Unfinished notes

[Cain]

The correspondence theory of truth (access to knowledge through senses or reason is flawed) is denied.  No reason to suppose mental concepts tally with reality except through direct interaction.  Cannot be universalized. 

Discordian view: the universe is in a state of ,Äúbecoming,Äù (Heraclitus) chaotic movement and change and coherence is a mental construct.  ,ÄúTo know,Äù means to have imposed categories on chaotic processes which are useful to us and/or based on incomplete data (Law of Fives).

Broad to universal consensus must be reached for a society to exist.  This is naturally an enforced decision (alliance between military and priesthood), however it is incomplete in its understanding and so cannot succeed (Law of Imposition).  Collective life is made possible, however it begins to break down and takes increasing amounts of force to be held together, which only destabilizes the system further.  Illusionary hunt for proof of metaphysical musings.

Linguistics as a BIP.

People think with words.  Higher concepts can only be thought of through verbal means in particular.  However, language simplifies the world, removes the chaos.  Controls how thinking happens as well as what can be thought (subject-object framework).

Science a BIP?

World can be observed and learnt from to our benefit.  However, science cannot discover absolute or transcendental proofs.  Science vs worship of science.  However, global scepticism an unsolvable paradox.  Absolute rejection is another blind alley and not a very fruitful or accurate one at that.  Contingent knowledge?  Acceptance of knowledge, that has been tested, working for the now, but without blind worship as to its eternal value?  Possible.

[LMNO]

Whoa.  That's a lot of bouncy ideas right there.

I'm feeling it's just about time for another creative burst.

Hope it's a slow day at work.


Of course, mittens.

[Cain]

Ta.  I had a couple of oddly productive days.  I was making links between ideas like nobodies business.

[LMNO]

Linguistics as a BIP.

(The following is an attempt to kick-start my brain into thinking again.  Please ignore the smoke and oil.)

As pattern makers, and as social creatures, humans have apparently come up with a system for communication that seems to be more that 50% effective (but usually not more than 65%*).

But this communication is not a hologram of the experiential universe.  That is, it can only describe one thing at a time, and it usually takes an extremely long time (relatively) to describe it.  In order to communicate, vast amounts of information need to be stripped away.  The sentence must be imprisoned.

Additionally, when you describe a thing, you aren,Äôt describing the thing, you,Äôre describing the pattern you have made of the thing.  The words imprison the thing.

Lastly, the words you use come from the various things you have experienced and read, which imply that their specific meaning is specific to your experiences.  The words are imprisoned by the user.

And since most humans think in words, the paragraphs they compose while they are thinking feed upon themselves, drawing the walls of your prison closer and closer, until your words,Äî

Your imprisoned experiences,Äî
The imprisoned sentences,Äî
Your imprisonment of the words,Äî

Actually become your experiential universe.
















*All statistics are imaginary.

[AFK]

I'd say that the Science BIP would be a part of the larger Linguistics BIP.  Because you have to use the Linguistics to express the ideas, theories, and contingent knowledge of the current scientific paradigms.  They are inextricably linked.  Science being but one subset of ideas that can be expressed through our words.  We couldn't describe nuclear energy back in the Dark Ages because not only was it not observed, but the words themselves did not exist. 

Though, now that I think about it, the words can only exist if the concepts exist.  So, maybe the Scientific BIP isn't inside after all.  Maybe they are both inside a larger complex which is the Information/Conceptual BIP. 

Shit, I've just completely confused myself. 

[LMNO]

Worship of science as BIP.

Maybe I'm too close to the subject, but it seems to me that much of science is aimed at finding out what is going on outside of our cells.  To claim that experimental science is flawed due to our imprecise perceptions, and that theoretical science is flawed due to the abstract and subjective nature of symbols, is to be heading into barstool land.

Let us return to pragmatism, to What Works.  When we use currently accepted science, it affects our experiential universe in mostly, if not almost completely, predictable and replicatable ways.  Let's not forget that.

