i prefer to think that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had better to say and importantly DO. Sad we didn’t get the expected outcome…..
On ''what there is''
The question looks ''philosophical'' in the sense of ''what exist?''. In the old terminology ''ontology question''.
The modern formulation (by Quine) is: ''what are the values of your variables''? In our hobby ''what are
the new available components''? Can one person know what are available components? Obviously not
but we have ''collective knowledge''. Each contribution is welcome. Like in science. But like in science there
are individuals with special contributions. Raul with his MM contributions and his ''successor'' chakster
with his contributions about ''both kinds'': MC's and MM's. Despite his ''modest means''. I think we should
be thankful to have such individuals.
The modern formulation (by Quine) is: ''what are the values of your variables''? In our hobby ''what are
the new available components''? Can one person know what are available components? Obviously not
but we have ''collective knowledge''. Each contribution is welcome. Like in science. But like in science there
are individuals with special contributions. Raul with his MM contributions and his ''successor'' chakster
with his contributions about ''both kinds'': MC's and MM's. Despite his ''modest means''. I think we should
be thankful to have such individuals.
149 responses Add your response
@magister i appreciate that you recognize the need for a “ master “, teacher, sensei, etc…..Thanks :) But it is less a need than an humble admission of my limitations... I was teaching reading methods and one day a student ask me to make a list of my "gurus"... I stop at 80 and it was 30 years ago.... |
i prefer to think that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had better to say and importantly DO. Sad we didn’t get the expected outcome…..You are right here.... A giant.... but history is not finished yet.... Some dont think that consciousness exist... For me death dont exist, suffering only exist...The body is a marvellous speck of dust...Nothing more... |
Fact is just a particular probability density function, fleeting as that might be… Even the so called God Particle lives but a short “ life “.Facts are way more hard and comes from a way more deep layer of meaning than probability function... :) I recomment to you the books of Bernard Mandelbrot and his disciple : Nassim Nicholas Taleb... And quantum theory is an expression of ultimate consciousness not his root... Materialism die suddenly with Planck first and Heisenberg....Journalist had not noted that yet... :) By the way there is 2 sigificant event in my life : love and prime numbers distribution....Bach is the sum of the 2 for me in music....Sun RA is an "error" i will die to keep with me.... 😊 |
Gustave Giuliaume is the greatest, Goete is the greatest, Goedel is also the greatest and Einstein also. While we are comparing ''analog stuff'' to discover which is the best we must recognise that statements like ''Peter is the longest guy in the class but George is even longer'' make no sense. There is also this Roman nonsense about ''primus inter pares'' . This is accepted all over the world as Roman ''principle '' but how is it possible that all are equal ? That is why Frege stated that ''subject'' and ''predicate'' as grammar categories are not suitable for the science. That is why he wanted to produce language suitable for science. Regarding relational statement which presuppose more ''subjects'' than one he proposed functions with two or more arguments. If I am well informed this is used in mathematics. Alas mathematics is my ''Achilles heel''. w |
So many people with so many ideas...and none of them is any "wiser" in reality than any of the rest of us. A lot of time can be (and obviously is) wasted on the thoughts of others instead of our own. Not to say that there isn't value in the thoughts and discoveries of others, but if too much attention is paid to them, they may become the "gods" that some here so vehemently deny. |
If I am well informed this is used inThere is NO logic in mathematic.. One classical example : imaginary and complex and hypercomplex numbers... No logic here at all....An harmony miraculously emerging from some intuition between geometry and numbers yes.... But logic? None... Another example would be the description of all animals morphology in their living environemnt related to the relation between the metabolism , the nervous system, and the limbs system... No logic here either....Goethe is the father of this morphological studies.... Sorry to give you this old news.... People who are paid to teach mathematic must be logical and systematic yes in their exposition.... This is not mathematical active creativity this is explanations along some KNOWN roads which the pupil must go along...But the prime number distribution for example cannot be explained LOGICALLY no more than the conic sections... We must PERCEIVE them first... The explanation come FROM the perception and intuition ... Not from logic... There is an ORDER in mathematic like in Nature...But NO logic... But there is no logic in nature either... There is no logic in acoustic for example , guess why? Then take you Fregean class distinctions where they belong to.... The dustbin of human thinking.... Sorry to piss on the parade.... By the way this principle : "primus inter pares" the latin formula for some Roman notion of "equality" in politic is related to what we call the first modern "Law science" , and come from the Roman...And