Advogato: TIME is _not

TIME is _not_ REAL

Posted 16 Oct 2005 at 18:03 UTC by badvogato

I'd like to offer my readership
this  conversation 
    on  certain revelation.
Time is _not_ real at all
   space can be equal to null
All language destined to be ill-conceived
   except what has been left unfettered.

Why all these reasonings are here for? so that you know i love this moment to its bone The saving power is there For it is as clear as my tear there is no equal sign between my time and your time.

Be aware the danger lies ahead By the end of my cry Life is but reduced to signs And between signs, dark matters and truth still strive to be found?

And where does beauty dwell after all signs exalted their power? The Devil shines through the ethereal ?

What is Mathematics, REALLY?, posted 17 Oct 2005 at 16:20 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

p220
In Chapter 1 I mentioned Karl Popper's role in dethroning the doctrine of inductive reasoning in empirical science. More recently he introduced a notion of "World 3" - a world of scientific and artistic knowledge, distinct from the physical world (World 1) and the world of mind or thought (World 2). In "Epistemology without a knowing subject" and "On the theory of the Objective Mind" he uses "World 3" to mean a world of intelligibles: ideas in the objective sense, possible objects of thought, theories and their logical relations, arguments and problem situations (1974, p.154). It seems Popper wants to put a Platonic world of Ideal Forms alongside the mental and physical worlds.
Peter Medawar was impressed by Popper's World 3. "Popper's new ontology does away with subjectivism in the world of mind. Human beings, he says, inhabit or interact with three distinct worlds; World 1 is the ordinary physical world, or world of physical states; World 2 is the mental world; World 3 is the world of actual or possible objects of thought - the world of concepts, ideas, theories, theorems, arguments, and explanations - the world, let us say, of all artifacts of the mind. The elements of this world interact with each other much like the ordinary objects of the material world; two theories interact and lead to the formulation of a third; Wagner's music influences Strauss's and his in turn all music written since...The existence of World 3, inseparably bound up with human language, is the most distinctly human of all our possessions. The third world is not a fiction, Popper insists, but exists 'in reality.' It is a product of the human mind but yet is in large measure autonomous. This was the conception I had been looking for: The third world is the greater and more important part of human inheritance. It's handing on from generation to generation is what above all else distinguishes man from beast." But the difficulty of explaning the interaction between these worlds is fatal for Popper, as for his predecessors.
F.R. Leavis in his book 'Nor Shall My Sword" calls the physical world "public", the mental world "private". Then he talks about "objects of the third kind," which are neither wholly public nor wholly private. This is close to my meaning.
Mario Bunge, a prolific philosopher of physics, attacked Popper's World 3 in "The Mind-Body Problem" (pp.169-73) -- but then developed his own reformulation of it.
- From "What is Mathematics, REALLY?" by Reuben Hersh 1997

Rorschach, posted 18 Oct 2005 at 06:05 UTC by slamb » (Journeyer)

It suddenly occurs to me that badvogato's posts are rather like Rorschach tests:

They are random, thoughtless splatters of ink. As wikipedia says, they're "inherently meaningless and subjective".
If the reactions they provoke tell anything at all, it's about the viewer rather than the posts.

Random & thoughtless, posted 18 Oct 2005 at 13:35 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

Random is intrinsic because badvogato and slamb's 'real' life experience have had no chance for any juxtaposition to emerge. 'Thoughtless', i believe, is exactly what badvogato has in mind to transcend the train of thoughts prevalent everywhere else.

a minute but tremendous difference, posted 18 Oct 2005 at 17:25 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

i revised my own translation of a Chinese saying after a banquet with a bunch of friends. It is a minute change but stands for a fundamental shift. The Chinese saying goes nothing like the following. But you get the essence?
"Money isn't everything. Without it, nothing stands for long" (a very wrong translation!)
"Money isn't everything. Without it, no thing stands for long" ( a workable and better translation)

equally true and lifeless statement, posted 18 Oct 2005 at 19:25 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

"Money isn't everything. Too much of it, everything reduces to it."

means and ends of 'pro-life' stand, posted 19 Oct 2005 at 00:25 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

i haven't really had time to digest enormous contexts in Jean-Francois Lyotard's 'Libidinal Economy' (translated by Iain Hamilton Grant) first published in France, 1974. Originating publisher of the English edition: The Athlone Press, London. I provide some excerptions here, hoping unknown Gurus in my readership can shine some lights and share their thoughts. And the question i have in mind is to understand the means and ends of contemporary 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice' stand and their hidden struggles.
My limited view so far is to say that American 'pro-life' stand must take what it takes to re-invent Chinese ancient eroticism in bedchambers and package it in uttermost civilized British English and export it back into the emerging Chinese market. This may seem to be a very far-stretching and lunatic idea but i'm not joking when i say God bless America.
My reading so far is confined in Chapter IV: Trade

Nicomachean Erotics
Lydian Eulogy
Institutive Prostitution
Outlet Payment
War of Silver, Currency of Death: Mercantilist Politics.
Here's the  link to some scattered texts from the book...

equal signs between CCP and facism?, posted 13 Nov 2005 at 17:03 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

If i am not mistaken, Michael A. Ledeen is drawing an equal sign between communist ruling with that of a facist Third Reich? I don't know if i can take the liberty to draw the equal sign between his policy making for fighting terrorism by drawing too many equal signs between -isms and ultimately muddling US thinking tanks so that it fails to send alerts and even succeeded in enforcing dangerous initiatives to use military force against a sovereign state on what has been proven the wrong intelligent gatherings of nuclear stock piles by former Iraq regime. US can't claim to be on the victorious side yet on that unjust and untimely war.