From: The Pantophobic (trivik@stwing.upenn.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 01:43:11 BST
crap detectors go off - i'm od-ing on m&ms - nearly 2 kgs, and am spouting
gibberish
the revered John B (perhapse it should have been John G) mentioned some fellow
who treated thought like another sence.
my understanding of how everyone goes about their buisness is just this. all
there is is a bundel of experiences. Not getting into how these experiences are
bundeled together, or ordered, we have for example sence experience. So you
taste a glass of wine and smell a rose.
However you can not taste a sound. It is meaningless to ask what blue tastes or
feels like. They are simpl;y different things.
someone poasted:
> If one...asks what a mathematical entity is, then my answer is:
> it is the thinking of the entity
well yes, to an extent this is true, as in the thought is nothing more than the
thought it'self.
Nothing is ever anything more than it'self.
The way i look at it is that each of these 'relms of experience' are languages.
The language of taste, smell, feelings, etc.
now i'll repeate, to transelate from one language to another - to go from what
one heares to an emoption or to describe a taste eccept in terms of other
tastes is impossible (actually there is another problem here it'self, but lets
say for now that you can identify these finite languages, and can express
things freely within them over and over).
However now there is a catch. I am experienceing all of these things. So there
seams to be a forced tracilation to the language - me.
now the language english is a tool - a tool? - for what? - well it is a
transilating tool - eg to transilate from my thought to your thought, or from
smell to taste. however it it'self is a language, and again it cannot be
transelated into any other - you cannot see blue, nor smell sweat.
clarification: by tool all i mean is that it is eaisear, and quicker to
transelate from and to other languages to and from this language.
now each language is reality, and thats that. it is the case.
but we'd said that it is imposile to transilate - so we do it by hit and miss.
emperically, over and over and over, and get closer and closer to a more
accurate transilation.
by an accurate transilation what i mean is setting up a homomorphism between
the languages. i.e. take a few items from language A, and transelate them into
language B - now perform some operations on these transelated items. now
transelate the result back into language A. well you get exactally what you
would have if you'd performed the opoerations in A in the first place.
oviousally this is incomplete - and we'd also have to transelate the
operations, and so on.
anyhow, so because of the forced trancelation,you have this new transelating
tool emerging - and then we go heywirer. want to transelate everythingto
beverthing, and not set up homomorphisms, but isomorphisms to some grand
language - ourselves. (isomoprhism = h'ism + every element from one language
can be transilated to an element in another, not just the operational part.) so
we have physics - mirror momemtum with mv measure momemtum calculate minimum
mass of object placed on the ground which is needed to stop it useing our
equasions, go back into the rearl world, place a block of that mass, and voila -
it stops.
now all of this transilatiohjn is imposible, but we keep trying, keep doing it -
emperically - never to know when we have it all, but only a grand opus of
resonating languages.
(the r-word is a cool one too - perhapse it will be discussed sometime - when
one transelates back and forth between languages - eg say you made a
calculation error - and the body does not stop on hitting the object you placed
infrount of it, but both start to moove together for a short time, before
stopping- initially you may reject that the first body didn't in fact stop on
contact - like a couple of centuries ago people would argue in a cort of law
that because the assumption that I did not commit the murder leads to a logical
contradiction i must have committed it, or the village thing))
eer....i don't know, but i sort of assume that this is what everyone thinks.
john's 'subtle' stuff senked past me, and i couldn't get myself to read it
again, though the perls ref i like - damn the 10%.
others:
> My point was directed towards mystics and representationalists.
those that look at the foundations you use
> "the conception of experience I'm working with is just
> that:experience, period. No "prior" to anything. Experience is the
> manifold of sensations that bombard us every second of every day."
yup - so your working on it in any form other than experience would be a
transelation (and so less accurate, and degenerate - i do not mean this in a
negative sence) perhapse you may consider useing a combination of smell sight
touch, words, ? some Zen masters hit their students hard at just the correct
moments.
blah....you guyes talk too funny and much too much for me (loooooong e-mails) -
i'll just sit back and watch (voyer)
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT