Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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
>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: [] 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 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="">=></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_