Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Referencing the Thing Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Referencing the Thing

    Now, I'll be straight, the articles and forum posts I have been pouring over these last few days are ah! delight (but, surely intimidating) There exists a great splendor of discovery that is vent-swept and wind-urous (furious and verdant)!

    But enough of that. I'm going to dip right into this.

    I have noticed that across the land, this symbol is usually referenced as an analogy: "pause button", "double-slit" (consult wikipedia, I have yet to post my 15th), et al. Now, this is where you may have to pardon my lack of fluidity. I became excitable while reading the forums and now I'm just a mess at the keyboard. This thing we all recognize, though its reason is elusive, we unanimously know not how to reference it. The Moldaubility of this creature allows us to see it in all kinds of isomorphisms or analogs (a (one) way to describe these books), which could very well be a part of its potency (as though a creature meant nothing more than to evoke analogs (maybe nothing more! But I'm not certain))

    I think it's worth noting Douglas R. Hofstadter on this- a footnote on page 26-27 of Gödel's Proof:
    ...symbols may appear to have meanings...but their behavior is not a consequence of their meanings; indeed quite the reverse is the case.
    So, certainly. We have this entity that we know how to describe it by its bits but currently have not a way (word may not exist) as to how to reference it, let alone ascribe it a meaning.

    Furthermore,
    It is therefor not entirely unjustified or unreasonable to see "meaningless strings" as having a type of meaningfullness, as one bears in mind that any such meaning is passive rather than active.
    Following, to think that no matter what word (which certainly carries its own metadata/etymology/birth-logic) used to talk about the symbol, the breadth of its purpose might never be consolidated. (More on this later when thoughts coagulate)
    The ideas in these are simple and simply stated, but I found these rudiments a solid footing when slipper-ly adventuring through .


    Since this symbol has been around since of Leaves, I wouldn't at all be surprised if this topic has been fleshed out to its absolute grit. Though thoughts terribly perfunctory fleeting, the urge to scribe hounded. And I needed to throw myself into the kennels here before I lost my sense of urgency and interest.

    This forum has yet to disappoint. I would be delighted to have anyone engage.

  • #2
    What is elusive?
    Originally posted by Regall
    we unanimously know not how to reference it.
    You reference it in your post and we know exactly what you are talking about.

    "Pause symbol"
    Originally posted by Regall
    the breadth of its purpose might never be consolidated.
    Rarely is an idea's "breadth of purpose" consolidated in a single word. Why is this one special?

    Comment


    • #3
      First, welcome to the forums.

      Second,
      Originally posted by Regall View Post
      Since this symbol has been around since of Leaves
      it has???

      And third, you might check out some of splendorr's threads. You might enjoy them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by heartbreak View Post
        it has???
        Yes I wondered about that as well. Regall, are you referring to the OR symbols on the inside cover of the full colour edition of HoL? If so, those are of recent vintage (and a source of some consternation at the time of their appearance).

        Comment


        • #5
          This guy's in splendorr's pre-calc class. I'd put money on it.

          Comment


          • #6
            There is only consternation among the agéd and grunched
            — Which they think they can't help — so
            Let us therefore cut them some slack, and some quarter.

            Adults feel consternation at the disruptive free-arrangements
            of what they thought they knew entirely
            by the child or the childlike.
            (Note the deprecative implicatations that we are
            pre-Calculus, The Real Calculus of course being the
            pursuit of pure mathematical orderliness and explanation,
            and therefore of course the domain & the dumb moan of the adult,
            That I am pre-School, The Real School of course being whatever
            level has yet been attained by the insultor.)
            (Which is only one canonical measure of childishness, not an
            impugnment of childlikeness,)

            (Though I could stress that I am older than the haiells & the Dols,
            it would only incite more leperous pedantry:
            "Um, a-heh, I note that you said your age differed from the
            difference between the current date and the date clearly recorded
            on your birth certificate, which makes me uncomfortable and
            requires clarification.")

            (That I am after all schools, after all calculations,
            that I'm after everything,
            that I hunt them all,
            and that I'm both more and less interested in all that
            than I was when I was ever before them;

            That one is After their prey,
            That one is Before an altar,

            and that only when
            I altered by prayers and
            Got up off my academic knees did I
            see the uselessness of referring to that at all,
            and their ultimate and unending value.)

