[Fis] Also spoke Pythagoras

[Alex Hankey]

RE: Fish can establish no concept of water
ME: What about Flying Fish?
Do they have a concept of Air?
Or of transiting the surface,
and plunging back in?
Into what?
Besides they use different muscle sets in the two mediums!
So their Muscle Function knows that the two are different!
Alex


On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 18:37, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also spoke Pythagoras    2024 06 24
>
>
>
> *Captatio benevolentiae*
>
> This here excellent assembly of learned friends is as cooperative as they
> can get. They bring superb examples and common experiences we all can refer
> to, like being immersed in the music, in the beat or the swing or process
> or whatever we call the idea (remembering the experience) of being well
> synchronized within. In the interactive process, this is a positive
> transference of cooperation, even if snortingly.
>
>
>
> *Example clock*
>
> Let's imagine that in front of us is a huge clock the size of a building;
>
> On the back there is a door through which we can get inside the clock.
>
> Once inside, we can observe, measure, compare all the parts of the clock,
> as well as their combinations and imagine different configurations of them.
>
> We will know all about the watch from the inside.
>
> We see the cogs and the belts (permutations and partitions). You only
> refer to the cogs, avoiding the subject of the belts. Your opinion that the
> cogs determine the state of the machine is *grosso modo *correct. Let me
> drive your attention to the belts. Careful recalibration of what the belts
> do shows that there is an ever so slight *slippage *between the two
> constituents of the mechanism. The idea is to use the extent of the
> slippage as a natural unit. The inner inconsistency within the huge clock
> is roughly *10-92 %, *an extremely small value. Would you like to discuss
> this fine point of building clocks? The best entry is by reordering 12
> books.
>
>
>
> *Biology is a collection of circular processes on a limited number of
> diverse elements*
>
> I think we can agree that the elephants Karl mentions could not be sliced
> into steaks. His cycles would seem to have little to do with cycles in
> nature, which are ontic and involve energy changes. Accordingly they never
> purely circular.
>
> Wittgenstein was bloody right about the eye being unable to see itself.
> Fish can establish no concept of water. Integrating one’s physiology with
> one’s philosophy would make it impossible to write that biology is not
> circular while breathing in and out, having heart and other processes
> running. There are additions, variants, embellishments on the organism, but
> the organism itself is subject to periodic processes. If there is no
> breathing and no pulse, the periodic processes are no more periodic and the
> organism ceases to be an organism.
>
>
>
> *Are we talking about facts or are we talking about our beliefs*
>
> It should be clear that information science includes epistemological as
> well as ontological components. One can "play" with the epistemological
> ones, but it quickly becomes a “Glasperlenspiel” in which the links to
> messy energetic reality (including emotion) are lost. I suggest that some
> reference to the domain on which one is focusing might be very helpful in
> the debate.
>
> This very cooperative remark repeats the statement
>
> There is an inner system of relations among the natural numbers, and there
> is an inner system of relations among the ideas of the spectator.
>
> As repeatedly pointed out in the last few years, the person who tries to
> sell you a nontrivial update on a+b=c, this person has no messianic urges
> long repressed. It cannot be more explicitly announced that the role of
> Mendel is to draw attention to facts than it has been done.
>
>
>
> *What to do if the picture the numbers show is different to that what you
> expect them to do*
>
> Pythagoras was of the opinion, that music, numbers, relations, intervals,
> accords, harmonies show that Nature is built up on the simplest facts. If
> we decipher the relations among the simplest facts, we will have understood
> the rules Nature follows. In his opinion, one can and should learn from the
> inner harmony that regulates music.
>
> Pythagoras still remembered some of the urban legends relating to the
> heroic people of Akkadia, who suffered radical cultural extermination by
> the Sumerians, at least in that version of history which was common
> consensus at the time.
>
>
>
> *The Akkadians and their strange way of counting*
>
> The Sumerians were producers, the Akkadians traders. The former lived in a
> world of more or even more, the latter were victims of market forces. While
> the Sumerians believed that they can produce whatever in an endless amount,
> given the stuff is standardized, the Accadians were worried about what part
> of the whole delivery is in which quality class and is influenced by
> vagaries of fashion or seasons. The Akkadians have invented a closed system
> of calculations, with an upper limit above which it was agrammatical to
> think. You know what name have they chosen for their unit and upper limit?
