On 01/29/2015 07:56 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
I have the distinct awkward feeling that, while I write, there is no compelling
evidence of my existence, only my utterings.
Perhaps my hollow ringing echoes are sufficient to serve as my fake evidence,
should I choose to perjure myself in a court. Is there such a beast as the
Inverted Solipsist ( everyone else is real but not himself)?
We have diagnostic criteria for everything under the sun. So, there's
bound to be one. I read a fantasy novel a long time ago about a girl
who was unsure of her existence. So she surrounded herself with mirrors
to remind her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordant%27s_Need
I also have heard that many people feel "invisible". And I know that,
when I regularly eat meals in a pub or restaurant by myself, with the
same wait staff and other regular customers, almost nobody gives any
evidence they remember me. No recognition at all.... at least it takes
lots and lots of visits to get any recognition. But my wife and I can
go to a place _once_ and then return a month or so later, and seemingly
everyone who was there last time recognizes us. Ironically, I'm a
stickler for eye contact and my wife doesn't seem to care about making
eye contact with strangers.
Does anyone recall washroom graffiti of the 60's and 70's sometimes eloquent
sometimes rather vulgar and blunt.
Without a time line one could imagine a dialogue, at times, with penmanship the
only distinguishing feature to support the fantasy.
At the next gas station, 100 miles further West, the conversation would resume,
based only upon the very recognizable penmanship. The trans-Canada highway can
be very long. Does the conversation take on a different tone when traveling ,
in reverse , West to East.
All completely arbitrary. So it seems are any and all emotional insights.
At a 4-way intersection without lights the first arrival becomes next to leave.
But if none of the drivers can remember their arrival sequence there is
calamity ahead.
Perhaps if a numbering system is used following a thread title, the Real
sequence can be re-assembled. That Implies that each quote also contains the
number assignment.
This depends fundamentally on what you think you're doing when you
number something. Are you indexing? Ordering? Merely tagging? Are
they metadata tags?
They type of music I like best tends to contain nearly nonsensical
lyrics ... not only is it difficult to hear them, but even if you
download them from the band, assuming they know what they are, they
still make very little sense... at least to me. That's why I enjoy[ed]
placing them, line by line in my e-mail signature database and having it
pseudo-randomly select single lines from all those lyrics to include in
my e-mail signature. Nick might think of such things as "postmodern".
I tend to think of them as cumulative sense-making ... e.g. the only
complete way to understand a deck of cards is to shuffle them over and
over and try to make sense of them in various new sequences and subsets.
If random re-ordering the _moments_ of your life/story make that story
meaningless, then perhaps it's time to re-think the meaning of your
story/life?
Glen quoted Marcus but only gave a date Wed Jan 28... not the thread. I have
not received the e-mail from Marcus containing that snippet. But I have found
another Marcus Wed 28 in [Friam][External]Forum hacked... I suppose Marcus was
stoked up that day and jumped from one thread to another, well done, what a
nimble fox. I only wish that I could still be so quick on my feet.
He is nimble. But it's more likely that the computer(s) that execute
our lives are playing games with us ... selecting which information gets
to us and which is filtered out. See the archives for a more accurate
verion (but by all means not _assuredly_ accurate):
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2015-January/date.html
I do wonder if this thread is soon to be discarded...
I serves my imagination to believe without evidence at times, at other times I
do rely on evidence, lingering in my memory, to get through the four way
intersection without a bump. Without memory what can anyone use to decide which
case is truer than the other. Is truth an event or is it a sequence of truthful
events? Self contained.
It's neither an event, nor a sequence of events, but a shufflable
(impredicative) set of events.
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
