Guest Babar Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 trolling / mania is fun until it isn't but it looks like you are talking with your parents and friends about this, keep doing that please. yes and no. I think the state of mind I was in was close to an acid trip. Once, I started thinking about death, void, etc and I thought "com'on babar, don't think about these stuffs, they'll scare the shit of you, fucking fuck DON'T think about it !". A few Seconds later I had my first time ever anxiety peak, my vision got blurry etc … Fear of fear itself mad me freak out. I think I'm in a somehow similar case. My dad told me I was getting mad, then ten minutes later I had my first schizo-shit. And I feel it's all rooted deep down inside me, because my father's opinion matters a lot to me. I need to undo what has been done : he told me i was getting mad, only because the words I employed were thematically close to those a schizophrenic man could babble. I became schizophrenic because I was displaying symptoms of schizophrenia. This morning, I've had to leave the class before the end, because I felt overwhelmed, and now I'm posting this on here. besides, I've exposed my theory to my friends, and they think it's valid (my father doesn't, just as he thought the strange attractors I have extracted out of linguistic data were shit). This is a tedious problem, and I hope I will be able to overcome all of this one day. I don't want to end up like Cantor : I don't know the details of his theory, but didn't he prove that, mathematically, "an instant = eternity" ? and thus time does not exist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 you're talking about cantor sets, which are one-dimensional fractals. you can't apply that to time. these days we measure time using things like the excitation levels of electrons in a caesium atom, so there's a limit imposed by the planck length. also, you're having a psychotic episode, seek help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Super lurker ultra V12 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 he's probably referring to Zeno's paradox, but we got around that problem long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpentintollwut Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 E = mc2 disproved - still thinking about asses. :sup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Before Cantor the notion of infinity was a kind of a mathematical taboo, then he came up with definitions for what it would take for a set to be infinite, a consequence of this is that a set is infinite if part of it is of equal size to itself. maybe this is what babar is referring. but of course, taking this things out of context and equating a mathematical infinity with philosophical eternity is a no-no. But anyway, Cantor was sick and that's what drove him insane, it wasn't his work, you can explain his innovations to a child with no problem. There have been many many brilliant people with breakthrough thoughts that had perfectly sane psychology. But it's a lot more dramatic to think that people went insane because they came up with paradigm shifting thoughts, so these stories are more popular. so get fucking real babar if you have anything of value to say find a lucid and coherent way to say it, if you can't, then that means you've put yourself under the illusion of having had a breakthrough. it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazador Mod Unit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Exactly, language is your thinking and there is nothing else behind. Clouded thinking = Clouded words. If troll fuck you else you need help / to be banned / sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 E = mc2 disproved - still thinking about asses. :sup: Thanks to faster than light particles, now your computer can project what you want to see before you tell it to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 you're talking about cantor sets, which are one-dimensional fractals. you can't apply that to time. these days we measure time using things like the excitation levels of electrons in a caesium atom, so there's a limit imposed by the planck length. also, you're having a psychotic episode, seek help. so the best measure of time we can get is obtained through quantum physics ? My theory suggests that quantum science is "science" as performed by the brain, that is, science whose formal structure emerges thanks to a dynamic system. (any quantum science is a probabilistic/statistical science, right ?). Also when I said time, I meant, mathematical time : time as a value belonging to lR. But anyway, Cantor was sick and that's what drove him insane, it wasn't his work, you can explain his innovations to a child with no problem. There have been many many brilliant people with breakthrough thoughts that had perfectly sane psychology. But it's a lot more dramatic to think that people went insane because they came up with paradigm shifting thoughts, so these stories are more popular. so get fucking real babar if you have anything of value to say find a lucid and coherent way to say it, if you can't, then that means you've put yourself under the illusion of having had a breakthrough. it happens. You're trying to explain cantor's insanity and findings in terms of causal