[Fis] Poetry, Phlogiston, Insinuations

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Sun May 12 13:50:03 CEST 2024

*Poetry, Phlogiston and Insinuation             2024 05 12*

We return to Kate’s basic question, how a sequence of emotional states and
acts of the organism are interdependent. Let me suggest an approach in
language usage terms.

   1. *Poetry*

In the sense of Wittgenstein, those communications are rational, which
refer to a construct placed into a web of relations. He proposes and
states, observes, that there is only one way of ensuring identity of
message as sent and as received, namely that one uses only such constructs
and relations, which have a commonly agreed on meaning, like e.g. the
natural numbers. In the Wittgenstein construct, *1* idea has *1* place in
the great library of ideas, and although there can be many paths to that
place on which that idea sits, these paths are translatable into one,
because all agree on their target value.

Rational speech uses the *denotation *of an idea, of which there is only
one. Sequential searches *name *the element searched and provide a path to
that place of the definitional construction, which is the meaning of that
idea. (The name and value of a place on *N *are the same.)

Poets do not name their subjects; they *refer to *them. The term “rosy
fingers of Dawn” may be semantically equivalent to “on the border between
nautical and civil twilight”, but carries a ton of associations, which the
rational reference does not. The *connotations* of an idea are descriptive
of an idea, the *denotation being the intersection of its connotations. *Both
ways of describing an idea use *many *auxiliary units. The
Wittgenstein-Shannon rational method uses *similar *units, which are in a
sequence. Poets use a non-sequenced multitude of diverse communalities
(finger, dawn, rosy) which may or may not cause that specific evocation of
the idea in the brain of the receiver, which was referred to, intended, by
the sender. One method is failsafe and foolproof, no wonder we credit
machines with the ability to “think” rationally. The other method also
mobilizes a *great many *of auxiliary units. All that what can have a
connection to dawn, has something to do with fingers or is in any way rosy
is present in the mind of the receiver, *concurrently. *

Using many similar things on which one can affix distinguishing symbols is
called *sequencing. *In the conveyance of a sequenced message, it is the
*sequence* that is important, not the actual quality of things that are
sequenced. This can lead to the optimal form of using 0,1, as long as 0,1
are sequenced. One can get away with 0,1 as long as the communicating
system remains quietly lying on one side, the sequence being
one-dimensional. As soon as the system is agitated by periodic changes, we
observe that it *turns. *It turns along 3 planes (*up/down, right/left,
front/back)*. These come in two variants, Euclid_left and Euclid_right are
3D spaces, depicting the swarms that are the connotations of *a, b
Superseded over these two is their integration, intersection *c*. Newton
space consists of occurrences in E_left & E_right that are congruent during
periodic changes. Here, one needs 4 tokens, instead of {0,1}, {A, B, C, D}.
That these come in two pairs in Newton space is caused by consistency
requirements within the two Euclid spaces. The role of the DNA is to point
out, which of the Euclid subspaces is relevant, of which the properties are
the case in the common Newton space.

This way of describing the world is which the poets use. They overlay
several collections of connotations and hope that the receiver finds either
“the” meaning or the generative grammar (Piaget) for “a” meaning that
answers to the generating rules. The poet says: “use any exact time of the
range where first streaks of the Sun are observed”. The DNA says: use any
variants of iris colors of the range determined by genetic data Mother &

The interaction works because Nature in her wisdom has foreseen the
relations *n?, n! *as illustrated in *oeis.org/a242615
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://oeis.org/a242615__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QeX9_GyzSfZ6Aj_RDaJUm-rLn9MVAC8d5Y2brtHGz7Z0dH-XQ4R1XNS8kIbz_QsmoOPMSjuIG9JLJ2umojYz8i6x-pc$ >. *Partly due to the work done in Fis, one may be
confident that the grammar of the commutative language will soon be
written. (Wittgenstein longs for his Shannon.) This is not such a big task.
You can’t make infinitely many problems out of 46.260 facts. Then, the
interplay between connotations and denotation will be cleared up.
(Whichever way of 72*71 one exercises 136 logical primitives, there are
only so many constellations, and in each constellation only so many ways of
saying “now *this *is the denotation of the construct we see here, all the
others are connotations”.) Variants of productions of structures may be
many and manifold, but structures and among them, generating structures,
are much less.

