Heaven sent the promised land
Looks alright from where I stand
'Cause I'm the man on the outside lookin' in
Waiting on the first step
Show me where the key is kept
Point me down the right line because it's time
To let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Flash the readies
Wot's uh, the deal?
Gotta make it to the next meal
Gotta keep up with the turning of
Mile after mile
Stone after stone
You turn to speak, but you're alone
A million miles from home, you're on your own
So let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Fire bright by candlelight
With her by my side
If she prefers, we will never stir
Someone said, "The Promised Land!"
So I grabbed it with both hands
Now I'm the man on the inside lookin' out
Hear me shout,
"Come on in!
Wot's the news?
Where ya been?"
'Cause there's no wind left in my soul
And I've grown old
- Roger Waters
View all 6 posts
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: a toy that we have never heard of, the function of which we are entirely unaware of, still often looks "to be played with," that is, it looks like a toy
a simple wooden signpost such as one would see even in ancient mesopotamia, in a foreign language, still looks "to inform"
and if it has an arrow, we can get a rough idea of what it means without having to even read it
so much of the meaning of language is here in this prelinguistic set of behaviors, ways things look and feel, etc
theKnaveofNevermore: there does seem to be a universality which speaks to us all, by design or a matter of extreme convenience is not for me to speculate on, but it is a real thing, which is so fundamentally mundane we seldom if ever really recognize it when it is staring us in the face. just like we do not think about breathing, just one more aspect of our interaction with our environment we take all together for granted.
clenchedfist00: "How do I recognize that this is red? 'I see that it is -this-; and then I know that that is what this is called.' This? - What!?" (W.)
View all 5 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: yes, now repeat this process for the lexicon in its entirety, and with this alone you still only get the most minute sliver of the potential of consciousness. the mind is the universe in motion. on a good day.
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: while reading the tractatus i (somehow) became impressed with the idea that as i view, say, a pool cue against a wall, i understand that relation as one of an infinite number of possible relations the cue could have to that wall - an infinite number of possible angles exist in just one two dimensional plane
my idea was that we bring all this to the sheer perception of "pool cue against wall" each time we see it ... and that it happens so quickly we don't even notice it (!) ... think then of what we bring to more complicated perceptions
now i think this is a misguided picture of perception, but it is, to me at least, an elegant one
theKnaveofNevermore: i don't see any reason to believe elegance can not be found in the unsystematic nature of reality. chaos rules us all and there is a beauty to be found in its persistent volatility. it also gives us a profound appreciation for still waters.
View all 4 posts
clenchedfist00 in reply to fustler: i didn't think i had heard it, but i looked it up and the quotes sound familiar:
"Sometime during my life toilet paper became bathroom tissue. . . . Sneakers became running shoes. False teeth became dental appliances. Medicine became medication. Information became directory assistance. The dump became the landfill. Car crashes became automobile accidents. Partly cloudy became partly sunny. Motels became motor lodges. House trailers became mobile homes. Used cars became previously owned transportation. Room service became guest room dining. Constipation became occasional irregularity. . . ."
theKnaveofNevermore: i thought carlin,s take on the blight of soldiers suffering as a result of horrifying battlefield experiences was spot on, the mental distress soldiers suffered in the first world war, the first 'industrial' war, was simply and effectively referred to as 'shell shock', which hit home effectively with two powerful syllables. during the second world war, the terminology was expanded to four syllables softening the impact of the sentiment, 'battle fatigue'. by the time of the outbreak of the vietnam conflict the soldiers coming home horrifyingly rattled from their combat service were said to be afflicted by 'post traumatic stress disorder' with a whopping 8 syllables, serving to dramatically reduce the emotional impact of the syndrome in a very clinical fashion. as carlin pointed out, perhaps we could better empathize with soldiers broken by the horrors of combat if we still called it shell shock.
clenchedfist00: It was on this day in 1954 that the first transistor radio appeared on the market.
Transistors were a big breakthrough in electronics — a new way to amplify signals. They replaced vacuum tubes, which were fragile, slow to warm up, and unreliable. During World War II, there was a big funding push to try to update vacuum tubes, since they were used in radio-controlled bombs but didn't work very well. A team of scientists at Bell Laboratories invented the first transistor technology in 1947. But the announcement didn't make much of an impact because transistors had limited use for everyday consumers — they were used mainly in military technology, telephone switching equipment, and hearing aids.