relations. But once you make time disappear, I'm afraid the only things you're left with are correlation relations. So both our views are neither true nor false. It's a subtle mix of both, and so far I can only observe a synchronicity between good ideas and "fuses being blown". At least when you feel ideas you have don't belong to you. Didn't cantor said angelic voices told him how to resolve mathematical problems ? (I'm glad it's not happening to me). And it's not an illusion. My father thought I was delusional, then I showed him some "reworked" poetry. His facial expression gradually changed when he realized the "anti-poem" he was reading was semantically solid. A friend of mine told me Heidegger's vision of Being was best represented through poetry. I have never read what this guy wrote. But I think I understand his point : the more a poem is poetic, the more is anti-poem makes sense. As for me, I'm fine, today has been my first day without tercian, I don't feel aggressed by "signs" anymore (like seeing 4 crows in the sky, antic Roma style), and I feel like i'd be able to get back to work in one week or two. I'm sorry I can't really explain my stuff in depth, I believe there is glory and money to make with it. I also suspect you need some kind of talent in order to think it beyond the formal logic (just like quantum physics). So far the only guy who really understands what I say is a buddy of mine who experienced dissolution of the argumentative ego with me, whilst on acid. ;-) Of course, i'm never taking drugs again (except antipsychotics and other candies of this kind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazador Mod Unit Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I was reading some Heidegger while checking your posts, that's where I got the language = thinking stuff! The book is 'The Question Concerning Technology' but there are traps everywhere, not good if you are having problems with irrational thoughts right now. Also, be extremely careful with the signs, if you are able to successfully translate them into your work / art I think it's OK as long as you don't feel overly threatened by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 As I said i've never read Nietzsche or Heidegger's work, but have been exposed to there concepts through words. As I said, i've a rather shallow yet broad knowledge of things, and I think that's what has allowed me to merge things together. Here's a reworked version of Shannon communication diagram I made. I added several words, including a couple concepts from the aforementioned philosophers. I just felt like they fitted well in the global picture I was trying to collect from all these elements. So this is the diagram for I speak, but it includes a few concepts from You speak I suppose. • here, eternal return symbolizes the fact that you cannot utter a word without modifying it (your interlocutor will modify). __so eternal departure, in the You speak perspective, should correspond to the fact that the uttered word will get modified when you understand it, because your locutor knows you're misunderstanding it, and he'll re-utter it in a new fashion, thus the words escapes from the grasp you have on it. • I opposed Being to Doing, but here, 'Doing' stands for 'Being of the Doing' or 'Doing of the Being' (être du faire ou faire de l'être, a good ol' concept I borrowed from my structural semantics course). If I understood well, it doesn't perfectly fits Heidegger's notion of 'Being'). If you have any critic to make, since you seem to know these "words" beyond what they are, ie 'words', then please do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlucharski Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Babar, I have detected way to much dualism here. And dualism is so passe. Maybe Noam Chomsky can help you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 you're talking about cantor sets, which are one-dimensional fractals. you can't apply that to time. these days we measure time using things like the excitation levels of electrons in a caesium atom, so there's a limit imposed by the planck length. also, you're having a psychotic episode, seek help. so the best measure of time we can get is obtained through quantum physics ? My theory suggests that quantum science is "science" as performed by the brain, that is, science whose formal structure emerges thanks to a dynamic system. (any quantum science is a probabilistic/statistical science, right ?). Also when I said time, I meant, mathematical time : time as a value belonging to lR. But anyway, Cantor was sick and that's what drove him insane, it wasn't his work, you can explain his innovations to a child with no problem. There have been many many brilliant people with breakthrough thoughts that had perfectly sane psychology. But it's a lot more dramatic to think that people went insane because they came up with paradigm shifting thoughts, so these stories are more popular. so get fucking real babar if you have anything of value to say find a lucid and coherent way to say it, if you can't, then that means you've put yourself under the illusion of having had a breakthrough. it happens. You're trying to explain cantor's insanity and findings in terms of causal relations. But once you make time disappear, I'm afraid the only