Originally posted by vistesdI am gratified.
There can be another aspect to such poetic contradictoriness, though it may be one seldom recognized today: that of employing contradictions in a mutually negating way in order to indicate that what the poet is referring to is beyond the capability of (the given) language, and perhaps beyond human cognitive capability. This technique was used by the likes ...[text shortened]... that spirit, I am very gratified that my little bit of doggerel could stimulate such discussion.
There's always an interaction between the author and the reader that is based on the text/ notion, and in our case I just connected the dots of your poem (the dots I noticed, that is) according to my personal mental procedure and to the general context of this thread, conducting a cross-check of my experiential understanding/ experiential reality at every level by means of applying specific philosophic systems; whether the final "variation" is acccurate or not, well this is a question that is answered from the final product. Once more, it seems to me it's like chess: if the product means something to me, ie if the "final position" makes sense to me at every field of my consiousness/ awareness and at the same time I am sure that for the time being a falsificaton is seemingly impossible, then my "combinational motif" is justified and I feel free to proceed and share it.
Of course this means not that I see this product as "absolute truth" -every product is under constant evaluation;
Too many words in broken English! Time to go back to my chores😵
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat other 'fields of logic' are there?
Not sure what you mean by that.
There are other fields of logic other than Boolean logic.
And logic that is applied to the real world is never only about 0’s and 1’s -you have to make meaningful proposition in applied logic that cannot be broken down to 0’s and 1’s .
Originally posted by vistesdI think your 'way before when' line fits that description perfectly. The image it conjures up is not one of somebody speaking illogical giberish but rather of a far distant time, so long ago that it is lost in the 'mists of time'.
There can be another aspect to such poetic contradictoriness, though it may be one seldom recognized today: that of employing contradictions in a mutually negating way in order to indicate that what the poet is referring to is beyond the capability of (the given) language, and perhaps beyond human cognitive capability.
But as I pointed out in my interpretation, a significant number of people, when someone has essentially said "I don't know" but used positive and assertive words rather than negative words, believe that the speaker has answered the question. The age old solution of "God did it" is a prime example. You are essentially saying "I haven't got the foggiest" but you say it in words that equate to a knowledgeable answer. This use of words not content to mislead the audience is something that is surprisingly effective, and was quite effectively applied by George Bush.
Originally posted by karoly aczelhttp://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/
What other 'fields of logic' are there?
“…There are various types of logic such as logic of sentences (propositional logic), logic of objects (predicate logic), logic involving uncertainties, logic dealing with fuzziness, temporal logic etc…”
There are some examples of fields of logic here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic
But to be honest I haven’t done my homework and I am not sure which ones are classified as Boolean and which are none-Boolean.
But Boolean logic is not always expressed in a form that explicitly states 0’s and 1’s although it can be translated into such a form.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, but one can become confused by tryting to apply specific norms of discourse across different domains of discourse. There is no single domain of discourse that can be taken as per se normative. It is, to my mind, exactly the mixing of norms of discourse that can foster confusion (or even, as you note, be used in a deliberate attempt to mislead).
I think your 'way before when' line fits that description perfectly. The image it conjures up is not one of somebody speaking illogical giberish but rather of a far distant time, so long ago that it is lost in the 'mists of time'.
But as I pointed out in my interpretation, a significant number of people, when someone has essentially said "I don't know" b ng that is surprisingly effective, and was quite effectively applied by George Bush.
A physicist, for example, is likely well-versed in the norms of discourse specific to physics; broadly well-versed in the norms of discourse of the physical sciences; less well-versed, however, in the norms of discourse specific to, say, biology. Such a physicist may be ill-versed in the norms of discourse of philosophy (even analytical philosophy), and dismally-versed in the norms of discourse of poetry or mythical symbology. A similar point can be made for, say, the biblical literalists (who sometimes seem to be ill-versed in all of the foregoing).
Or: note how quickly, after my quip about Russell’s Paradox, I retreated from any discourse in the domain of set theory. (And I am definitely not “ahead” of you on that topic! 🙂 )
To put an extreme (and, of course, somewhat facetious) example: It is rather like someone who speaks only English dismissing Spanish as a deficient language, simply because he doesn’t understand what the Spaniards are saying (having never learned the language).
How many times on here have the scientists (properly) said that the religionists ought to at least learn the basic norms of scientific discourse (especially with regard to evolution) before critiquing them? I could just as well say the same thing for people who have no understanding of poetic discourse, or mythical-symbolic discourse.
“The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age.”
—Dylan Thomas
Is one to seriously consider, in some hyper-literalist fashion, that Thomas actually thought that a flower-stem is a kind of fuse? Is one to believe that Thomas is (pun alert!) con-fused about flowers?
_________________________________________________________
The language we use—and the cultural matrix in which a particular language develops—impacts how we think.
