coin example Heads = Tails, Coin is more equivalent
to truth is beauty, truthbeauty ---do leave off the second part.
E and E-Prime
In 1933, in Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski proposed that we should
abolish the "is of identity" from the English language. (The "is of identity"
takes the form X is a Y. e.g., "Joe is a Communist," In 1949, D. David
Bourland Jr. proposed the abolition of all forms of the words "is" or "to be"
and the Bourland proposal (English without "isness") he called E-Prime, or
English-Prime.
A few scientists have taken to writing in E-Prime. Bourland, in a recent
(not-yet-published) paper tells of a few cases in which scientific reports,
unsatisfactory to sombunall members of a research group, suddenly made sense
and became acceptable when re-written in E-Prime. By and large, however,
E-Prime has not yet caught on either in learned circles or in popular speech.
(Oddly, most physicists write in E-Prime a large part of the time, due to the
influence of Operationalism -- the philosophy that tells us to define things
by operations performed -- but few have any awareness of E-prime as a
discipline and most of them lapse into "isness" statements all too frequently,
thereby confusing themselves and their readers. )
As everybody with a home computer knows, the software can change the
functioning of the hardware in radical and sometimes startling ways. The first
law of computers -- so ancient that some claim it dates back to dark,
Cthulhoid aeons when giant saurians and Richard Nixons still dominated the
earth -- tells us succinctly, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" (or GIGO for short).
The wrong software guarantees wrong answers, or total gibberish. Conversely,
the correct software, if you find it, will often "miraculously" solve problems
that had hitherto appeared intractable.
Since the brain does not receive raw data, but edits data as we receive it, we
need to understand the software the brain uses. The case for using E-Prime
rests on the simple proposition that "isness" sets the brain into a medieval
Aristotelian framework and makes it impossible to understand modern problems
and opportunities. A classic case of GIGO, in short. Removing "isness" and
writing/thinking only and always in operational/existential language sets us,
conversely, in a modern universe where we can successfully deal with modern
issues.
To begin to get the hang of E-Prime, consider the following two columns, the
first written in Standard English and the second in English Prime.
Standard English English Prime
1. The photon is a wave. 1. The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by
certain instruments.
2. The photon is a particle. 2. The photon appears as a particle when
constrained by other instruments.
3. John is unhappy and grouchy. 3. John appears unhappy and grouchy in the
office.
4. John is bright and cheerful. 4. John appears bright and cheerful on
holiday at the beach.
5. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford. 5. In
memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a
blue Ford.
6. That is a fascist idea. 6. That seems like a fascist idea to me.
7. Beethoven is better than Mozart. 7. In my present mixed state of musical
education and ignorance Beethoven seems better than Mozart to me.
8. Lady Chatterly's lover is a pornographic novel. 8. Lady Chatterly's lover
seems like a pornographic novel to me.
9. Grass is green. 9. Grass registers as green to most human eyes.
10. The first man stabbed the second man with a knife. 10. I think I saw the
first man stab the second man with a knife.
In the first example a "metaphysical" or Aristotelian formulation in Standard
English becomes an operational or existential formulation when rewritten in
English Prime. This may appear of interest only to philosophers and scientists
of an operationalist/phenomenologist bias, but consider what happens when we
move to the second example.
Clearly, written in Standard English, "The photon is a wave," and "The photon
is a particle" contradict each other, just like the sentences "Robin is a boy"
and "Robin is a girl." Nonetheless, all through the nineteenth century
physicists found themselves debating about this and, by the early 1920s, it
became obvious that the experimental evidence depended on the instruments or
the instrumental set-up (design) of the total experiment. One type of
experiment always showed light traveling in waves, and another type always
showed light traveling as discrete particles.
This contradiction created considerable consternation. As noted earlier, some
quantum theorists joked about "wavicles." Others proclaimed in despair that
"the universe is not rational" (by which they meant to indicate that the
universe does not follow Aristotelian logic. ) Still others looked hopefully
for the definitive experiment (not yet attained in 1990) which would clearly
prove whether photons "are" waves or particles.
________________
PLATT:Once you observe yourself, you absolutely have to BE something
>wouldn't you agree?
ERIN: What if there is a part of you that can never be observed?
>PLATT>The absolute I am indicating is your absolute statement "It isn't
always
>99% about everything," and your absolute belief that it is never 100% of
>anything.
>
ERIN: I do not have an absolute belief that it will never be 100%---I guess I
consider the possibility that I may have more potentiality
It "is" always a pleasure,
Erin
>
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:48 BST