Re: Philippine Spanish (was Re: Questions about Tagalog)
| From: | J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, April 23, 2004, 9:08 |
|---|
In a message dated 2004:04:22 05:34:56 PM, rfmilly@MSN.COM writes:
>(IIRC Hanuman Czhang sent this the other day-- gracias)
::monkeybrain-stunned look:: I did o_0?
AiYah! Are you sure it wasn't onna the other pidcreo* hip cats like David
Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> or Barry Garcia or Victor Medrano?
* a manga-ization of pidgin-creole
In a message dated 2004:04:22 05:54:02 PM, barry_garcia@CSUMB.EDU writes:
>Which is something i sent to the list a couple of weeks ago in the
creole/misxed
>language thread. Which no one seemed to notice :)
In a message dated 2004:04:22 06:21:52 PM, rfmilly@MSN.COM writes:
>Ah. Well. Sorry. I noticed. The memory slips a cog de vez en cuando.
I did, too. But like Roger, I frikkin' brain-farted - as ya can see...
mea culpa... ::smacks self on brain-case::
AND so that this message has a chunky-monkey bit more to it than just Higher
Primate chatterin' & blips in the conlang list continuum...
I include these big ol' bytes o' heavymetalinguistics *KLuNK-KLanG!*:
From: "Gavin Ritz" <garritz@...>
Sender: <yaneer@...> (Yaneer Bar-Yam)
Subject: RE: The Peircean triadicity of the general complementarity
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:21:50 -0500
To: complex-science
Hi Sung
-----Original Message-----
From: complex-science@necsi.org [mailto:complex-science@necsi.org] On Behalf
Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:57 p.m.
To: complex-science@necsi.orgSubject: The Peircean triadicity of the general
complementarity
According to Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), everything that exists in
the
Universe belongs to one of the following three ontological categories
--Firstness,
Secondness, and Thirdness. Let me quote several passages from Peirce's
writings
to shed some light on what he meant by these unusual terms:
"My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can
directly
observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in
any way.
They are being of positive qualitative possibility (Firstness; my
addition), the
being of actual fact (Secondness), and the being of law that will govern
facts
in the future (Thirdness)." [1]
"The First is that whose being is simply in itself, not referring to
anything nor
lying behind anything.
That sounds like it is being. This also sounds very spiritual how can there
be nothing behind anything???
The Second is that which is what it is by force of
something to which it is second.
That sounds like becoming
The Third is that which is what it is owing
to things between which it mediates and which it brings into relation to
each
other." [2].
And the third sounds like the harmony between the being and becoming is what
Prigogine’s being and becoming is all about.
So what we have here is really just being and becoming with its relationship.
"First is the beginning, that which is fresh, original, spontaneous,
free. Second
is that which is determined, terminated, ended, correlative, object,
necessitated,
reacting. Third is the medium, becoming, developing, bringing about.
A thing considered in itself is a unit. A thing considered as a
correlated or
dependent, or as an effect, is second to something else. A thing which
in
any way brings one thing into relation with another is a third or medium
between the two." [2]
Here he seems to contradict his statements above, almost as if second is
being, third is becoming and the relation brings forth novelty and originality.
Which is exactly what Prigogine says that being causes becoming and the
relationship (with feedback) is what creativity and novelty is all about (chaos and
uncertainty). (My addition) with wholes. See the End of Certainty.
Consistent with Peirce's triadic ontology, the principle of
complementarity
appears to be manifested in this Universe in three distinct modes:
Firstness = Complementarity in metaphysics (e.g., Yin and Yang as
complementary aspects of Tao of Lao-tze;
Extension and
Thought as complementary aspect of Substance of
Spinoza;
Body and Mind as complementary aspects of Flesh
of
Merleau-Ponty [3])
Secondness = Complementarity in physics (e.g., the wave/particle
duality of light)
Thirdness = Complementarity in psychology (e.g., hysterical
anesthesia of
William James [4]), physiology (i.e., the
left/right hemispheric
specialization), and molecular and cell biology
(e.g., the
information/energy complementarity of gnergy [5])
These ideas may be schematically represented as follows:
FIRSTNESS
Complementarity in Metaphysics
/\
/ \
/____\
SECONDNESS THIRDNESS
Complementarity in Physics Complementarity in Life Sciences
Figure 1. The three modes of being of the principle of complementarity (also
called "general complementarity" [6]). Life sciences being
Thirdness,
they serve as the mediator between metaphysics and physics.