> You won’t guess it. They called it *100 %. *Like the Mayans with their *Long
> Count Calender, *the Akkadians hat a precise concept about what are the
> relations of the parts to the whole and to each other.
>
> They were not too much interested in the numeric amount of what the
> industrious Sumerians have delivered, they rather thought in terms of
> percentages, what part can be sold immediately, etc. etc. etc. Their
> individual business optimization strategies had one thing in common: what
> are the relations of the parts among each other? The know-how relating to
> logistics and supply management is identical, whether you deal with barley
> or fish.
>
> As they sat together many balmy evenings in Akkadia, they worked out a
> fine system of insider knowledge, because they have developed words for the
> experience *“average in aspect A, good in aspect B, for hobbyists in
> aspect C*” for the diverse forms of typical wares of their trades. This
> mightily irritated the Sumerians, those straightforward noble savages of
> production ideology, so the Accadians got killed. If you are a honest
> producer, come to the market and there the traders speak in a slang of
> thieves, you will also want to make units to be of unit size and the unit
> of distance is the length of one unit. Don’t obfuscate the main idea, that
> unification means that the units are one like the other. These Akkadians
> have deserved what they got coming to them, by all this fancy limited
> assembly and types of units. No such talk where a Sumerian is present.
>
>
>
> *So what has this to do with me*
>
> If a new idea breaks upon you like a tsunami, find a halt in something you
> are familiar with and you can keep it in your hands.
>
> Why don’t you take 12 different books and stick little yellow markers on
> them, abbreviating author and title. Do the reordering exercise. Do it with
> the attention of a Zen monk.
>
>
>
> *You find out for yourself*
>
> One should not influence the probands in what they are expected to
> experience and learn from an experience.
>
>
>
> *Good vibes*
>
> The freedom of this intellectual club is that you can express your opinion
> about information up to twice a week and people are sympathetic because
> they also do not know what information is. For reasons of space, the
> interesting debate about meaning remains for the next post. Very
> encouraging is the following:
>
> It is important to understand context, and such understanding asks for an
> understanding of "the whole".
>
> There are examples in mathematics that I find illuminating where we have a
> structure that can be regarded as a continuous whole in a certain context,
> but it can also be projected into a structure that consists of interacting
> parts. This happens in topology quite naturally, and much of the
> topological discussion is devoted to a kind of mathematical metrology of
> wholes and parts.
>
>
>
> … wholes and parts in relation to knots because it is not so well known in
> this light. On the one hand we have a whole form in the shape of a closed
> circular knotted rope or mathematical closed knotted curve. On the other
> hand, the simple act of projection divides the knot into an interrelated
> collection of pieces. We can study how these pieces interact and how they
> change when we move the knot or change the projection. The pieces are
> circularly interconnected and so are susceptible to a self-referential
> description. Knot theory and algebraic topology more generally are devoted
> to understanding wholes as best we can, either from the wholes as given, or
> via an analysis of parts AS CONSTRUCTED relative to the wholes. Projection
> is a form of such construction.
>
> All of this mathematical work leads to many thoughts about cybernetics,
> information theory and the positions of radical constructivist thought
>
> Just a terminological detail. The process of discovering something that is
> there is archeology. To have a whiff that here might be something to be
> uncovered is the result of thinking. Projection has to do with the subject.
> Archeology has to do with the object. This is what you are asked to do.
> Learn how 12 books have inner relationships among each other. Their
> relationship is objectively existing. By no means projections of you. After
> this introductory exercise, we shall use no more physical books.
>
> *Poseidon, Ulysses and a Marine sergeant*
>
> To the end of this verbal symphony, hopefully some thunder and tutti is in
> order. Who among your inner conversant personalities (by whose voice) could
> seduce you into ordering 12 books on a table? Could it be that you need a
> *forte* and an inner commanding voice to get up and do the bloody
> initiation rite? If so, enjoy the inner conflict. Come on, get a courage!
>
>
>
> Karl
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>


-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) DSc. (Hon Causa) Professor Emeritus
of Biology,
MIT World Peace University,
124 Paud Road, Pune, MA 411038
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
WhatsApp: as for Mobile, India
_________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240624/629f34ae/attachment-0001.html>