this principle made more sense for human life than all Frege formal and mechanistic distinction.... And a universal language alleged to be suitable for " science" already exist, and one such language is created now by Stephan Wolfram .... It is a complete philosophical non sense but a powerful technology at the origin of what we call "transhumanism", the idolatry of technology.... Science cannot be reduced to ANY logic ....and to any program or model.... Science is not a "logical" activity at all...It is a rational endeavour... The coherent figure of science come from Reason... And Reason cannot be reduced to ANY prescribed logic at all, save by some people keep safely for themselves in the past in an asylum ...They are now alas! sometimes head of big corporations cartel... they want to create a perfect global united logical world submitted to an artificial intelligence..... Do you want names? |
''Law science''? You have no idea what you are talking about. I am lawyer you are obviously not. The lawyer consider their work as ''art'' not as science. Roman laws are product of long experience with judicial procedures. Also ''reduced'' to private or civil laws. Because of those procedures many civil court cases need 10 years for their completion which ''ordinary people'' can't afford. |
Nobody has ever mentioned Engels , Marx best friend, as scientist. However he was the only one who stated that ''each discipline'' ( science) has its own philosophy. Everyone with an academic degree must know that in his first semester (aka ''first year'') the so called ''subject of study'' is learned as ''introduction to...'' In this ''introduction'' are formulated basic assertions of the science involved and those ''basic assertions'' or ''premise of the discipline involved'' can be seen as philosophy of this science. The curious thing is that such ''meta theory '' about own subject matter is learned in the first year when students have no idea about their study. The ''place'' of the ''meta theory'' should be placed in the last year of the study when students ''got some idea'' about their study. Who can expect ''critical mind'' or ''critical attitude '' by students in their first year of study? |
'Meta''-and ''object language''. We now know(?) that Frege considered ''ordinary language'' as not suitable for science and try to ''invent'' an scientific language which is called ''new logic''. Less known is Tarski's attempt to avoid paradoxes which origin when we speak in the same language about our language. To avoid this ''difficulty'' he invented the separation between ''object language'' and ''meta language'' the later as being ''about'' object language. The problem is that we get, say, many , or even worst, too many meta languages. This is, uh, my introduction to ''meta theory'' as mentioned in my previous post. |
roxy, ''it is boring'' is very different from 'boring according to me''. Why are you assuming that ''it IS boring'' is , uh, ''general feeling''? Do you think that you represent human kind by your statement? Your are not ''the king'' of communist North Korea who even surpassed the French king who stated ''the state that is I''. ''Assumed assumptions'' is a way of speaking . Economy of language use is that many things are assumed to be known'' A : ''Federer won of course''. B: ''who is Federer? '' X ''has the right'', etc , but why does he need to prove his right to judge when Y claims ''the same right''. What does ''the same right'' mean? Well the judge has, so to speak, an list of legal conditions which need to be satisfy in order for X to get the right which is assumed a priori to be already his . Something like new owners of an home for which first payment is made. That is when bank owns 99% of the home or its value while the new buyers have the illusion to own a home. So it seems much of our believes is ''based'' on sand? |
roxy expect to be amused for free while his ''job'' is to give his valuation in his ''economic language'' in which expression''dialogue'' does not exist but well ''monologue''. According to roxy I am the only member in this thread talking to my self. Ergo there are, except roxy , no other members involved such that he can be involved in discussion with other but only with himself. This then can be called ''monologue''. I am too lazy to count other members with their post on which my reaction, sorry ''monologue'' followed. Because his ''economy'' imply ''savings'' this economy can do without ''dialogue'' or ''discussion'' because there is no place next to qualifications of contributions of other . So our duty is to satisfy roxy with interesting for him contribution in order to avoid his di-satisfaction. What an ... |
This thread has been surprising, amusing and interesting. But it's over my head. Time for music that is over my head by King's X. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2SYPzKzD94 |
This thread has been surprising, amusing and interesting. But it’s over my head. Time for music that is over my head by King’s X.Truth is an encompassing experience well over our head and in our heart.... Thanks for this wonderful music recommendation....😁😁😁😁😁😁😊😎😊😉 |
The assertion that politics is like chess is refuted by GasparovFrom Frege and Quine to politic... 😊 I am not sure if it is not a slippery road .... 😁 I dont know for Gasparov or Federer, i only know for sure that Bobby Fisher would have not been a good choice for tennis or politic.... 😉 Of all that i guess politic is like physic or chess or tennis in the best case a vocation not only a work.... Nobody could improvise himself a doctor, or a savior for the world , save Bill Gates and Jesus for sure... But nowadays it seems medecine and computer industries and corporations are way over politic in weight ... With the next virtual reality A.I. we will need no Christ to walk on water anyway....We will need nothing because we will own all our dreams come true through machine... Am i cynic here? Yes ..... My best to you.... |
