Vanuit soliptisch oogpunt gezien, je bedenkend hoe ingewikkeld en bijzonder en verfijnd en complex de wereld is, dat jij als enige geest daarvan de oorsprong bent -- een overweging die niet gemaakt kan worden zonder enig gevoel van vernieuwde (omgekeerde) humiliteit, kun je niet anders concluderen dat een god alles voor jou geschapen heeft (je kunt het toch zeker niet allemaal zelf hebben bedacht, hoe poetisch en soms aantrekkelijk de gedachte ook moge zijn), en dat jij dan ook niet de enige zult kunnen zijn (het zou toch absurd zijn als zowel de wereld geschapen is, als dat jij de enige bent). Dus ja, ik blijk gevoelsmatig te geloven dat een solipsistisch uitgangspunt moet leiden tot een theologisch / non-solipsistisch wereldbeeld.

Watching https://youtu.be/JV7K8CvA26I?t=27m37s, where the lecturer introduces i and tells us how suddenly "all equations were on the same footing" -- I had to ponder for a moment. In a way, physically speaking, if i is simply a reality just as, say, more dimensions or other things we don't automatically see, then all is indeed suddenly incredibly simple and uniform. However, the mathematical problem still remains as to the divide between real and complex numbers. The actual world may only know the concept of number (be it for us complex or not), we happen to know of this distinction. For us, mathematically speaking, it is still a complicated question exactly when, how, etc., equations have real solutions. So we see here, that "the burden" of knowing this distinction is what entails the complexity. But is this burden real? If nature knows only one concept of number, and we know two, are there actually two, between nature does not distinguish? I.e., does the distinction have natural effect? (One may say: yes, through our knowing of it.) Or is there just one, and we do not "know" of two, but "see" two. The idea here being: maybe the entire and only reason for our thoughts, being not reality itself, as it knows no distinction, is an initial "knowledge", what one may call a "focus", which naturally unfolds itself to all we now experience and see and understand and know.

Topics mulled over seem to be: Kant's epistemology, Leibniz' monadic view, mathematical complexity

Ohja, en over basisvaardigheden gesproken die een opleiding zoals filosofie zou verwachten van hun (bachelor)studenten -- dat argument gaat natuurlijk eigenlijk slechts op in zoverre als het vakgebied een "generating set" aan eigenschappen heeft van zijn denkers/resultaten :P

The world ever more now seems to be a closed thing. Closed, by not being able to break our own chains. If linguistics provides us with a lens pointed towards the past, teaching us very intimately where/how (the structure of) our motives of thought begin -- and type theory and other such things seem to be a major part of it -- and we're just now learning how deeply connected type theory and geometry are -- well, isn't it just slightly embarrassing how contradictory our feeling of independence is compared to this, let us say newly discovered, deeply introverted and timeless sense of the arrangement of the world. We have learned to understand, and now we understand the shape and form of our understanding, but what does this give us exactly? Is it discovery?

Meaning in intensionality

Similar as to how any piece of art has a certain value, and more specifically a certain meaning, so too can no thought or uttering be fully meaningless or false. [Though I must immediately mention that in that same similarity, the meaning of an uttering is neccessarily never exactly that which the author thinks he is expressing.] But this then presents us with a big problem as to what to think of contradictions. The simplest way out, it seems, is to inspect the intensional nature of the uttering exemplifying the contradiction in question. Although the logical form may be false, and therefore meaningless in a way -- certainly the intensional matter is not? What is void of meaning, anyway?

Resemblence and logical form

Is there such a thing as a purely logical uttering? I would think not, in view of the above. But then, in order not to deny the existence of logic (or, the apparent arrangement of the world in such a way that it obeys what we call logic), one is almost forced to explain logicality of speech in terms of resemblance. A contradictory act of speech resembles no natural arrangement, at least in the sense in which it was meant: speech does not only have reference, it has reified reference. Formally put: an utterance S = S(r) may have an intended logical form, or a reified reference r, but it may unproblematically occur that its actual reference R does not correspond to it: S -> R, while r -> falsity /= R. An uncontradictory act of speech may very well resemble to a certain degree a natural arrangement, say S(r) -> R, with r -> (R' resembling R). Well, this actually may get technical and recursive, say if S(r) -> R(R'), with R' resembling R(R').

Will language mirror natural arrangement?

In this last view, we easily see the tendency of language towards mirroring the natural arrangement. Several things come to mind on this observation: (1) Is this indeed a natural tendency, or a fluke? ... (2) ..?

Naturality

(Ethics diverges from naturality, right? -- the human wish or endeavor etc.)

"Sources"

These speculations of mine are a result of (superficial) knowledge (or having heard) of:

• Computer science term "reification", general computer scientific conceptual framework of information, directedness, etc.; mathematical concept of approximation/recursion etc.
• Thoughts about (meaning of) art.
• A little bit of linguistics.
  ... ?

• mechanization of rationality / thought (specifically, as displayed by type theory, programming languages, ..)