            The child, if one accepts the mantle, has the "advantage" of,
            for a time at least, play which has not yet become
            consterned in the least with what goes,
            traditionally,
            where.

            At least, they can inhabit that hallowed state
            when they are not busy being
            paddled simply for speaking.

            ...

            Actual Welcome, Regall.
            You'll have to forgive the pervasive dickishness of
            some of the Muds-in-the-sticks around here.
            These carrion circlers, without real prey to hunt,
            Wait for any word to look weak,
            Ready to swoop down and take a quick bite out of any
            Infant or meditant, anything that will hold still long enough for their
            Limited faculties to both catch sight of and get a grip on.

            Their frail constitution means they can only expend a few moments
            on the strike, that they don't have the strength to sustain their
            immediate confusion beyond the flailing anger at having been
            bestirred and disturbed by more
            symphonic thought-sounds.
            Don't have the vigor to do more than lash out,
            Limply, at anyone who would dare raise a point without
            Including hundreds of pages of annotations and explanations,
            which they wouldn't bother to read anyway because
            that's the entire problem.

            Why don't they ever try to answer any of their own questions,
            One wonders.
            Or anybody else's, for that matter?
            Why just these flippant gasps, these
            Grimacing spittles of venom?

            But truly nature shows us that we cannot do without
            Decomposers.
            Their nature is linked with ours.
            In fact that we all only have just the one Nature to share.
            What we must not do, and what I've done too often,
            Is relinquish the baton simply because someone keeps
            Chomping my goddamn cellists.

            It may be best to mostly ignore them, if it's possible.
            Which I can't seem to manage. Yet.
            They keep chasing me off, and those who I might prefer to talk to,
            Which is entirely wrong.
            Because in nature, the lions are never scared off by the vultures.
            So let us remember just how little their squacking means to US.

            If you are in my pre-math class, or my
            Pre-language class, or even my pre-pre class,
            Be sure to shake my eyes next time we meet.
            I'd be delighted to discover you.
            I'll be the one wearing my hurt on my cerebe.

            And if we do already know each other,
            then nothing pleases me more that you've been
            inspirated maybe partly by me to engage along these lines.
            But I don't assume to own even that fragment of credit.

            ...

            It's true:
            Earlier editions of had no (||) symbol bookends.
            Only the most recent, "Full-Color Remastered Edition"
            Features those disruptive teases.
            I'm fascinated by your experience of having picked these books up,
            Presumably, recently enough that for you they have always existed there.
            Because, for all of us, that is the case, whether we think we care or not.

            And even though there was a time when of Leaves was printed without the (||),
            it remains accurate to say "this symbol has been around since of Leaves".

            If I'm not mistaken, the first printed/distributed version of ,
            The "Advance Review Copy" (ARC, tee hee)
            didn't have the Concor-dance, and so therefore lacked any inclusion of
            any s.
            Which means printed, distributed copies of each book exist that do not
            apparently reference the symbology of the other,
            But then a more "colorful" version was unleashed which
            Does.

            I found it a thrilling mutation, to open
            HoL: Remastered and discover the intrusion
            of an allegedly separate World's
            Brand.

            Also, though you maybe haven't reached it yet
            (What's your progress through these books?
            Take your time, of course!),
            there was no violet ink in the earlier HoLs.
            Only after the CREEP's unfurling does a
            Violet tincture drip into one -bound recollection.

            So the books surround each other. Even askance.

            ...

            You're exactly right, though we can of course refer around it
            by any number of analog pseudo-names,
            Its namelessness evoking all manner of contortions, a throbbing mutating
            Mass of implicit ideas.
            Sometimes I draw the shape for someone who's never seen it, and ask them what it is.
            "An outlet!" etc.
            We don't know what the thing is called, only what it appears to be
            Doing
            at any given question-point.

            Meaning as consequence of behavior. Movement together.
            And that they might never be consolidated: yes!
            Consolidation is an assumed goal of all rational activity,
            to Nail things down, to get Clued in to what's Really Going On Here,
            but the inconsolable might be just what we're looking at here.

            Mythogram. Did you see the first part of this post,
            about mythogrammatics?