As an example, take the many arguments on here about “What is ‘truth’?”. In English (and likely other western languages), the word “truth” is cognate with words like “trust” and “troth”. Thus, we think of truth in the sense of an accurate (trustworthy) correspondence between our thought and the reality we think about. In Sanskrit, however, the word for “truth” (satya) is cognate with the word for being or reality (sat). Therefore, I do not see it as per se valid for either side to simply declare that the other’s understanding of “truth” is wrong.
_______________________________________________
I’m dumping a large post on you—and, by implication, Andrew—I know. But this is an axe I have grinding for a long time (mostly with literalist religionists).
I will just repeat my basic point: There is no single domain of discourse that can be taken as per se (universally) normative.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, I forgot: Your "mists of time" reminded me of the phrase "Once upon a time"--used to signal, not actual historical events, but a story that may have little or no historical content whatsoever (i.e,, fairy-tales). One rabbi that I read a long time ago suggested that the phrase "In the beginning" has a similar function for mythic disourse, the traditional stories of an oral culture, carried over into written form.
I think your 'way before when' line fits that description perfectly. The image it conjures up is not one of somebody speaking illogical giberish but rather of a far distant time, so long ago that it is lost in the 'mists of time'.
But as I pointed out in my interpretation, a significant number of people, when someone has essentially said "I don't know" b ...[text shortened]... ng that is surprisingly effective, and was quite effectively applied by George Bush.
Originally posted by vistesdI guess the problem then is who decides what domain a given work lies in. Clearly you disagree with literalist religionists on which domain to place the Bible.
I will just repeat my basic point: There is no single domain of discourse that can be taken as per se (universally) normative.
We must also remember that with many factual errors in literature, although they are not required to be factually accurate to get the intended message across they do reflect ignorance or incorrectness on the part of the author. So although a work may have great value as a work of literature and have great meaning in one domain of discourse it should not hinder us from pointing out factual errors contained in the work when such 'facts' are mentioned nor should it hinder us from criticizing say the moral views expressed by the author.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, everything I just wrote in response to your post got zapped with some unknown erroneous keystroke. You are right that that is a fundamental problem; the other is how to communicate across domains of discourse when we recognize the need to do so.
I guess the problem then is who decides what domain a given work lies in. Clearly you disagree with literalist religionists on which domain to place the Bible.
We must also remember that with many factual errors in literature, although they are not required to be factually accurate to get the intended message across they do reflect ignorance or incorre ...[text shortened]... entioned nor should it hinder us from criticizing say the moral views expressed by the author.
Sometimes, I do not think there is a resolution.
That’s all I’m going to write, because I’m frustrated now by the perversity of inanimate matter (in the technological form of this computer)!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEarlier in this thread we talked about life and time. You were born,
Don’t you see the self-evident self-contraction of there being a ‘history before time‘?
and all the time of your life started when you did, that does not mean
that all time was included in your life, or only that time with which you\
were involved in. The same would be true of the singularity and all
that followed it, if it were true, it would hold to the same rule.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI'll ask this question, how do you know "everything" was in it? I mean
Fine!
This simple “yes” means that “everything” was included within the “point singularity”, therefore “…all of space is contained within the singularity so that there is no outside”. And, of course, there is no contradiction😵
it was set somewhere; this somewhere was what, just the singularity
itself? If it expands, it expands while remaining the same size for it
cannot occupy space that does not exist that isn't already apart of the
singularity, if there were such a space to expand into that than shows
that not everything was a part of the singularity.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdOkay, tw, I’ve gotten back on line, and am going to try again. But I’m just going to let my frustration run—and this frustration is not with you (surely you will know that!), nor is this directed at you—
Okay, everything I just wrote in response to your post got zapped with some unknown erroneous keystroke. You are right that that is a fundamental problem; the other is how to communicate across domains of discourse when we recognize the need to do so.
Sometimes, I do not think there is a resolution.
That’s all I’m going to write, because I’m frustrated now by the perversity of inanimate matter (in the technological form of this computer)!
Anyone who takes the effin’ time and effort to learn a little bit about literary criticism can at least begin to sort out (to at least question) the various “domains of discourse” that are in the biblical texts—and see that there is not one singular literary structure for the whole collection. Or historical criticism, or form criticism, or textual criticism… (Rwingett has done more study in this area than I think most Chrsitians on here have!) Now you, who have some background, always start your argument by asking serious and real questions. You and I have been arm-in-arm on most of these issues, with occasional friendly and mutually respectful disagreement.
But what the hell are either of us to do with someone who says something like: “The Holy Spirit told me this is what the Bible says…”!? Or: “The Bible plainly says…”; when the language can support multiple readings? And that’s a problem that you and I face in argument that others do not: we are aware of the need to be open to defeasibility. Others attempt to insulate their cherished views from all possibility of defeasibility, even in principle. They accept emotional experiences for guarantees of truth. As I’ve often said (and I’ve had such experiences, from which one can—very cautiously—perhaps gain some subjective! insight, into oneself) if either the content or the force of the experience (emotional or otherwise) were determining, no one would ever be confused by a mirage! And they are unwilling to have their assumed premises (e.g., the inerrancy of inspired scripture) challenged at all—let alone being willing to subject them to challenge themselves!
