[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism? (nominalism, yet again)

  • From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:23:53 -0700

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:11 PM, kirby urner<kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<< snip >>

> Not that I am not the author of the above verbiage, was cut and
> pasting from a web site somewhere.
>

oopsie....

"Note that I am not the author...." I shoulda said.

The author was a highly decorated civilian, pioneer of a simple 4D
geometry that is so far verboten to teach in many schools thanks to
strangle hold of a certain gulag professoriate.

However, our pilots are doing nicely around this "geometry of lumps"
(Karl Menger's influence).**

I like Wittgenstein's idea of language games because by linking this
to namespaces, we get how the same word might be used *very precisely*
in two different subcultures i.e. it's not "over here is the majority
definite meaning" whereas "over there is the secondary poetic fuzzy
wuzzy meaning" (unconscious imperialism ( = egoism)).

No, it's more like:  here we have two varieties of co-equal
timekeeping device, both highly precise, and both using this same
component in completely different (yet highly intended, highly
designed) ways.  Here we have peers, not master / servant.  That's
what I like about namespaces: their role in a "live and let live"
environment (aka "liberal" environment).

Kirby

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrs
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2009