| Post removed |
The assertion that politics is like chess is refuted by GasparovJust a word to precise here that NOBODY ever claimed anything of the sort in this thread about politic and chess being alike... Then you assume too much here for the sake of your post... And myself i speak too much... Anyway i thank you for your thread and interesting remarks out of the audio trivialities... 😊 |
Everybody IS a philosopher but the most think that philosophy is a kind of profession. Say the opinion about people: the good and the bad one, rude kind nice kind , poor and rich , etc,. etc, This then can be called ''social philosophy''. ''Don't please mention politicians''. Well this than is ''political philosophy''. One can't watch ''the world around him'' without forming some opinion about what one has seen with his own eye and ''elaborated '' with his own brain. This explains so many participants in this thread. Even the ''real philosopher'' as those who think to hate ''philosophy''; the ''dark Matter'' kind. Except those who like ''borders between categories'' the strict followers of the rules ..'' It is not 'deed' Nandric ''but did''. Aka ''grammar rules'' but nearly nobody mentioned ''poor grammar'' with only ''S'' (subject) the ''IS'' ( connector) and ''P'' ( the predicate). How many ''issues'' can't be expressed with such poor base with only 3 words grammar ? |
Philosophy is the love of thought. A philosopher enjoys exercising the intellect. It is fun, but even children’s games have rules. Even children lose patience and get upset when you try and break the rules. Don’t say deed for did, they are two completely different things. A deed is an act. Deed is present tense. Did is past tense. The deed is done. He did it. Grammar is the way we structure our language. Since we have no way of communicating what we think other than with words it is essential we follow the rules of grammar. Otherwise, if we don’t follow the rules we risk writing gibberish no one can even begin to understand. How many ’’issues’’ can’t be expressed with such See what I mean? |
The Germans have the most philosopher in the world withLike the history of music, or of any art, or any histories of any other cultural activies which deevelop his own temporal scale, history of philosophy mirror the history of consciousness... In this consciousness collective history, each philosopher is indispensable and necessary to consider if we want to understand the scopes and perspectives present in each era... Then the main point is not a futile and sometimes childish refutation of each philosopher but the crucial understanding of his role and place in this history of consciousness.... What illustrate and reveal about human consciousness this philosopher perspective in all history.... Embedding any philosopher in the multidimensional history of philosophy and consciousness is analogous of the way we must embed any audio specific pieces of gear in their 3 working dimensions... i cannot resist to make this analogy.... 😁😊 |
Grammar is the way we structure our language.I lived through 2 intellectual and almost spiritual ectasy in my life... The discovery of the distribution of prime numbers...But this is another story... And the deep meaning behind ANY "apparently arbitrary" rule of grammar... People who think that grammar of any language is arbitrary are deluded or ignorant of linguistic...Grammars mirror completely the neuro activity of our brain in a different mode of expression in each culture... i cannot vouch too much for Gustave Guillaume psychomechanic of language and discourse.... Alas! only in french.... Grammar is boring if we stay at his surface level, in his deep internal mechanism it is like a LSD trip in a higher mathematic.... It takes a genius to guide us.... Guillaume is certainly one in more than 40 books.... If you read french try it.... For me there is 2 levels in language dynamic genesis: The deep motivation of sound-speech on one unconscious level on a long time scale in relation with words construction and formation and the " feeling" aspect of human constitution .. And a corresponding relative demotivation of the sound speech which correspond to what we describe generally as sentence "grammar" in a more conscious level corresponding to the " thinking" aspect of human constitution... The 2 opposite mechanisms work together on 2 levels...This idea is mine, not strictly in Guillaume like i expose it here... But it gives the flavor of my reflection... These 2 levels could be resumed in a simplest way if you remark that they match and correspond to poetic mode working and the prosaic mode working of language.... Now for the REASON to be REASON these 2 working mode are necessary if not, human degenerate into irrational animal or so called "rational" machine.... Then to be "human" is being able to create and accomodate together all derivative modes of these 2 archetypal symbolic matrix and modes : the poetic and the prosaic in language... |