[Triple Zero]

problem with theoretical science is that you can start from any set of symbols, add to that any set of rules, and you got a whole new field of theoretical science to research and investigate.

the thing is, sometimes the symbols are a one-to-one correspondence of Real Things (natural numbers, counting, fractions etc) and the rules are lifted straight from empirical experiments we can repeat over and over and obtain the same results (addition, division, prime numbers, etc)

but sometimes, the symbols are not of real things, but just really handy to work with ("real" numbers, irrational numbers, the square root of 2) and the rules come from assumptions (limits to infinity, infinite sequences, the axiom of choice and its negation)

the last bit is where, at least in my opinion, theoretical math can go wrong. you cannot divide a real object an infinite amount of times, you hit a boundary (and then it's quantum!) at some point. the diagonal of a real world square is in fact a rational number (say, if you count the number of atoms).
allow irrational numbers and/or infinite limits and you will end up with silly things like the Banach–Tarski paradox.

well, at least, this is my opinion on the whole matter the end result is that there's mathematicians who figured out how to do all reality-based calculations without this, which is called mathematical constructivism or something like it. might as well call it pragmatic math, or um pragmathematics.
ETA: forgot to mention that, even though it's possible to do maths without all these "imaginary" constructs, it's a lot EASIER and SIMPLER if you do, i wouldn't want to do any serious engineering work without irrational numbers and limits for example

[LMNO]

Theoretical math can go wrong, when it's not tied to experiments.  For example, Einsten's gravitational theory was done purely on paper, but it led to the conclusion that light will bend around a planet's gravitational field.  This led to people actually testing it out, and lo, the experiment was verified.

[Your Audience]

Linguistics as a BIP.

People think with words.  Higher concepts can only be thought of through verbal means in particular.  However, language simplifies the world, removes the chaos.  Controls how thinking happens as well as what can be thought (subject-object framework).

Language can be expansive as well as reductive. Good poetry evokes a greater reality than what is presented on the page. Simple sentances, such as the koan or the haiku, can completely liberate the mind used with the correct intention.

The problem isn't language, it's our use of it. It's not the subject-object pattern of grammer that enforces the idea of a sepparate identity for the language user (although it afirms the habbit), it's the learnt psychology of the individual that has rationalised the sense processes (awareness of environment = separation from it). This is the great divide and the first map to be confused for the teritory.

Language simply conforms to our intent.

[Triple Zero]

good point. it also adds to the chaos (disorder). that eristic/aneristic illusion principle again.

think of lawyer-speak, or other technical jargon when used to impress people.

but either way, indeed it's still a bar in the Prison.

on the other hand, Your Audience says language can also be used as a tool to break out of the Prison. but only when used with the correct intention.
i think that just about anything can be used as a tool to break out of the Prison, when used with the correct intention.
but then again, just about anything can be a bar in the Prison, when you get hung up/stuck on it.

[Your Audience]

i think that just about anything can be used as a tool to break out of the Prison, when used with the correct intention.
but then again, just about anything can be a bar in the Prison, when you get hung up/stuck on it.

I think that's one of the most important things to try and get across.

I think this also ties on to the other thread (BIP content discussion) of what practical aproaches to suggest in BIP. The best practical approaches (Operation Mindfuck style) somehow highlight the 'activists' learnt responses to life, forcing the prison walls to become visible. As we're habitually inclined to choose to re-efnorce the prison while involved in the Machine processes, undermining our habbitual responses through "subversive" action in the personal sphere is a very potent "therapy".

I really do like this forum. It helps me have good thoughts. Thanks for the spring board, Cain.

[LMNO]

i think that just about anything can be used as a tool to break out of the Prison, when used with the correct intention.
but then again, just about anything can be a bar in the Prison, when you get hung up/stuck on it.

Mittens, motherfucker.

[LHX]

the bars become the barstools

LAIL

[P3nT4gR4m]

For some reason I just imagined a guy looking at a colossal wall of picks and shovels, holding a big handful of dirt.

[LMNO]

Good image.  Run with it.