Several companies bought licenses from Bell, including Texas Instruments, who was bent on being the first to market with a transistor radio. Radios were mostly big, bulky devices that stayed in one place — usually in the living room — while the whole family gathered around to listen to programming. There were some portable radios made with vacuum tubes, but they were about the size of lunch boxes, they used heavy nonrechargeable batteries, they took a long time to start working while the tubes warmed up, and they were fragile. Texas Instruments was determined to create a radio that was small and portable, and to get it out for the Christmas shopping season. They produced the transistors, and they partnered with the Regency Division of Industrial Development Engineering Associates, who manufactured the actual radios. Their new radio, the Regency TR-1, turned on immediately, weighed half a pound, and could fit in your pocket. It cost $49.95, and more than 100,000 were sold.
Texas Instruments went on to pursue other projects, but a Japanese company called Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo decided to make transistor radios their main enterprise. They were concerned that their name was too difficult for an American audience to pronounce, so they decided to rebrand themselves with something simpler. They looked up the Latin word for sound, which was sonus. And they liked the term sonny boys — English slang that was used in Japan for exceptionally bright, promising boys. And so the company Sony was born. Soon transistor radios were cheap and prevalent.
With transistor radios, teenagers were able to listen to music out of their parents' earshot. This made possible the explosion of a new genre of American music: rock and roll.
(From The Writer's Almanac for 10/18/2017)
clenchedfist00: if Wittgenstein is right that the meaning of a word is its use, it follows that to learn a second language is only possible insofar as you know how its words are used by its native speakers - insofar as you know "what it's like" to be a native speaker of that language in the culture in which the language is the predominant one
there is obviously much overlap between, say, America and france - but there is much of the basic cultural life of france that does not overlap with America, and understanding how words are used in contexts that exist in non-overlapping aspects of the culture would be necessary to understanding the meaning of those words ... it would BE to understand the meaning of those words
but this would mean that you probably wouldn't be able to learn those non-overlapping regions of French without living in france or a French-speaking culture and getting a sense of the "life world" of that culture
clenchedfist00: it seems impossible to feel at home in a universe that is of its very nature a zero sum game
View all 28 posts
YourLocalNun: Clenched when you are off wireclub i hope you dont revert back to your 14 year old self. Anyway this zero sum game business has you thinking. So that means i was thinking...that if you are thinking of the zero sum game to an extent that i think you are thinking about it. There must be an issue somewhere.
clenchedfist00: the universe may be a zero sum game on some level of microscopy or macroscopy and not on another - similarly, entropy governs only closed systems insofar as they are closed, but no system is radically closed - so the idea that the universe is "basically" a zero sum game or not, or governed by entropy or not, is mistaken ... any level of "zoom" may reveal one or the other (and there are probably other possibilities too), but there is no final level of "zoom" on either the microscopic or macroscopic level, so there is no final answer as to the nature of the universe
if I say the wheel has been a kind of transaction with the universe, and if I say we have so far benefited from this transaction (and hence it is not a zero sum game), you might say: well, if the universe is really a zero sum game, then someday, somehow, this benefit will have to be "paid back," so we really aren't getting a benefit in the long run ... and certainly it seems that the benefits of technology as a whole seem to be draining the resources of the planet we live on, so in the long run our technological interaction with the planet is a zero sum game
"the long run" is a level of macroscopy higher than that of "human civilization so far" ... it could theoretically be a zero sum game at that level ... but on some higher level of macroscopy this may well not hold, and there is no final level on which one or the other obtains
View all 15 posts
clenchedfist00 in reply to tularcitas: that's not naivete as far as I know tular ... but i'm really not sure what to say - it depends on whether or not something human is more likely to be a zero sum game ... for example morality and justice are essentially attempts to actualize zero sum games (restore balance or equilibrium) ... but then love and forgiveness just arbitrarily say "no, I will not demand recompense, the scales will remain unequal, and I will be okay with that" ... this is also very human and seems not to be a zero sum game
so is the zero sum game an essentially human trait or not? the answer to that would, I think, determine whether a universe seen as part of oneself would more likely be seen as a zero sum game or not
just my thoughts
this feels like it was written by an undergrad for an intro to philosophy final paper ... but, even though it's poorly written and contains grammatical and syntactical mistakes, and even though literally no justification is given for the conclusion, i find the conclusion itself so compelling and important that i have to share the article
i will say the author shows a firm grasp of socratic and aristotelian opinion on government, firmer than my own for sure
View all 13 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: mint hits right on this, and examples can be found throughout history, but since rome itself seems to be the template for how the republic purports itself, rather than the grecians as americans prefer to pride themselves, in the roman example during the time of the republic a form of democracy did exist, and votes could be cast in support of high government officials, however only senators and citizen free men had the power to cast an opinion on governance, not free women, and decidedly not the plebians, who were the lesser,s of roman society, lower class citizenry, laborers, service people, peasants and of course the slaves. none of these people had any kind of voice in the matters of politics in the republic, even though they represented 95% of the population. the republic under this paradigm did extremely well for it self, leadership was relatively sane, and expansion was steady and profitable, it was romes golden era. the plebe,s had no voice, but they did benefit in romes success. mostly. and this is likely the model thomas jefferson was also thinking of, however in america, so much power in the hands of so few, seemed too close to the oligarchical rule the new colonies had just cast aside, so to work, and to separate themselves from the kings rule of the past, democracy was required to be sweeping and across several defining lines, not colour or gender, initially, but free white men were deemed to be equal under the authority of administrative body. sadly in the present time, there is no reason that the system we have in place should fail, all things being equal, but the fact that it has failed can only be an indictment of the american education system. ignorance is the driving force in politics now.
