Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)

Sai Emrys wrote:
> (Grr mail problems.)
>
> On 1/25/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
[snip]
>>To be _fully_ 2D it must be at least a network, and something *that
>>cannot be recomposed in linear form _without loss of meaning_*.
>
>
> I think this is a pretty good summary.
Thanks  :)

> With of course the clause that everything can be linearized (viz. all
> digitization) with no actual loss of data;
Yes, of course, we can scan practically everything and record as a
linear list of 0s and 1s, and then, if we know the right algorithm,
recompose the thing again. We could even just arbitrarily (or, indeed,
systematically) chop up the full-2d writing and arrange all the pieces
linearly. But......

> it's just that they loose
> *comprehensibility*.
Yes.

> (E.g. arrays -> lists still preserve their data,
> but are not nearly as easy to read as a NxN grid.)
>
> So perhaps, "without loss of comprehensible meaning"?
OK.

>>Secondly, there must be positive reason for using two dimensions. It
>>should not be just linear stuff, recomposed, with a few extra 'fancy bits'.
>
> *nod*
>
>>What, I think, we are attempting is to represent thought without having
>>to process the thoughts through linear language. It is an attempt to
>>represent thought(s) as, say, a 'thought-web'.
>
>
> This point I would quibble about.
>
> I think it is definitely a subpart of the larger problem, but it is
> not equal. Expressing thoughts is only one purpose to which language
> (including this one) can be put; the language / writing system itself
> is a (ahem) content-free grammar.
>
> The general purpose of language is to communicate, period.
Yes, indeed, whether it is positive, informative communication or indeed
deliberately obscure or false in order to deceive. It is still
communication.

> So it is a
> dangerous exaggeration to say that all communications / writings in
> this language need be of the scope and detail (and form) of
> thought-representation.
Yes, I guess I meant that it should be of sufficient complexity to be
able to do so if one wished. But I must confess some ignorance over
things like 'thought-webs' and, indeed, of cognitive science. So I may
well err on these matters.

> Of course, that brings up the question of what you *are* trying to
> communicate (if not the entirety of the thought, which would be rather
> 'tall order' indeed)... and how much you leave unstated under the
> assumption that the reader can figure out, or already has, the
> necessary extra info.
And, indeed, how much do you want to communicate. You may wish to keep
the other person in the dark on some matters.

>>>and kept overstating my position
>>
>>IME a common habit of those who disagree with one another  :)
>
>
> I try not to do it. It's irritating, and distracting. Makes me think
> that someone is a bit too ego-scared, requires coddling and firmness
> to get anywhere. A distraction.
I agree entirely. At school we were taught to try to understand the
other person's point of view, even if we found it repugnant. The idea
was to see where the person was coming from and try to find some common
ground and move on from there.

[snip]
>>Yes, an overstatement - to say something is _completely_ impossible is
>>often rash. I don't know how realizable such a non-linear full-2d
>>writing system is - perhaps it may prove impossible. But until we try we
>>will not know.
>
>
> OK, that was an overstatement on *my* part. What she said more
> precisely was that she believed firmly that it would not be
> *practicable*, useful by normals, or useable even by specialists
> except with great difficulty.
How can one have such a _firm_ belief? Many ideas have been deemed not
to practical in the past and have since turned out to be very practical.
  I have no doubt that all those visionaries down the ages that had
ideas that humans could take to the air were told more than once that
their ideas were impractical & they were wasting their time.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Reply