things you're left with are correlation relations. So both our views are neither true nor false. It's a subtle mix of both, and so far I can only observe a synchronicity between good ideas and "fuses being blown". At least when you feel ideas you have don't belong to you. Didn't cantor said angelic voices told him how to resolve mathematical problems ? (I'm glad it's not happening to me). And it's not an illusion. My father thought I was delusional, then I showed him some "reworked" poetry. His facial expression gradually changed when he realized the "anti-poem" he was reading was semantically solid. A friend of mine told me Heidegger's vision of Being was best represented through poetry. I have never read what this guy wrote. But I think I understand his point : the more a poem is poetic, the more is anti-poem makes sense. As for me, I'm fine, today has been my first day without tercian, I don't feel aggressed by "signs" anymore (like seeing 4 crows in the sky, antic Roma style), and I feel like i'd be able to get back to work in one week or two. I'm sorry I can't really explain my stuff in depth, I believe there is glory and money to make with it. I also suspect you need some kind of talent in order to think it beyond the formal logic (just like quantum physics). So far the only guy who really understands what I say is a buddy of mine who experienced dissolution of the argumentative ego with me, whilst on acid. ;-) Of course, i'm never taking drugs again (except antipsychotics and other candies of this kind). If you're taking time "out of the context" to disprove a certain specific cause, then all causality has to be withdrawn from discussion since there can be no such thing. In that setting we are neither right or wrong about why cantor was with severe mental issues in a small part of his life, because then the question of why becomes irrelevant since it implies a cause, so just talking about it even if only to set an analogy becomes irrelevant and no point can be made of the fact. correlations are also bound to time and multiple observations, so that's also void of any meaning in your timeless setting, if we're in the perspective where we can see all his life in a timeless setting, then all we have is facts, not deductions, not correlations, just the stale facts. well your friends and father think you make sense, good, congratulations, i don't see why would it be so hard to make sense here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 As I said i've never read Nietzsche or Heidegger's work, but have been exposed to there concepts through words. As I said, i've a rather shallow yet broad knowledge of things, and I think that's what has allowed me to merge things together. Here's a reworked version of Shannon communication diagram I made. I added several words, including a couple concepts from the aforementioned philosophers. I just felt like they fitted well in the global picture I was trying to collect from all these elements. So this is the diagram for I speak, but it includes a few concepts from You speak I suppose. • here, eternal return symbolizes the fact that you cannot utter a word without modifying it (your interlocutor will modify). __so eternal departure, in the You speak perspective, should correspond to the fact that the uttered word will get modified when you understand it, because your locutor knows you're misunderstanding it, and he'll re-utter it in a new fashion, thus the words escapes from the grasp you have on it. • I opposed Being to Doing, but here, 'Doing' stands for 'Being of the Doing' or 'Doing of the Being' (être du faire ou faire de l'être, a good ol' concept I borrowed from my structural semantics course). If I understood well, it doesn't perfectly fits Heidegger's notion of 'Being'). If you have any critic to make, since you seem to know these "words" beyond what they are, ie 'words', then please do it. So besides discovering that language changes, you discovered the subjective component of reality. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Babar, I have detected way to much dualism here. And dualism is so passe. Maybe Noam Chomsky can help you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So besides discovering that language changes, you discovered the subjective component of reality. Yawn. According to you, how does language change ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 words change meaning over time as society changes the context for their use, it makes them being refitted to a present state, always meaning sort of the same thing but not quite, often incorporating new uses for a word. New words will come into play too and language also breeds with itself and different tongues, so there's always words that are mixed and producing new ones. Not to mention the odd chance that some trend will catch on will inevitably happen every once in a while, completely redefining the meaning of one just because it happened. If you're asking about describing qualitatively the way language changes, I don't know, but it doesn't seem too interesting to me, it's dynamics would certainly be chaotic, but i don't see how knowing this would be "world changing". Some thing remain permanent tho, at least i think that in most languages the structure of it has remained. that's a lot more interesting