millecarbon, ''deed'' and ''did'' explain your problem . Ever heard about ''brain drain'' from Europe to USA. Many Germans become university professors in America. Lew told us to have had German professor who give them lessons about Kant. Then think of Enstein, Goedel, Tarski , Carnap , etc,etc. Neither of them speak English as ''first language'' nor with ''perfect grammar''. They were obviously not invited to America because of their English. What then for? I got not only ''did'' as correction of my ''deed'' but also remark : ''English is not your first language''. My answer was that English is my 4th language. I have not seen reaction of this member in this context. Well speaking about ''context'' . There is the meaning of words to find. Not in isolation like ''did'' and ''deed''. The so called ''generative power of language'' is not in grammar but in ''free combinations of morpheme'' by which new words are ''composed'' with new meaning. You are only demonstrating your lack of knowledge of which you are, uh, not conscious . So, it seems, this ''entity'' consciousness does ''exist'' . Aka is ''there''. |
Not to be prosaic or anything, but languages constantly evolve. Differing dialects evolve among different groups of speakers. When enough changes happen and these various dialects become unintelligible to the other, the new dialects are now officially different languages. There's no right or wrong here. One language is not better or more pure than the other. Think of Latin. Think of Latin's descendants French and Italian. Think of Modern German and Modern English. |
| Post removed |
I will react to two posts and then stop my contributions. First about ''grammar wonder''. As is know American make difference between their ''great'', ''mediocre '' and ''worthless writers''. But they all share the same grammar. This of course apply for all ''nations'' which obviously must have ''national literature'' in order to compete with other nations. In the past we also have had ''national science'' with the question which is the best: German, English, Russian or American. Now look at the kids all over the world. At the age of 4 they speak each language whatever. How long you think an English teacher will need to learn Chinese or Japanese? I am not sure but think that Chomsky called ''language capability'' as, say, gift of mother nature. Do 4 years kids know what grammar is ? This capability seems to work till the age of 12 (?) |
Mahgister (10-16-21) ''Anybody who read about logic know Frege's drama''. From this statement those who are familiar with Frege's work can deduce that mahgister has no idea about Frege. Frege is called ''the father of modern logic''. So his logic was his triumph. The drama apply to his mathematical work. His ''magnum opus'' Grundgesetze ( Foundation of mathematics) contained an paradox which was discovered by Russel. BTW ''set paradoxes'' were known problem of set theory. Many attempts are made to solve the problem. However later mathematician were so impressed by Frege's work on mathematics that they corrected the paradox. The result is now called Frege's theorem. (Zalta, Boolos, Burgess,Hale, e.a.) However the limit was his advice not to read Frege but Rudolf Steiner. What an arrogant nitwit. |
Very dense Nandric, I am lost and I consider myself fairly educated in philosophy and science, but entertaining and introspecting regardless (your topic, I respect that) Something that music does is to put us on an elevated state of mind sometimes, we reflect about past present and future and we get an"apparent" clarity about the universe as a unison (English is my second language) Spanish is first. Italian and Portuguese won't count as additional. Leaving Dubrovnik tomorrow, yesterday was at Neum, Hvar and Split along the way, what a wonderful country. Went to some place and the person didn't speak English well, I don't (obviously) speak Croatian, she said Italian? And I followed, there was no communication barrier from then on, I know they were cruel with their empire (the Old Romans), but what a wonderful thing a Cuban can communicate with a Croat in a language which is not native to either. Going back to your original post, the aforementioned individuals haven't participated yet, but I agree, we learn from everyone here (Good and bad stuff), personally I learned quite a few things from Raul and Chak, good things, from others I learned bad stuff which allows me to avoid some situations which is a good thing, so philosophically, everything I learn even the bad it ends up been good. Going back tomorrow to my "new" system, refurbished GFA 545 SS amp, nothing that would interest anyone on audiogon or be considered spectacular, yet I love the synergy with my old speakers. Thanks Nandric |
However the limit was his advice not to read Frege but RudolfI never said that Frege was a nitwit...Dont put your mouthwash in my mouth... I said that it was not a mind like Whitehead or Goethe... i read these 2 and i read 200 hundred books of Steiner by the way...I study Frege when i had 24 years old...I dont live my life around it like you did it seems perusing his work and selling yourself with it on an audiophile forum thinking that nobody here know about him... 😁😊 I can cite 200 hundred other writers in science and philosophy... I never call yourself a nitwit either by the way like you just did to me even after i welcome you in my post here... Your insult speak volume about your understanding of philosophy and your being ... By the way i studied extensively Cantor , Grothendieck, Goedel and Peirce and Cassirer , each one being a giant over Frege work...Like Whitehead was a giant over Russell...Educate yourself before using insult... I will return to yourself, because you are unable to discuss, your own insult.... |