   2. *Phlogiston*

If two poets converse with each other, they may both gain the conviction
that they conduct a Wittgenstein type rational exchange. This is very well
explained by Kleist’s “On the Gradual Production of Thoughts Whilst
Speaking”. There is a kind of emotional peristaltic while one conveys
feelings, (Kate! Emotional states) and the result is an idea produced in
both the sender and the receiver. Because the steps of the rhetoric were
congruent as such, the content becomes interpersonally existent. We know
what we talk about. That what we talk about, exists. It is of lesser
importance, whether the objective existence refers to the existence of the
meme, the discussion, and the positions of the disputants, or rather to the
existence of the subject matter the discussion was about.

Such was phlogiston created.

The phlogiston category of mental constructs is *social agreements. *There
were scientific works written and congresses held about witchcraft and
diverse forms of heresies.

Phlogiston-type ideas lack a rational denotation. The counter-piece is
missing. There is no way to construct a path to the idea in a rational
system using similar elements. In other words: the idea is not expressible
by using natural numbers as words of a sentence.

These experiences – being engaged with an idea that turns out to be an
empty nonsense or an error – are common and may be related to evolutionary
advantages coming from being curious. The irrational communication about
the sender’s subjective state happens on a level of pseudo – reality. One
exchanges beliefs, hopes and phantasies. The exchange as such is objective
reality, even if it does not refer to reality in the sense of Physics.

Jokes are a good example. They consist of slices of emotional states. The
sequence of slices ends in an unexpected fashion, which mocks the normal
order of connotations being related to each other and their respective
denotations. The pattern of the joke is independent of the content.

This here learned society of friends is of course a collection of poets. We
are encouraged to express our thoughts freely and allowed to experiment
with new arrangements of relations among known concepts. We speak of our
wishes here. Some would like to include conscience, intelligence, wisdom,
initiative and more to the abilities of our homunculus. We can understand
each other and agree in the goals. The detail remains, how we construct the
rational sequenced search algorithms that explicate the constituents of the
model that interact within the homunculus, delivering the above-mentioned
noble faculties of being sentient.

   3. *Insinuations*

This rhetorical element of communications should be understood in a
non-pejorative, neutral connotation. In the term “veiled threat” we mean
the “veiled” part, whether the implicitly referred to whatever is a threat,
or an offer is of no relevance for the present discussion.

A communication that uses the connotations instead of the denotation may be
rational, if there is a sequence of the connotations that yields the same
denotation which could have been addressed directly, too. The
circumscription of something in a polite, diplomatic way comes under the
category of insinuations in the context of the present treatise, as well as
classical intrigues (like committed by Jago in Othello).

The common point is that the insinuation is a command to act, a veiled
request. Interactions of homunculi are insinuations, as homunculus A has no
real power to impose its will on homunculus B. The first homo erectus that
growled menacingly with the sense of “get away or else” and later growled
seducingly “have food want sex” has invented insinuations, and was a poet,
using the hormonal reactions of her or his addressee as emotional states
that will be remembered as different, together with the two growls being

The insinuation is something different to the generally expected. The
generally expected is known to all homunculi, a repetition of the slogan or
mantra is productive only for group inner cohesion principles.

One may wonder whether to include the grandiose insinuations of e.g. Swift,
depicting royals to be ridiculous dwarfs, Carroll’s Alice opening up
discussions about truth tables or the medieval angels dancing on the tip of
a needle, paving the intellectual way to infinitesimal calculus.

   4. *Summary*

We see communication in three main forms: a. rational, b. emotional, c.
interactive. So far, Fis has concentrated on the technical question of how
sub-forms of languages describe the same rational facts, once by using
sequences of few kinds of tokens, and once with concurrent assemblies of
many kinds of tokens.

The many kinds of tokens are found if we read the assembly *across. *The
few kinds of tokens are found if we read the assembly *along. *(In the
simplest case, for each of the tokens, how long it takes to reappear.)

The assembly *across *is a mixture of emotions. We use the words
‘concurrent members of cycles’ for this idea. All the cycles being of
finite length, patterns are expected to appear in predictable sequences.

This is the central point on which to write a compiler on. We have reached
sufficient conceptual clarity, based on experiments with the laboratory
collection of logical primitives, that a prototype of a machine can be
built that registers as well *across and along *the data stream.

If and when we shall have constructed the homunculus, we shall find that it
is by its nature not fully satisfied but rather seeks to improve its state.
Need and curiosity merge into creating plans, including such that are not
realistic. The phlogiston-type creations are a false positive result of the
thinking of the homunculus. These can be weeded out at a later stage.

A different category are communications based on social necessities. May
the suggestion be allowed that we address the social behavior and etiquette
of our homunculus *after *we have it, and it can speak and express wishes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240512/fa0a6ae3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list