If the ideas expressed in Figure 1 are right, the divergence of physics
and
metaphysics that has been going on since the time of Aristotle two and a half
millennia
ago may finally be reversed through the mediating role of the life sciences
of the
20th and 21st centuries. In other words, the principle of information/energy
complementarity manifest in biology [5,6] may provide the theoretical
framework
to integrate metaphysics (science information?) and physics (science of
energy).
Although N. Bohr clearly recognized the similarity and connectedness
between the complementarity discovered in quantum physics and the idea of Tao in
Chinese
philosophy in the early decades of the 20th century, Bohr was unable to
rationally
account for this surprising finding. Two factors may have contributed to his
inability
to explain this similarity:
(i) The lack of the third mode of being of complementarity exhibited by
living
systems, and
(ii) his likely ignorance of Peirce's triadic ontology.
Any questions, comments, or suggestions will be welcome as always.
With all the best.
Sung
I think this is what you have been trying to say before but in my opinion it
is not robust enough, in fact it misses the Peircian concept of Triadicity
which is really just a being becoming concept. The sciences can only proceed when
the connection between being and becoming is recognized and nowhere thus far
do I see that. Show me how your model takes into account the harmony between
being and becoming in Peirce’s Triad.
Kindest
gavin
____________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
References:
[1] Buchler, J. (1995). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover
Publications,
Inc., New York. P. 75.
[2] Peirce, C. S., "A Guess at the Riddle," in: The Essential Peirce:
Selected
Philosophical Writing, Volume 1 (1867-1893). Houser, N., and Kloesel, C.,
eds., Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1992, pp. 245-279.
[3] Dillon, M. C. (1997). Merleau-Ponty's Ontology. Second Edition.
Northwestern University Press, Evanston.
[4] Stephenson, W. (1986). William James, Niels Bohr, and
Complementarity. The Psychological Record 36:519-527.
[5] Ji, S. (1991). Biocybernetics: A Machine Theory of Biology, in:
Molecular
Theories of Cell Life and Death (Ji, S., ed.), Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, pp. 1-237.
[6] Ji, S. (1995). Complementarism: A Biology-Based Philosophical
Framework to Integrate Western Science and Eastern Tao. In: Psychotherapy East and
West: Integration of Psychotherapies. Korean Academy of Psychotherapists,
#178-23 Songbuk-dong, Songbuk-ku, Seoul, Korea. Pp. 518-548.
-----------------------
17/07/01 09:19
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward...tive Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/s...ess_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity - Alan D. Sokal
[...] the postmodern sciences overthrow the static ontological categories
and hierarchies characteristic of modernist science. In place of atomism and
reductionism, the new sciences stress the dynamic web of relationships between
the whole and the part; in place of fixed individual essence (e.g. Newtonian
particles), they conceptualize interactions and flows (e.g. quantum fields).