clenchedfist00: Modes of representation: mathematics, morality, scientific laws, significance, categories (including biological, geological and chemical taxonomies). They are like glasses that represent aspects of reality to us while ignoring others. What is so represented is always much richer - there is more to its being - than what the glasses bring into focus. We might say "infinitely more" as long as we recognize that infinity is a value in a mode of representation.
Xeno's paradoxes are solved by recognizing that motion is not a representation but that which is represented - Achilles does not traverse distinct units of space; Achilles -runs-. The universe is not the results of applying a mode of representation but that which is so represented.
We may represent anything we like using any mode of representation we like - except "the universe." For if we say the universe has some set of qualities, as opposed to a more or less particular phenomenon within the universe, we mistake that which is represented with the results of applying a mode of representation.
The concept of "The Universe" is an attempt to reach beyond the results of applying a mode of representation - using that mode of representation - to touch the thing represented, as it were, directly.
The zero sum game is the results of a mode of representation, not the thing so represented. It is a form of "unity in diversity."
clenchedfist00: "the wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence"
as opposed to what?
a person may be mistaken about how much evidence exists for a belief - this is an honest mistake, a failed attempt to "proportion belief to evidence"
she may also be mistaken in just what is reasonable to infer from the evidence - another honest mistake
but if she makes neither mistake ... what is to stop 40 points of evidence from becoming 40 points of confidence in her belief? the idea that i could CHOOSE to believe something without evidence that seems to me to justify that belief ... seems impossible - nor could i disbelieve something for which i felt i had adequate evidence for
View all 8 posts
A_Muse_Mint101: You're putting far too much effort into an explanation-- or reason, behind sometimes a simple capacity to ignore or become oblivious to what one would not ordinarily or otherwise be towards such.
It may be ineffable of which I'm speaking upon. Since I'm unaware of a process by which one can follow to -become- ignorant or oblivious (honestly) to such that they're aware. I've found that, "I don't know how I do it, I just do it" is the often way to state it. I think it's closest description would be a combination of "in the zone" and self-deception*. Even tho the self-deception may be deceiving one's self from the falsehood they've held to be true, for the reasoned truth. E.g. "I believe in [whatever], but I'll entertain the notion there is no [whatever] to further explore your argument." This is more of an analytic form, but the emotional variant is less well codified.
Another way to look at it is in the truest sense of, like when you're of the child-like innocence, ignorantly/oblivious to that which you, still, do not know.-- What is the reason for life, if any? Sure, you can give a plethora of reasoned responses, any of which -may- be more or less true-ish; so can you not assemble this state of being and direct it towards that which you've already rooted your mind to?
clenchedfist00 in reply to A_Muse_Mint101: ok yes, suspending belief as an instinctual activity that permeates our lives ... I agree with you that this happens all the time, and that it is essential to doing it that we not analyze it - if we even try to make it explicit what it is we're doing when we suspend belief, we will probably find ourselves unable to do it anymore
though that analysis itself may be motivated by a much deeper and broader suspension of belief, such that we can never escape the "self-deception" but only jump up levels of generality!
anyway you're quite right ... but I suppose I still want to say: suspension of belief A is not a state of belief in the truth of "not-A" ... suspension of belief in A assumes, by its nature, that "deep down" one still believes (or knows) that A
and belief on this deeper level is governed by the rule that I can only believe A insofar as I perceive sufficient reason to believe it - that's what belief on this deeper level -is-
i have no idea what's going on here, but it doesn't matter ... with this music i could be watching a slug crawl and i would feel as though it were the most sublime and powerful thing i've ever witnessed