• Descartes on the mind body problem: why could physical things not interact with non-physicals?

• context morphisms

• taal: syntax/semantiek reflecteren associatie.
  Een gegeven systeem verbiedt dus ook zekere associaties. Dat is de politiek van taal (Foucault).

• philosophy vs. politically engaged intellectual thought = exploration vs. introspection & arrangement [Fedor]: the former is cool & fun, the latter is neccessary and more important (at least in the short term)

Ik ben (analytisch(/emotioneel)) anticipatief

• Pianoles (noten/akkoorden anticiperen en dan niet meer lezen)
• Ook met wiskundige structuren. Na initieel (mogelijk) begrip niet erg flexibel meer.

=> Dit is handig voor emotioneel/analytisch vermogen (veel en specifieke indrukken), maar beperkend voor flexibiliteit, langere-termijn aanpassingsvermogen, etc.

Doing category, one might be lead to think that it is all about a blank canvas of possibilities, and discovering exactly what is necessary to model certain mathematical objects already seen -- as opposed to, say, set theory, in which one only deals with intricate mathematical objects themselves, and tries to find out directly how they relate. But one should not forget, that the two methods of research are essentially the same -- you cannot distantiate yourself from the way that the mathematics presents its objects, be it certain (properties of) sets or certain (properties of) categorical concepts. But why try to model coherent objects? Because these models tell us why the objects are meaningful in the first place, it being the case that there are also non-objects, making this method useful of itself. Non-objects would be falsities, things that are contradictory. One should beware of them before building mighty structures on top of concepts that themselves do not exist -- the mighty structures would collapse. But, is not the essential character of this method, that every object, nonsensical as per the current models, can be turned into something interesting -- the only actual question beforehand being whether this object might be an essential coherence as per the current architecture, or just a slight whim of accidental info. Thus, the uninvestigated, possibly nonsensical, object lends its importance mainly to the current architecture, and hence our (mode of) understanding. Nonsensicality, or falsity, is carved out, bit by bit. The question as to the notion of nonsensicality is whether, after this carving, something remains or not. Or, worded differently, whether our understanding reaches full stop, or will never grasp certain objects, which will ever stay nonsensical.

I've come across so much obstacles and stress, that I have built a strong mechanism of resistance: avoidance and self-pity.

This presents is with a paradox though: if one ponders one's competence in the first place, and then is faced with one's incompetence, why build walls and pity oneself? The answer lies in meaning. In fact, that meaning solves this paradox exemplifies that meaning comes first, before the material world. The quest for meaning, or understanding oneself in the world, is basic. Meaning is accomplished actions, because they allow for further endeavor of meaning. In this sense, indeed, meaning is life, meaning is self-recurrence. But if incompetent, this recurrence loses traction, and further exploration is impeded. But meaning has no actual bound, and settles, instead, on this non-recurrence. This is a natural tendency of meaning: to seek and understand where it can, and propagate, albeit in a self destructive fashion.

I want to make sense of the world, but I can not. So, I make sense of the fact that I can not.

How to stop this vicious cycle?

Postulate that one can make sense of the world. (The postulate of hope.)

To postulate hope is to claim ground. It is in this sense that the act of hope is selfish and "irreflexive" (in a certain sense).

The paradox of dignity is such: to acknowledge the dignity of every living thing, and yet distinguish between less and more living; starting with oneself. (To acknowledge your own dignity, whilst aspiring to live a fuller life.)

1 EUR
7.5 DKK
9.5 NOK

Termen
- gapahuk (hut)

LIFTEN
...

PRE
- 51E bever (waarvan 26 Kelley zakmes)
- 12.50 hema
- 15 plus

9:00 Zuhause = 0km
Gerke
9:15 (tankstation de buunserkamp = 12km) 10:50
Lift Martijn naar carpool
11:00 (carpool pastillion = 25km) 11:30
Lift meiden jeugdzorg
11:45 (tankstation de somp = 43km) 12:00
Lift Turks slagerij
12:05 (tankstation de paal = 56km) 12:20
Lift coole dude in Volvo
12:40 (tankstation de bolder = 74km) 13:45
Lift lieve man LKW NVO Holland <-> Scandinavië
[17:00 - 17:30]
18:05 (tankstation bij sittensen = 372km) 18:45
Lift marinier / officer Hendrik (Zwanger 4m, Julie of Thorn (?))
20:05 (tankstation huttener berge = 512km) 20:30 (20:45)
Lift muzikant
21:30 (tankstation net over dk grens = 562km)
... 9:45 - 11:20
Jongen/meisje windmolen wieken
12:05 (12:30) (skaerop = 668km) 12:45
Lift oilrig amy
13:25 (blankhoj, bij aarhus = 741km) 14:00
Max Nicole boer optician Noorwegen
15:00 (15:50) (himmerland = 829km) 16:05
Man vrouw folkfestival noordtop
17:20 arrivé = 919km



NIEUW KOPEN
- hiking schoenen
- brandertje

VERGETEN
- goed bestek
-