Mnemoriam wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:16 pm
While still well above my head, I appreciated your response in many respects.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
Logic as the observation of structure is dependent upon a mathematical symbolism, which these symbols acting as boundaries which both maintain certain degrees of information and in seperate respects are able to mediate that information between other symbols. As medial points, logistic symbols are absent of limit as they are strictly centers that provide structure.
The same occurs for language as the format through letters/words/paragraphs/etc provides the same structure of "limit" which both maintains information and seperates it, but also act as possible limits by taking the place of medial center points and mediating the information.
What you say reminds me of two things, which, however, I am not really sure that they have anything to do with what you mean. But that’s how I might begin to understand you, if you’d have the trouble to keep correcting me.
First, when you talked about “structures” and “boundaries”, I immediately thought about a figure in page 18 of a introductory book on semiotics I have, called “Semiotics, The Basics”, by Daniel Chandler. There, two planes corresponding to the signifier and the signified of the Saussurean model of signs are shown. The author says that Saussure’s “
conception of meaning was purely structural and relational rather than referential: primacy was given to relationships rather than to things”. He goes on to say that “
no sign makes sense on its own but only in relation no other signs”. So signs (which is more encompassing than “symbols” but I think in this discussion both might apply) are interpreted as arbitrarily defined “regions” in the continuum of both planes. This regions therefore have limits which provide structure, whereas the medial points would represent the precise meaning of the symbol (in the signifier plane) and th prototypical concept (or object) it symbolises (in the signified plane). And that leads me to the second think you reminded me of.
Second, it seems to be that to maintain that the medial points are any different from any other point in a given symbol/region would be to maintain that these other points are less representative of the given symbol. If that’s so, this reminds me of my previous experience with Fuzzy Logic. I have never deepened myself in the math of it, but I have spent quite some time experimenting with classification based on Fuzzy Logic. These other points inside the region would, therefore, have fuzzy memberships smaller than 1, with only the medial points having it equal to 1. This might also account for the vagueness inherent in language and explain some of the difficulty you, I, and everybody else face with communication.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
In these respects looking at logic/language we can observe through their inherent symbolism:
a) They contain dimensional limits (as boundaries) which maintain the inherent information properties (as an act of memory) through an act of unity embodied as the symbol itself. It simultaneously separates the symbol from other symbols as an act of "individuation"
resulting in multiple symbols gaining definition if and only if they relate. In these respects all symbols maintain a duality as "unified information" and "multiple information" with the symbol itself being the third neutral element as "limit".
You agree with Saussure in the bolded session, and I think I understand, therefore, why you assign unity and multiplicity to the symbols, although I must admit that your use of double quotes sometimes hampers my understanding. Most of the really important terms you use are inside double quotes. Maybe you yourself are still not 100% sure what they mean?
Its a mix. We have alot of words within the english language which reflect similiar means. In this case dimensions and boundaries can be viewed as synonymous.
If you established exactly what you mean, maybe you could even use an invented word such as, say,
flinnons and things would get clearer.
Never thought of that....I'll think about it.
I understood the symbol as a limit (although you write “limit”), but what do you mean by “third neutral element”?
The symbol in itself is neutral and mediates between a unified and multiple nature of information by providing foundations for both as duals that exist in seperate respects.
Why neutral? What are the first and second elements?
Unity and multiplicity.
Don’t you mean property or attribute, being the first property of the symbol the unity, the second the multiplicity, and the third the fact that it is itself a “no-limit” (your 1 dimensional point, or maybe your zero-dimensional point?)
Yes, Yes, and Yes/No. The symbol as a neutral element maintains that duality of multiplicity and unity as "both, and" which forms the basis of dimensional limits as "boundaries" which give structure. In a second respect the symbol is neither multiple or unified and in these respects exists through Possible Limits (or no-limit) that exists dually to dimensional limit. Neutrality contains a dual element of "Both" and "neither" in seperate respects.
You see, when I write “no-limit”, i.e., using quotes, I myself am not sure what this means. It seems to me you are saying that medial points are limitless because being in the centre, they must have other similar points around it, and it is those points that might provide the limits of the symbol. If that’s so, I think my allusion to Fuzzy logic might make sense. What do you think?