            And something I'm working on delve-eloping a bit more,
            I just re-read Jacques Derrida write this at the beginning of his
            Writing and Difference:
            "Our intention here is not, through the simple motions of balancing, equilibration or overturning, to oppose duration to space, quality to quantity, force to form, the depth of meaning or value to the surface of figures. Quite to the contrary. To counter this simple alternative, to counter the simple choice of one of the terms or one of the series against the other, we maintain that it is necessary to seek new concepts and new models, an economy escaping this system of metaphysical oppositions."

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm at a loss here. I can either make a short remark and be viewed as only expending a few moments to reply or I can discuss this paragraph by paragraph. Either approach has been tried with you Splendorr and neither one ever makes any headway. Nor prompts any discussion on your part. In fact any sort of reply to you that is other than agreement with you, you are hostile towards, or victimized by. You've complained when I've replied to the parts of your posts that only include your assumptions of us and your judgement of us. You took one line that one forum member said and made a 15 paragraph reply branding all of us. Of course actually discussing what you've written on the topic gets no where either. You have a few inaccuracies in your post above, yes incorrect facts, or misconstrued events. Why is it important? Only because its what you base your ideas on. And yet you wish to wave that approach away as well.

              I'm not sure who you're trying to impress, because you're definitely not here to discuss what you post.

              You are welcome here. Even your poetic style is welcome here.

              But its ALL ORR nothing. You're either here to interact or you're here to be a dick. Your choice.

              And feel free to snub your nose as well. Your duck and weave is already beyond lame.

              Comment


              • #10
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #11
                  This is a very revealing outburst. Thank you for taking the time.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by Splendorr View Post
                    This is a very revealing outburst.
                    What did it reveal?

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      This has been a wonderful thread outburst! The potent vigor of coiled energy unwound!

                      I do have a reply with some amendments to the facts and to expound upon my then-working efferves-cents, but for the moment I would like to thank The Montauk Monster for going wild.

                      Heartbreak: thank you for the welcome, and in tandem fearful_syzygy, for apprising me on this fact of the . I was unaware of the varied editions of any of these books (save OR). Admittedly, the prospect that is penetrating the split-flinging tome of great discussion and illumination feels impossibly futile. I press forward but much of this information will inexorably not stayn. Again, thank you for keeping me straight.

                      Splendorr. My word have you many.
                      The post on mythogrammatics was the first I read and the energy is communicable.
                      I am fitting on a "second" read through both books and wish to approach them differently can't talk about it.
                      My apologies for teeming terse, but I am having to restrain much of what I want to write: a whole mess of joy but probably entirely without a visible path. Though I really don't know this for I haven't written it. But, thank you for your spirited welcome.

                      If by | mourn we pass
                      not to | but pre-calc class
                      I would love to shake your Oballs.

                      Enchanté!

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by Splendorr View Post
                        It's true:
                        Earlier editions of had no (||) symbol bookends.
                        Only the most recent, "Full-Color Remastered Edition"
                        Features those disruptive teases.
                        I'm fascinated by your experience of having picked these books up,
                        Presumably, recently enough that for you they have always existed there.
                        Because, for all of us, that is the case, whether we think we care or not.

                        And even though there was a time when of Leaves was printed without the (||),
                        it remains accurate to say "this symbol has been around since of Leaves".

                        If I'm not mistaken, the first printed/distributed version of ,
                        The "Advance Review Copy" (ARC, tee hee)
                        didn't have the Concor-dance, and so therefore lacked any inclusion of
                        any s.
                        Which means printed, distributed copies of each book exist that do not
                        apparently reference the symbology of the other,
                        But then a more "colorful" version was unleashed which
                        Does.

                        I found it a thrilling mutation, to open
                        HoL: Remastered and discover the intrusion
                        of an allegedly separate World's
                        Brand.
                        Haha! I never really thought about that. Brava!

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by Advance Reader's Edition
                          THESE ARE UNCORRECTED BOUND GALLEYS.
                          THEY ARE NOT FOR SALE.

                          Please check any quotations or attributions
                          against the bound copy of the book.
                          Perhaps noteworthy if we are including the ARE's as canon.

                          If OR at one time did not include s it is because it had not been corrected yet. It had errors. HoL has no errors. Things can be added to HoL but it doesn't mean they were always there or always meant to be there. In a sense, HoL shifted with the inclusion of the OR symbols.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X