TA or something you don't know about. - page 97

New comment
 
MetaDriver:

:)))

OK.

I used the word as a joke, actually. But it's also relevant. You can read a lot of curious things even on the first page of a Yandex search http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81&clid=1842854&lr=43

But I will continue.

А... Well, yes. Vicky's is probably the closest. It's just that many people confuse discourse with paradigm. Like Latynina (philologist, man... - who gave her a degree?).
But we are not monsters, are we, Volodya? We're not going to talk about it anymore, are we?
 
DmitriyN:
Peter, do you have any desire to write a book? A memoir.
Yes. About my future lives.
 

My point is that the topic of symbols (signals), symbols-in-context and so on is not covered. It has been touched upon in a famous thread, but it is as far from being finished as it has always been. And it always will be, since it is more fundamental than many quantum-physical constructions and other theoretical nonsense (I'm not being flippant, I just want to move it forward, for a better overview).

So I suggest we return to the topic, er... in a new context...

For now, another article by comrade Bateson as a refresher.

Redundancy and coding.

 
Peter_Zabriski:
А... Well, yes. Vicky's is probably the closest. It's just that many people confuse discourse with paradigm. Like Latynina (philologist, man... - who gave her a degree?).
But we are not monsters, are we, Volodya? We're not going to talk about it anymore, are we?
No, we won't. At least the term can be dispensed with easily. Anything can be explained and shown on fingers and matches. If only there was something to show... ;-)
 

О! You know, I think I've found the equivalent discourse in Russian: Tusovka.

That's it. Closed.

 
Peter_Zabriski:

Hangout.

But let's not forget that this is essentially "... a verbally articulated form of objectification of the content of consciousness..."

Closed)))

 
DmitriyN:
Did I ask you something wrong?

How could you not see that it wasn't for you?

Think about it.

 

I read the beginning of the branch and the end, not all of it, for obvious reasons.

To put it mildly, I am puzzled, can someone briefly tell the essence of the branch

 
DmitriyN:
Why not about the past? Is it that bad?
Here, Uncle Mitya, I wonder. Tell me - just think about it! - Would you like to know your future? And wouldn't this knowledge be a limitation. Or a programmer. Or is invariance a gypsy's lie? Or "why do we need a blacksmith?" of our own happiness?

I.e. What could be so unsatisfying about life that you have to write about the past or the future?

))) Funny, but that question of yours brought out the TA again, which is the present...

 
DmitriyN:
In short, the point is - La La La La... And so 96*10 times.
In short, it's "born dead". And there's no bullshit.
1...90919293949596979899100101102103104...118
New comment