Posts tagged ‘modal philosophy’

I Hear Reality Is Just a Step Away

 

08/23/08

This is the first entry on the “new” computer. That is, with the fan cannibalized off Rose’s old computer, and with the brand new 320-gig interior hard drive. I can’t hear the bloody computer any more. I hadn’t actually realized I could, I guess. So a lot of the over-heating was most likely simply due to a hard drive that shouldn’t have been working at all. Diablo II operated smoothly. I think both hard drives were used, although the larger one was narrowly. Whatever. I’ll be setting up some drive syncs. The oddest thing is being able to do something on the system now even while the CPU is using most or all of its capacity. I’m planning on saving all writing to a central “My Documents” folder and then mirroring it. I also will be cleaning off an exterior hard drive from the looks of things since I couldn’t get Norton Save & Restore to initiate. I really don’t think it’s a virus, either. I hope not. I’m getting tired of this crap. I keep running checks and I keep protection up. I still haven’t quite recovered from Rose telling me she doesn’t trust me because I’m too much of a good trip. I guess I’ll get over it or I won’t, as I told her.

21:29 More appropriate I suppose. Hadn’t thought about the fact that a program has the capability now to insert times. So I may as well do it on the diary-like entries I make. AbiWord because Open Office seems to be much like Microsoft Office in that it’s untrainable in some respects; an opening letter of a “sentence” must be capitalized. That meaning might lie in other directions is simply unsupportable, sort of like some New Age girdle I suppose: can’t be leather because it would be victimizing the beasts but can’t be plastic because it would be victimizing the beasts. …Maybe it should be human skin. But then of course there would be animal-rights activists wondering why we’re having all the fun.

21:37 I think that the first point of focus is going to have to be the representative system. After all, I have finally logically proven that no representative system can actually be true. It has to be infinity plus one, so to speak: so it’s not only the problem of the inter-relationships of the components of the representative system (and the establishment of sets within the system, which is actually what the modal system and Dooyeveert are on about), the problem of modeling permutations within the represented system–because you cannot be assured that each and every instance is identical, each must be represented, unless aspects of relevancy are identified and then defined. Definition essentially means assigning social identity stability. Relevancy is task-oriented, case-oriented, whatever. Either that or you’re daring to assume that your representative system, which was thrown together in a limited amount of time and for timely reasons…is absolutely true, for all time and under all situations. This is where Dooyeveert fell.

 

21:51 One thing you do know is that any judgement, and particularly any valuation or valorization, is relative and the product of a work of artifice. Language is by nature artificial. Our only hope toward a first step of reasoning clearly would be the production of an artificial language. One of the problems confronting even the mention thereof is quite similar to the realization in the late 1970’s that indeed one soldier could be given the power to wipe out an entire city. Trust is perhaps even more a product of artifice than is any monetary value. The real problem is going to come when need intersects with its description. Need alone has little power. Description, even masterful description, when it is not driven and kept if not secret then certainly not advertised–that has no power at all. Every time, though, that the two have met, whole worlds of perceived structure have fallen.

 

22:10 At about 14 I actually did become convinced that there was a sort of loop involved in the information available to me. truth/reality/perception/description and pick any part of it, proceed in any direction on it, and you came back to where you started. Eventually. No matter the grand words of it. I did try to have faith, which I perhaps foolishly defined as a belief in some sort of God directing things. I mean presumably in real time. Like, that would be what the deacon’s meetings were about. To this day, I haven’t the faintest idea. The ministers or for the Catholics the priests, the holy men, all interpreted reality so that… Easiest answer was, maintain the power structure. There would be a few exceptions.

 

If you have someone who is exceptionally intelligent, you have to hope she or he is also exceptionally moral. At this point, I would be interested in using this. As in, I did my part.

22:23 Yeah. Besides, it would be fun. And it would be the part indicated if the character survived this long, for that matter. Loki. Good at that.

 

Anyway, that reality/truth thing is tricky. That intent should be indicative of veracity is asinine. If that were true every man would be a (successful) politician. Reality is the presumptive, that is, in the justinian model, while truth is a matter of intent. That nearly got us into nuclear war, by the way.

 

The first step in approaching reality is the realization that no system of representation we have is necessarily particularly close to what is occurring. One good example of this is the recurring question about why we’re not getting radio signals, and how much energy we’re throwing out. They’re using something that’s a lot more efficient, probably FTL, and we’re at best the guys with the big speakers on the corner of the block, nice guys, but too loud and keep the beer inside.

 

 

What I actually mean here is that our assumptions of linear causation aren’t possible. Few occurrences have one cause. Fewer occur by themselves. We assume time is one way because of our representative system. We state things are proven when by our own definitions a hypothesis has graduated to a theory, that is all, and all that can happen. There are innumerable assumptions within every statement we make, and few of us even guess at what they might be. Reality is something that we guess toward; that those oriented toward corners tell us the solution is math I find somehow ironic. And they are, note this, quite carefully telling the truth. Most of the time, anyway. Bear in mind that any given discipline does tend to define relevance pretty, well, sort of, well…automatically. Using the principle of exclusion, as anyone who’s dealt with a government agency can testify. Bear in mind that if language is what you use to define reality then what you can’t say isn’t real.

 

…Yet faith is a primary component in any society, and actually quite often cited in government appeals, presumably not to be overthrown (or they’ll sick the police, army, and navy on us). Might bomb us too. Oops. “Sic.” Sic. …Sick.

–Glenn

August 24, 2008 at 12:59 am Leave a comment

George Bush and Clones

I suppose this is satire.  If so, I think I apologize.  Anyway, I heard that George Bush was a clone the day before yesterday.  What’s obsessed me since then is the question:  which one?

–Glenn

July 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm Leave a comment

Language, stability, definition of terms and determination of social reality (toward a nodal analysis of modal construction)

Okay, so today begins the attempt at 30 days.  It didn’t work.  I was going to explain the world in 30 days or something, but as I recall there were some valuable points and I’m at the house-cleaning point.  Justify yourself for a blog or else fly on over to the trash can.

Rose is angry because I joked “You should try living with yourself for 30 days.”

She not only gets angry, as I recall, she has problems on who’s going.  As in do I get kicked out.  I suppose it’s the time of the month; toward the first of it, rent just got paid so I should get kicked out.  Or something.

Presumably this is some sort of role-reversal bit.  It would rather go with her need to imitate me.  The indication seems to be that any “personal relationship” is either “fulfilling and makes one grow”–for both, mind you–or a weighted relationship with a limited number of modes of communication and by nature little in shared values.  That’s this culture’s model.

To confuse recollection with its representation is to ensure error.

In any relationship involving representation (which is necessary unless the “thought” is somehow the things themselves) [that is, a relationship involving an ordered set used to represent a set which is presemably ordered within the ordered set (the representative set)] there will exists relationships and almost certainly events–which don’t exist in the set being represented.

That is, you have to have a language of some sort to talk about the world.  The language has to have order–the purpose of the language is to communicate, which means a shared pattern.  This means that there are “interior” rules of the set used for representation–the language–that only have to do with it and the purpose it serves [presumably for a society but that’s yet another pathway along which to wander and not yet thanks].  It doesn’t have anything to do with the outside world, the thing ostensibly being represented.  It has to do with what is seen as necessity for communication and for the ability to perceive the real.

And let us say before closing that there are all sorts of rules involved.  Many of them are quite necessary.  Rules are after all what define a society, and the over-riding need for confirmed identity is the main support of society as we know it.

May 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm Leave a comment

Newer Posts