Fuzzy logic deals fundamentally with grades or "fractals" that continually relate to form further fractals. This fractal nature of the symbol implies it exists through many grades or pieces that relate in order to form the symbol itself. The problem occurs in the respect that a fractal is fundamentally a deficiency, and as a deficiency it is deficient in structure. In these respects symbols may be viewed as particulate that must relate to other particulate in order to exist. The problem occurs that the process of continual relation, as change, results in a continual "particulation" of the meaning of the symbol itself as the symbol individuates (through these relations) and either multiplies, divides, or usually both. Think of cell growing another cell, through its relations to another cell....does the cell "divide" itself... or does it "multipy itself...or both? The same exists in regards to the symbol.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
b) These symbols acting as medial center points to other symbols, are dually absent in structure in separate respect as they mediate other symbols by acting as "centers". In these respects they maintain "no-limit" as "possible limit" through mediating separate symbols. Symbols maintain an absence of structure in a seperate respect, as "centers" (or No-limit), and manifest themselves as neutral in that they are neither unified/stable or multiple/relating.
Here, you got me confused. You had said before that symbols provide structure, but now you say that they maintain “an absence of structure” and, moreover, are “dually absent in structure”. Are you now repeating the previous argument that the symbols themselves, as medial points, are limitless and, therefore, structureless themselves?
Going back to the argument about Neutrality, the symbol maintains a dual nature of limit and no limit. These limits enable the structure of the symbol but unifying it is one respects and seperating it in another (as a form of multiplicity). This dual nature of "No-limit" exists in regards to the symbol acting as a medial point (as all structures have a center of balance) which allow for possible further dimensions to be synthesized through it. This possibilistic nature implies a limitless nature to the symbol, at the same time in a different respect through the "center" as fundamentally ad-infinitum.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
C) Symbols maintain a dual form of neutral as "both unified/multiple" in nature and "neither unified/multiple" in nature. Looking at the third element of "memory" you were talking about, we can observe memory follows this same format of "Dimensional Limit" and "Possible Dimensional Limit" in the same manner as logic and language.
Both unified/multiple already sounds like a contradiction,
This may help. If you look at how you presented "unified" and "multiple" as "unified/multiple". This duality synthesized "/" as a neutral boundary line which provides limit. This "/" in a seperate respect centers these "duals" and provides further limits, for example: stable/moving, as approximates of it.
although I believe I understand what you mean; but when you say "both unified/multiple and neither unified/multiple”, now it’s like you have a “double contradiction”! It seems that you call this “double contradiction” the “dual form of neutral”, but that’s hard to grasp.
Neutrality can be observed as the "stabilizer" to the contradiction or paradox by allowing a duality to occur by the manifestation of dimensions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
We remember through symbols, with these symbols being extensions of the imagination as a part of the "imaging process". The imaging process, gives form and function to abstract concepts through the "crystalization" of form as "symbolism". In simple terms, we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving "image" to them. These "images" follow the same nature of "limit/no-limit" as described above. These symbols, in turn form memory as "structuring through frequency."
We remember through repetition, and repetition is strictly "structuring". This is considering that repetition is a form of "symmetry" in itself similiar in form and function to the image process. The reason for this is that all images, as form, exist through symmetry. We remember and observe symmetrical forms and the imaging process gives this "symmetry" where we observe the structure of the image itself as "symmetrical".
This symmetry is further compounded when not only the symbol is formed but when it is repeated as a second degree of symmetry. In the first respect we form the symbol through symmetry, and in this second degree we repeat the symbol itself as further form of symmetry. This memory, as a second degree of the symbolic process, extends the symbol through time and space by the act of memory/repitition itself. In these respects a third degree of symmetry can be observe through "actualization".
Where the symbol was first formed through symmetry, then folded upon itself through repetition/memory as a second degree of symmetry, the third degree of symmetry occurs in the actualization where symbol itself manifests itself in physical concrete ways, such as communication, etc. This third degree of symmetry, allows the symbol to branch off into further concepts and the process is repeated to some degree.
