Prev: last post of this book; future reminder #600 Correcting Math
Next: Download & Read your favorite ebooks with eReader JE200
From: Zerkon on 15 Apr 2010 09:48
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:09:12 +0100, John Jones wrote:

> they are mathematical symbols or

[Caution Sign] Leap to ambiguity Ahead

> signs.

> Here are some signs and their limits:

1.
a token; indication.
2.
any object, action, event, pattern, etc., that conveys a meaning.
3.
a conventional or arbitrary mark, figure, or symbol used as an
abbreviation for the word or words it represents.
4.
a motion or gesture used to express or convey an idea, command, decision,
etc.: Her nod was a sign that it was time to leave.
5.
a notice, bearing a name, direction, warning, or advertisement, that is
displayed or posted for public view: a traffic sign; a store sign.
6.
a trace; vestige: There wasn't a sign of them.
7.
an arbitrary or conventional symbol used in musical notation to indicate
tonality, tempo, etc.
8.
Medicine/Medical. the objective indications of a disease.
9.
any meaningful gestural unit belonging to a sign language.
10.
an omen; portent: a sign of approaching decadence.
11.
sign of the zodiac.
12.
sign language (def. 1).
13.
Usually, signs. traces, as footprints, of a wild animal.
14.
Mathematics.
a.
a plus sign or minus sign used as a symbol for indicating addition or
subtraction.
b.
a plus sign or minus sign used as a symbol for indicating the positive or
negative value of a quantity, as an integer.
c.
multiplication sign.
d.
division sign.
e.
a symbol, as or !, used to indicate a radical or factorial operation.
From: Akira Bergman on 15 Apr 2010 12:16
On Apr 15, 9:11 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...(a)frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Akira Bergman" <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:47e3cc08-8ef2-4ca3-891c-b19223bcb988(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> .....
>
> >While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve,
> >there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'.
>
> Makes you feel blue, doesn't it?
>
> T

What exactly?

From: Tim on 15 Apr 2010 12:23
On Apr 14, 6:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> INTRO
> Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are
> "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was
> talking about.


Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaa ha. Good one, Rabbit Food, that's
the best joke I've heard all week!!!!
From: Akira Bergman on 15 Apr 2010 12:29
On Apr 15, 1:11 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 15, 7:24 am, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > INTRO
> > > Paul deMann said that mathematical symbols aren't symbols per se but are
> > > "semiotic indices". You can take it from me that he knew what he was
> > > talking about. For the rest of us, they are mathematical symbols or
> > > signs. We await release from our state of wretched epistemological dearth.
>
> > > My question is this. Does a sign, by virtue of being a sign, have limits
> > > to what it can express?
>
> > > DISCUSSION
> > > "A sign can represent anything we like - it has no limits to what it can
> > > express", I hear everyone say.
> > > But are we sure? Because, I have found some limits to what a sign can
> > > express. Here are some signs and their limits:
>
> > > EXAMPLES
> > > 1. "Infinity". This sign demonstrates the REFERENTIAL limits of a sign.
> > > A sign makes what is not, appear; or makes a thing, another thing.
> > > Likewise, Infinity is either a vacuous concept (e.g., nothing at all or
> > > a list of mathematical procedures), or an abbreviation for a set of
> > > romantic interludes.
>
> > > 2. "God". God, as for any solitary or incommensurable object that is
> > > represented by a sign, isn't countable or identifiable. This
> > > demonstrates the ONTOLOGICAL limits of a sign. That is, a sign makes
> > > what is not identifiable in any circumstances, identifiable.
>
> > > 3. "Mental Disorder". No-one knows what mental disorder is. But everyone
> > > knows what to do about mental disorder. This demonstrates the MEANING
> > > limits of a sign - a sign can be meaningless, yet still have a use.
>
> > > 5. The swastika. Here we see the sign break out of its referential role
> > > and become a mandala or performative, or an invocation. This
> > > demonstrates the PHYSICAL limits of signs. Referential signs are always
> > > physically extended, but the swastika, etc, is not. Mandala-signs,
> > > therefore, would be the best way of showing non-worldly, solitary or
> > > incommensurable objects.
>
> > > There are many more examples, I am sure.
>
> > Australian use of 'yes' and 'no', one after the other, is one of the
> > strangest. It even makes sense sometimes. It seems to satisfy a need
> > to express space and negative space at the same time.
>
> > While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve,
> > there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'.
>
> > Fuzzy ones sometimes strike a stable meaning and solidify, other times
> > solid ones evaporate and join the fuzzy dance once more, resembling
> > thermodynamics of matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 'yes-no' trend appeared fairly recently. Often when I see such
> 'appearances' of such phrases, it is often an indicater in a shift in
> the group consciousness.In this case, an expression of greater
> balance.
>
> As far as symbols go, they were made by the mind for mental reference.
> You are doing a 'Pirsig' once more, (interestingly, his personal
> symbol was the 'infinity' sign.)
>
> He tried to fit relativity (mind stuff) into his spiritual awareness.
> It doesnt fit, and sent him 'nutty' for a while.You are constantly
> doing the same thing, and frustration will constantly come about.
>
> BOfL

I knew you are science and math illiterate, with all that numerology
stuff.

Math and science are the essence of philosophy. You use spirituality
as a cover for your ignorance. Like the most religious preachers. In
the good old days of Vinci, math and science were essential for
philosophy. It will be so again this century.

Philosophy is science and math more than politics and religion, which
is politics under the cover of spirituality.
From: Tronscend on 16 Apr 2010 21:11

"Akira Bergman" <akirabergman(a)gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:885ecb77-581e-4fad-9023-9d2d2ac59656(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 9:11 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...(a)frizurf.no> wrote:
> "Akira Bergman" <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> skrev i
> meldingnews:47e3cc08-8ef2-4ca3-891c-b19223bcb988(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 8:09 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> .....
>
> >While many words and symbols oscillate in their meanings and evolve,
> >there are many others that stay put, like '1', '0', 'circle', 'blue'.
>
> Makes you feel blue, doesn't it?
>
> T


1) Sorry for pushing the wrong button.
It was meant for the group, not to fill your personal inbox.
2) Sorry for the feeble joke...


T





First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: last post of this book; future reminder #600 Correcting Math
Next: Download & Read your favorite ebooks with eReader JE200