Creole PeSla (Creative Linguistics)

Creole PeSla (Creative Linguistics or Beach'
pe'Sla)

I had some thoughts for scenes or themes for the novel last night but I wrote nothing down- I guess things are at a slower pace. But I did have two ideas for YWNA, the novel. 1.) Eugene on the cold streets passes by a china statue of a young girl in the window, she on a swing, her dress and smile inviting, taking him out from his lonely isolation in the solitaire of cold night. Her smile warms him up. Sometimes, in the uncanny valley of the dead zone of once warm and living things we need the crutch of an idol. 2) Each of us is a lotus flower (see the accompanying illustration) but as our styles of culture and languages evolve some are lost although from one generation to another we share and pass on the names we bear. It is a daunting task searching the records in the forest lawns when they are lost or forgotten data, turned for lack of space into cremation really for all it matters. One can quickly loose their uniqueness and the colors fade from the flowers into the distance. This is not just a property of social organization and collective identity but it at the core of the meaning and information of language itself- who for some who worship gods and idols, they imagine they speak or hear the language of of God.


* * *

Lubos had an interesting post yesterday on memorization aids for recalling the whole periodic table which I found interesting as my thoughts are turned more toward linguistics. In fact Sultan, an English teacher, and I had a very formal and serious discussion on what are the errors of English and how it can better be taught.

Lubos,


From the standpoint of my interest in poetry and linguistics I find this a challenging post. Thank you. I will work on this. The idea of translations between traditions and my general question as to what is the nature of language (Bloomfield or Chomsky ?)


I have used some memory devices like this for combination's of color cubes and the terms stick with me, but I wonder if a more direct familiarity would be better.


The two theories of how we understand language strikes me as the same issue as how we see and understand, and think about, issues of cosmology today we have discussed. The data such as the concentric rings of Penrose may be colored by our grounding of language. What unit of speech we can break up or not in for example the order of words and ideas.


If Chomsky is right we have universal underlying theories to which our experience and education and native language, even our genetics modifies the reference frame of what we encounter and observe when we choose between concepts or the various styles of language.


I found a recent article (sorry I did not save the link as I did not see it as a breakthrough idea) which claimed that the nature of non-locality was intimately tied or explained by quantum uncertainty. If you encounter this idea I would appreciate your commentary on it. I am not so sure we can rely so much on statistical methods- but it is a mistake to discount them in a world where such decisions and even the size of things like cue balls too pool balls affect the game.


Perhaps the table could be in a sonnet of sorts since in four space matter we can expect 120 elements. Of course a grammar between them would be useful as these are rather like an alphabet for material study.


The PeSla

NOTE: Here is the article I found again which I did not include in the above comment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101118141541.htm

What analogy would this be for a familiar scale concept of substance as if it related to the LHC concept of "jet quenching"? What are the details and nature of the author's quantitative formulas?

* * *

Today I replied to Matti's comment on mine:

At 10:57 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Matti,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment to me.

I am not seeing a deeper octonian space surrounded by a quaternion surface- but the two relate as if the same space- more of a consequence of notation as information theory rather than just core number theory considered alone.

BTW one day, as soon as my own retirement becomes stable- I would like to buy your books if you will notify me at LoversOfWisdom@yahoo.com what is there. I have not been able yet to send money on line.

* * *



Perhaps some have noticed that I did not post on two vague ideas which I understand is a matter of debate as to how we view such higher space physics. Using the COBE background I had a series of symbols with no, one (like the perpendicularity sign) two for my teleological approach, and five for a unified theory of sorts. But what of three and four? Well, as far as I can tell in my sporadic education it is a matter of choice if we see things as 3+1 or pure 4 space (2x2) formalism (Dirac used both in practice). 3+1 seems to be the emphasis of Lubos and Rowlands (and other quasi-physics ideas like Wilbur's analysis of holon like theories). Matti seems more aware of the pure forms that may be the heart of topological explanations. My point is that both descriptions apply and maybe in a unified way. In a sense these way to view things like space as if inflation or membrane theories is akin to the linguistic ideas of our human concepts of developing language. Yet both views are limited to our mathematical notations and traditions. For example each can be a comprehensive and total theory and can even be seen to state the opposite as if a shadow or a more subjective hidden assumption that what seems to be the concrete grounding of their notions while it may be the exponential notations widely used describes things well enough as in quantum theory I cannot tell but suspect these are not adequate notions or not deep enough in the arithmetic to point us in more certain directions. Another example, and I do not mean to imply I have read all his work, mainly because the books are too expensive, that in a sense although my background is more Bloomfield and Hogben, a sort of scientific humanism, that the quasic view is closer to how Chomsky describes language between the two views- Thus when Lubos in his communication with one of the Penrose ring authors asks about scale the concept really is asking a bias from the opposite spirit of the theory that aims for a reduction into such a centered theory of measurement. A relevant reply would of course involve a deeper concept of greater unity of the physics.

Now, in the quasic, and yes Matti, flatness of space, we can think of some sort of partition measure over vaguely defined scales where some abstract coordinate as if fractal like music can measure a distance to another coordinate- which in flatland does indeed seem like a spooky action at a distance. All of this in a sense to be restricted or reduced to absolute and positive quadrants of axial orientations.

Of course the question of what we see beyond the big bang or of super symmetries or greater dimensions or that ex nihilo or quenched but extending to discrete or potentially infinity, perhaps too the claims of the "mind of God" is an issue that in our time awaits further clarification in both the emergent or absolute grounding we have to critically decide can be the case of a reasonable theory of everything which is still an open question.

* * *