Reasoned analysis—including questioning, even challenging, one’s own axioms and premises—is necessary of one is truly interested in the truth.
No argumentative impasse that I have ever reached with a biblical literalist is—at least for me—an “agnostic” impasse. I believe they are wrong and wrong-headed, and have likely been misinformed by other wrong and wrong-headed people.
The only thing that generally restrains me in venting my frustration with those who attempt to secure their cherished beliefs against any possible defeasibility, is my own awareness of my own capacity for ignorance and error. But some of it is idiotic.
Now, I am willing to use the “g-word” in pretty broad application (as you know, I am a non-dualist). But if someone comes along (to use an example that bbarr once gave to me) and asserts that “god” is really an invisible beer can—why should I take them seriously because they claim to have been so informed by some spiritual source? That’s extreme. But—why should I take seriously anyone who says that the risen Jesus told them “this is how to read the Bible”? Or some idiocy about the Bible being “self-interpreting”.
I was actually dissatisfied with what bbarr said, because I thought there surely was some reasonable way to address the problem of people paying no attention to the norms of discourse, in different domains of discourse. I now think he was right. If someone wants to claim that the Genesis account(s) are historical fact, I might make a challenge or two—but then, the hell with it. Maybe they have a psychological need to believe such nonsense.
If that makes me sound arrogant and condescending, so be it. I have no academic credentials to stand on in any of this (my undergraduate and graduate degrees were in economics: all of which I forget, including the maths that went along with it). But I have spent years of interested and committed study to much of it. And I want to be challenged! So I can have my own thinking and labor tested! But I no longer want to entertain challenges by those who are unreasoning. I no longer have a single stroke of patience for anyone who is so insecure as to feel threatened if their beliefs are rationally challenged.
Jesus Christ!
You and I have always been able to bounce ideas and arguments off of one another. I never object when you challenge me! It makes me think through my own stuff (often as I try to articulate a response). And you respond the same.
What paltry amount of set theory that I once knew, you likely have at your neuron-tips. I might press if I do not understand, and understand the philosophical ramifications—but I cannot enter that domain of discourse without a great deal of study. When I spoke of the totality and the singularity earlier in this thread (before my “poem” ), I prefaced it with saying that Andrew might correct me if I got it wrong—because I think he has greater familiarity in that domain of discourse than I do. And I have seen how some people too easily come to suspect philosophical conclusions from scientific discourse that they perhaps do not sufficiently understand.
What a rant this now is! This is the kind of frustration that caused me to recently take a couple of months away from here, after saying (the title of a thread) “the hell with it!”.
______________________________________
Ah, tw, old friend! You are not the cause of this. It is the question that you raise that has caused me as much frustration as likely it has you. Various domains of discourse do overlap: e.g., philosophy of science. But some errors are visible.
I’ll just break off there, man. At least my old friend No.1 Marauder had the guts to call idiocy idiocy. I’m probably just too goddammed nice.
Originally posted by vistesdI had the feeling that you were not the one who ignores his self when he wakes up; and I had the feeling that you were not the one who believes that he does not ignore his self because he found his self within his dreams😵
Okay, tw, I’ve gotten back on line, and am going to try again. But I’m just going to let my frustration run—and this frustration is [b]not with you (surely you will know that!), nor is this directed at you—
Anyone who takes the effin’ time and effort to learn a little bit about literary criticism can at least begin to sort out (to at least question) ...[text shortened]... friend No.1 Marauder had the guts to call idiocy idiocy. I’m probably just too goddammed nice.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayEvery event takes place within spacetime dimension, we simply cannot go back to t=0; in case there is "something" "before" the big bang it would be a part of our known kosmos, thus it would exist within spacetime;
I'll ask this question, how do you know "everything" was in it? I mean
it was set somewhere; this somewhere was what, just the singularity
itself? If it expands, it expands while remaining the same size for it
cannot occupy space that does not exist that isn't already apart of the
singularity, if there were such a space to expand into that than shows
that not everything was a part of the singularity.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFurthermore, could you suppose that "the universe is set somewhere"? Just the way there is no spacetime outside of the universe, there was no spacetime outside of the point simgularity, and that's all for the time being for tomorrow we may know more -but this conversation is already well exhausted by Mr Hamilton and twhitehead amongst else. (Earlier, I just replied to AH from another perspective simply in order to cross-check and confirm a specific approach of thinking).
I'll ask this question, how do you know "everything" was in it? I mean
it was set somewhere; this somewhere was what, just the singularity
itself? If it expands, it expands while remaining the same size for it
cannot occupy space that does not exist that isn't already apart of the
singularity, if there were such a space to expand into that than shows
that not everything was a part of the singularity.
Kelly
😵