to me; that to communicate, these abstract notions of subject, predicate, verbs, objects and object modifiers seem to be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Just figured out I'm indeed trolling everyone in this thread. I'm basically attention-whoring myself around something that goes along "hey guys I've found this marvellous thing unfortunately I don't want to say exactly what it is all about, so i'll keep beating around the bush and observe how angry your are at me whilst taking a sip sip in my glass of ice-water-with-ice." I have good reasons to do so though. SOrry. -What you cannot speak about etc … just a last post, for courtesy's sake. Some thing remain permanent tho, at least i think that in most languages the structure of it has remained. that's a lot more interesting to me; that to communicate, these abstract notions of subject, predicate, verbs, objects and object modifiers seem to be needed. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Please remember us when you receive your Nobel prize or some similar academic accolade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazador Mod Unit Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 That debate is one of my favorite things. Foucault is trying sooo hard not to laugh at poor Chomsky and at various points looks (as someone in the youtube flame war said) like he's going to EAT him in one piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlucharski Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Just figured out I'm indeed trolling everyone in this thread. I'm basically attention-whoring myself around something that goes along "hey guys I've found this marvellous thing unfortunately I don't want to say exactly what it is all about, so i'll keep beating around the bush and observe how angry your are at me whilst taking a sip sip in my glass of ice-water-with-ice." I have good reasons to do so though. SOrry. -What you cannot speak about etc … just a last post, for courtesy's sake. dude, don't be sorry, don't let ppl take away your enthusiasm about that stuff, but if you stick your head out of the window be sure the cold wind of criticism is blowing. Thats a normal thing. If I remember correctly with my meth damaged consumed up brain, Wittgenstein said: the main character of a theory is, that it can be disproved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ranky Redlof Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impakt Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Thank you ranky, this thread went from science to bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazador Mod Unit Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Don't be sad impakt just tell us something better than the crazy talk and we will happily follow you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babar Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 azatoth, on 30 September 2011 - 09:33 PM, said: Please remember us when you receive your Nobel prize or some similar academic accolade. As I said "as I said". *shakes head out of recursivity* As I said, I don't feel like it belongs to me, I just happened to be the guy who tied "everything" together. I'm not a genius, and there are surely many things that I read on watmm that lead me into thinking that theory : this is our theory, the Y generation theory. I don't think there are prizes for linguistics. Most of linguists are women, yet, "chiefs" are male. Since they have so many females around them, their testosterone level must be low, so they don't really feel the need for competition. But if I ever get a prize, i'll mention watmm. m u st co n t r ol t h o 4, on 30 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said: That debate is one of my favorite things. Foucault is trying sooo hard not to laugh at poor Chomsky and at various points looks (as someone in the youtube flame war said) like he's going to EAT him in one piece. I think our generation is lucky to have sites like youtube ; it allows us to see philosophy for what it is : talking heads talking to talking heads. And I love Bourdieu despite the fact I've never read what he wrote. He's just so cute, his eye's are so sweet. schlucharski, on 30 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said: dude, don't be sorry, don't let ppl take away your enthusiasm about that stuff, but if you stick your head out of the window be sure the cold wind of criticism is blowing. Thats a normal thing. If I remember correctly with my meth damaged consumed up brain, Wittgenstein said: the main character of a theory is, that it can be disproved. thank you. You know, I decided that it is time to use this fancy notebook my mother offered me when I tried to kill myself (i got it when I was in a mental institute). I've never been loving life so much, and I think that's where lies the right order of things : madness gets back to madness. So I opened that notebook and wrote the first sentence I came across: A machine that churns out articles fuck yeah, let's do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazador Mod Unit Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 yeah man you're a bit crazy but that's cool, you just need to be v serious about taking care of yourself. * types bordieu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.