Symbols, in these respects, exist much in the same manner as an organic entity. It is formed from symmetry (egg/sperm in real life), it is remembered (gestates in the womb), and then it is actualized and give use (birthed).[/color]
I have difficulty to understand your point here, but I want to very much.
Symbols for the symmetry which crystalizes the concept. Memory provides further symmetry across time and space for the symbol to exist. This duality between the crystalization, as stability and unity, and memory, as multiplicity and movement, results in the synthesis of the symbol itself as fully existing as an entity in and of itself....an "axiom" in simpler terms. This "axiom" in turn manifests a physical and abstract nature by being a median point for both.
A mnemonist would love to hear that "we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving 'image' to them", but this is largely disputed. As Paivio says in his book
Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach, "
The language-supremacy view of mind is ancient and tenacious". I tend to agree more with his dual-coding theory where both verbal language and imagery join forces to allow us to think like we do. But anyway, when you talk about "three degrees of symmetry" are you talking about the
process of symbolism? As far as I understood what you said, we devise a symbol by creating an image based on a concept or an object from reality (the first degree of symmetry); then when we remember the symbol, we bring back the memory of what it relates to as well, and in doing so, it is as if we were repeating the image-formation of that concept, thus reinforcing the symbol/memory (second degree of symmetry); and, finally, when we use the symbol and, thus, make it physical (either by sound or writing; or, maybe, when we touch the object it symbolizes? When it refers to a physical thing, of course) we are "actualizing" the symbol (the third degree of symmetry). Is that close?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
I am not arguing against that point, because their is alot of truth in it, but considering all ways of live are formed through language and these ways of life continually change through history (and will in the further), would it be a stretch to say that language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis? If that is the case, than there is a rational foundation for this change.
Maybe what you mean here is much wider in sense than what I understood, but I am pretty sure any linguist will agree with me (and you?) that language is almost as a living thing, adapting and changing in relation to ways of life, needs, etc.
Yes, it is in a process of continual synthesis where it manifests both "unity/multiplicity", "stability/movement", etc. while at the same time have "no limit" through possible limits as further synthesis. Synthesis is a completely neutral element that provides balance through the manfiestation of "dimensions". If we look at the nature of dimension, it is basically "direction as space" with the direction providing "unity..etc.".
I find it particularly fascinating the way one single generation can create a new language, as in the case of a pidgin becoming a creole language. I find this expression of yours quite nice and precise when you say that "language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis".
That is the only way I have figured to word it so far. This product of synthesis, I will again point out, is strictly neutral on its own terms.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
Using what I said above "memoria verborum" would equivocate to the memorization of "definition/no-definition" and Memoria rerum" would equivocate to the memorization of "approximation". In these respects, these dual forms of memory provide the foundation of triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison.
[...]
That method only words for autistic people, as that level of detail does not allow any form of irrational structures (emotion) to give it form. You need a duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion) in the process of memorization. We can seed this duality within the golden mean as "extreme/emotion" and "median/reason/mind" where you need both in order to "propogate" any continuity.
I like very much the way you combined the two types of memorization with the duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion). I think it makes a lot of sense, and it explains part of my failure in systematizing mnemonics. But what exactly you mean by a "triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison"?
Symbols, by their very nature provide us which three things: Definition, no definition, and approximation.
What would be the third element apart from the two types of memory? This is very interesting.
That is an interesting question. I would argue, the symbol itself as the "body". If we look at memory as "rational/mental" and "irrational/emotional" the third product would be "body"....just as the human person has a trifold constitution of body/mind/spirit. The symbol in this case would be the "body" as a form of memory in itself as pure symmetry. This is considering, if we look at the nature of memory as form of symmetry through repition, what we understand of all realities or phenomena is that they exist through symmetry. Symmetry, at its root is "limit" and "no-limit"(center) and in these respects is purely "space folding upon itself as space." Space being the root of the symbol, embodies itself as "dimension as direction"...which would give some clarity as to why we intuitively relate symbols with signs.
I am sorry for all the questions and for possibly mentioning too much stuff that is not germane to the topic at hand. I really hope that you will bear with me enough so that I can eventually get to your original topic that "all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits".
Actually the examples work just fine as symbols are dimensions...pure and simple.
For now, I am still "lost in space"