General discussion


Red giant Betelgeuse

By santeewelding ·
Tags: Off Topic
Almost the size of the orbit of Jupiter, I read, confirms for me that the magnitude of our affairs will have to serve me, there being no way for me to comprehend those of Betelgeuse.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

"Do not misconstrue"

by santeewelding In reply to Flavours of reference...

As a childhood friend was fond of saying, having picked it up from his dad, who was a lawyer. As if any of us could know constructs of another, let alone care about or criticize them.

In any case, I don't leave home without articles both definite and indefinite. They are, after all, indispensable come finite and infinite, and in Causality of Being. They help to make change and count rounds, too.

There. See? Caught a "the" and expunged it.

Collapse -

What is the difference between a duck?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to "Do not misconstrue& ...

...It neither wears a hat!

I read : Casualty of Being.

I'd like a coffee with my newspaper.
Oh man, now I have newspaper all over my coat.

You know <a href=**90031X>Jackendoff</a>? He has some fun ideas.
<a href=>Jan Rijkhoff</a> takes it a step further, building a nice system of singulars versus sets versus sorts versus generics...

And of course, like always, I recommend heartily Space in Language and Cognition... it's chuck-full of things we already know but were afraid to think out loud - for fear of tangling ourselves in our innards.

Misconstrue... perhaps that rote could have had merit if supported with stance: I have in my mind *stuff*, it is constructed of other, more basic stuff.
I surmise that you have in your mind also something like this other, more basic stuff. So I hand you, or try to hand you, like LEGO instructions, written in a poorly decipherable shorthand, for how to model the stuff I have, that for you to evaluate, improve, destroy or otherwise handle or mishandle.

Do not misconstrue; build, debrief, validate.

Collapse -

I take your recommendations to mean

by santeewelding In reply to &quot;Do not misconstrue& ...

That you have delved, and probably still do, in these matters, recognizing that, before them, nothing. All else one says means little if anything without foundation in matters of causality and being. Severe, anticipatory articulation, I add, helps.

I won't follow up on your recommendations. I come full circle up behind them.

Collapse -

Perhaps... but I am probably less ordered than you.

by AnsuGisalas In reply to &quot;Do not misconstrue& ...

It does me good to read what others have thought on what I have thought, sometimes they've formulated it better, and sometimes they've formulated it so much worse that it shows me how to improve my own stance.

I'll articulate it: Jackendoff has an example "There was dog all over the road", to show that something bounded (a dog) can become irrevocably, gruesomely unbounded - by mere words.

Rijkhoff goes and studies many many languages, and shows that some languages don't have a or the, nor do they use plurals with numerals : They say "one of [dog]" or "two of [dog], where [dog] is the idea of dogs, becoming countable only by the count... like "One coffee" "Two coffees".

But Space in Language and Cognition is a special case, it touches on everything.
The fallacy of left and right, for example.
And the impossibility of formulating simple traffic rules without them.
I recommend it like I'd recommend a smashing good detective novel.

Collapse -

Teacup size

by santeewelding In reply to &quot;Do not misconstrue& ...

The other day I was in a big warehouse store and a bird in the rafters got me on top of my head.

Collapse -

That's the one

by AnsuGisalas In reply to &quot;Do not misconstrue& ...

Bigger than a teacup.
University libraries will have it, as will some other big libraries.

Collapse -

Nope, again.

by seanferd In reply to I think I know what you a ...

They were rhetorical.

Then again, in the original instance, I don't recall using any of these words. "Center of the universe", never. "Universe", I certainly will use, as it is conventional, like sunrise. "Cosmos" may serve better. "World."

<i>There is one?</i> ("Center" of the universe. There is not.) </i> And the other?</i> (The "universe", which remains to be seen, and defined, whenever, if ever, by investigation, for the given definition-swarm for the word. The word itself is a whole other can of worms again.)

See also: , if it is the sort of thing which interests you. Depends upon that on which you focus in language.

Collapse -

It's that thing...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Nope, again.

The universe is the "oneness", but how can we talk of a oneness that is all, if we cannot identify anything at all, except by comparison... and to what?

Ties into that other one: If there is this, and this is all one, what limits this? What's beyond the edge?

Newton couldn't answer those, Einstein didn't need to.


Collapse -

Well, as to the word, I have an answer:

by seanferd In reply to It's that thing...

Let me bypass all the "philosophical" meanderings: Universe - everything taken at once, as a whole. Has no relation to one thing being defined in terms of other things. Nothing to do with anotherverse next door, irrelevant. It's a friggin' envelope. (Oh, but what does the envelope contain? What is the nature of the envelope? What is outside the envelope? Who is the postman? Why is the address wrong? Why does it smell like lavender? Can we really call it an envelope if it is just a folded and taped piece of paper?)

Further still, anyone with a gram of sense knows that language is vague, and that facts and concepts have levels of uncertainty. Most of those who don't will pretty much never get it, so you can mostly forget trying to explain to them otherwise.

Go ahead, let's take the etymology of many words apart, and see how the roots bear absolutely no relation to the modern meaning in, e.g., English, or the opposite meaning, or just a really awful metaphor. What of it? Such things do no shape people's experience, unless they choose to study these things.

So, a fine thing to observe language, play with it, and pronounce trenchant statements upon the observations. But occasionally, I reach my "whatever" point. I knew philosophy majors who took a lot of LSD, and they had nothing really valid to say then. The same product arrived at by a different route has the same value for me.

Philosophy had better watch its internal logic. It generally sucks great big canals full of water when dealing with reality. (And let's not have a debate on that one word. I know you know which one.) Philosophers: Evidence, or it didn't happen. Practical application, or it's just mental ____________. Which is fine, but I won't be lectured at from such a place. There are more significant things deserving attention, in language alone, than determiners or the conventional usage and etymology of "universe". (Which, again, is a word I had not even used in this thread prior to its mention, with some onus placed upon me to take care in its usage, along with this "center" thing. I don't know why. Free advice structured as though a response to direct usage?)

I'm plenty open minded and more than willing to consider some things or to speculate on others, and I played to the form in use, but at this point I must express weariness in what I find to be not only a pointless exercise, but with wrong premises as well. (Maybe wrong conclusions, too, I don't know. Were there any? "The" should be more carefully used or not used? Have fun storming the romance languages.)

There you have it, sloppy and not much edited. I hope it doesn't come off as terse or unfriendly. That is not the intent.

Otherwise, how are you boys doing? Santee, how's <i>the foot</i>?

Related Discussions

Related Forums