Intriguingly,
these homologous features arise in numerous seemingly disparate areas of
science, from quantum gravity to chaos theory to the biophysics of self-organizing
systems. In this way, the postmodern sciences appear to be converging on a
new epistemological paradigm, one that may be termed an _ecological perspective,
broadly understood as ``recogniz[ing] the fundamental interdependence of all
phenomena and the embeddedness of individuals and societies in the cyclical
patterns of nature.''85
A fourth aspect of postmodern science is its self-conscious stress on
symbolism and representation. As Robert Markley points out, the postmodern
sciences are increasingly transgressing disciplinary boundaries, taking on
characteristics that had heretofore been the province of the humanities:
Quantum physics, hadron bootstrap theory, complex number theory, and chaos
theory share the basic assumption that reality cannot be described in linear
terms, that nonlinear -- and unsolvable -- equations are the only means possible
to describe a complex, chaotic, and non-deterministic reality. These
postmodern theories are -- significantly -- all metacritical in the sense that they
foreground themselves as metaphors rather than as``accurate'' descriptions of
reality. In terms that are more familiar to literary theorists than to
theoretical physicists, we might say that these attempts by scientists to develop new
strategies of description represent notes towards a theory of theories, of how
representation -- mathematical, experimental, and verbal -- is inherently
complex and
problematizing, not a solution but part of the semiotics of investigating the
universe.86 87
From a different starting point, Aronowitz likewise suggests that a
liberatory science may arise from interdisciplinary sharing of epistemologies:
... natural objects are also socially constructed. It is not a question
of whether these natural objects, or, to be more precise, the objects of
natural scientific knowledge, exist independently of the act of knowing. This
question is answered by the assumption of ``real'' time as opposed to the
presupposition, common among neo-Kantians, that time always has a referent, that
temporality is therefore a relative, not an unconditioned, category. Surely, the
earth evolved long before life on earth. The question is whether objects of
natural scientific knowledge are constituted outside the social field. If this is
possible, we can assume that science or art may develop procedures that
effectively neutralize the effects emanating from the means by which we produce
knowledge/art.
Performance art may be such an attempt.88
Finally, postmodern science provides a powerful refutation of the
authoritarianism and elitism inherent in traditional science, as well as an empirical
basis for a democratic approach to scientific work. For, as Bohr noted, ``a
complete elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points of
view which defy a unique description'' -- this is quite simply a fact about the
world, much as the self-proclaimed empiricists of modernist science might
prefer to deny it. In such a situation, how
can a self-perpetuating secular priesthood of credentialed ``scientists''
purport to maintain a monopoly on the production of scientific knowledge? (Let me
emphasize that I am in no way opposed to specialized scientific training; I
object only when an elite caste seeks to impose its canon of ``high science'',
with the aim of excluding a priori alternative forms of scientific production
by non-members.89)
The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide powerful
intellectual support for the progressive political project, understood in its
broadest sense: the transgressing of boundaries, the breaking down of barriers,
the radical democratization of all aspects of social, economic, political and
cultural life.90 Conversely, one part of this project must involve the
construction of a new and truly
progressive science that can serve the needs of such a democratized
society-to-be.[...]
---
Hanuman Zhang, _Gomi no sensei_ [Master of junk] <A
HREF="http://www.boheme-magazine.net">=> boheme-magazine.net</A>
"To live is to scrounge, taking what you can in order to survive. So,
since living is scrounging, the result of our efforts is to amass a pile of
rubbish." ~ ChuangTzu/Zhuangzi, China, 4th Century BCE
"...So what is life for? Life is for beauty and substance and sound and
colour; and even those are often forbidden by law [socio-cultural conventions].
. .Why not be free and live your own life? Why follow other people's rules
and live to please others?..." ~ Lieh-Tzu/Liezi, Taoist Sage (c. 450- 375 BCE)
"Taoism in a nutshell: Shit Happens. Roll with the Punches. Hang 10 ~ Go
with the Flow!" ~ anon. California Surfer~Beatnik, c.1950's/1960's
"[The modern economist] is used to measuring the 'standard
of living' by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the
time that a man who consumes more is 'better off' than a man
who consumes less.
"A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively
irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-
being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being
with the minimum of consumption." ~ E.F. Schumacher, _Small is Beautiful_
"Western man not merely blighted in some degree every
culture that he touched, whether 'primitive' or advanced, but he also
robbed his own descendants of countless gifts of art and craftsmanship,
as well as precious knowledge passed on only by word of mouth
that disappeared with the dying languages of dying peoples...." ~ Lewis
Mumford, _The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine_
"Anarchism's great project is to dissolve the asymmetry of power. How?
There are thousands of alternatives and there is not only one solution. To
advance 'one' solution would be a doctrine of power, a manifestation of power." ~
Venezuelan University Academic Alfredo Vallota quoted in _El Libertario_