Wow!

by Terry 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Hguoht neve otatop yllaer gninettaf I era evol spihc yeht.

  THE BOX ABOVE contains a whole.

  The box on top contains no "meaning" as is. It must be rearranged to fit our commonly agreed standards.

  If we do take the whole of it and rearrange the structure without dropping any of the molecules (word forms) a thought can be communicated.

  1.Wholeness, in and of itself, is not useful when communication according to a standard is sought.

  2.In order to pull data out of a whole structure (such as the top box) we must isolate the elements and rearrange them. If we find a pattern we must further apply standards of logic in order to derrive sense.

  3. The Wow! in the heading serves to stimulate curiousity by invoking a commonly held bond between humans when expressing wonder, awe or satisfaction emotionally. The heightened level of curiousity serves as the catalyst for problem solving. The top box is treated as a puzzle. The heuristics of rearrangment via logic lead to the solution.

  4.The letdown at the rather mundane message doesn't live up to the effort of solving the problem. (Unless you really dig puzzles).

  However, once a pattern is detected a kind of tool is created which serves to unlock any similar WHOLE.

  This box contains no information.

  The above box contains information.

  Self-reference creates paradox. Why? Because we often cannot tear the bond between an isolated IS-ness and the context of LOGICAL content.
• 

  Legolas

  In to the weed Terry or just drinking?...

  BTW... ..LOL
• 

  OUTLAW

  Terry..I understand the puzzle..I have no idea what point your trying to make..Could you elaborate?...OUTLAW
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  The heuristics of rearrangment via logic lead to the solution.

  if the original problem is framed as a problem of logic, then logic will lead to its solution. of course!

  if the problem in the box is not considered a problem of logic, then it is no longer a problem. now it just is something. why worry about what we don't understand logically, when we could just focus on what we know already. if you don't undertsand the box, and you're not into logic and problem solving, then move on.

  i think it would be silliness for anyone to say that they could solve a logic problem with emotion, for example. but what if someone, or something, solved the problem with abstraction? you know, jumped to a solution based on a guess, and worked backward through the steps of so-called logic to confirm the rightness of the solution?

  to some this would be magic, and to others, nature.

  rationality should not be considered the only way, if there are other ways. if logic gets it solved the fastest, then hooray, it wins. doesn't mean it stands alone, especially considering that the problem came from you, was boxed by you, and then solved by you.

  The above box contains information .

  and this box simply contains meta information, about some box that contains a problem of your own choosing.

  Self-reference creates paradox. Why? Because we often cannot tear the bond between an isolated IS-ness and the context of LOGICAL content.

  i would personally say that self-reference creates paradox when the dualistic mind is the referer AND the refered. this is not to say that all self reference creates paradox. i believe i safely assume this is what you are talking about since you again speak of a "tear" or separation being required for logic to work. this is, of course, with the assumption that the tool of logic you are using is existing outside of yourself, and the fact that you created, or found, the problem and are trying to solve it without any self-reference is something that is actually accomplishable.

  tetra
• 

  Terry

  In to the weed Terry or just drinking?...

  That's funny! I just asked Tetra the same question on a different Topic!!

  No, I'm not doing drugs. We are having a snow day in Fort Worth Texas and I have too much time on my hands.
• 

  Terry

  Terry..I understand the puzzle..I have no idea what point your trying to make..Could you elaborate?...OUTLAW

  We don't impose meaning; we find it...when it was THERE in the first place.

  If it isn't there (however chaotically assembled) we might assert "meaning". But, connecting our claim of "meaning" with the referent itself will be doubletalk.

  Mystics like to pretend the ONENESS and wholeness is superior to the particulars.

  In the case I gave it is curiousity about the mystery which leads to solving the silly sentence and getting meaning (rather than "meaning") out of it.

  We IMPOSE MEANING when you can't reasonably connect one thing to another, but, merely assert the very WHOLENESS is enough.
• 

  Leolaia

  You would probably find Derrida's "Signature Event Context" interesting.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Terry..Thanks...OUTLAW
• 

  Terry

  i think it would be silliness for anyone to say that they could solve a logic problem with emotion, for example.

  Not to be disagreeable, but; emotion comes from a value we have placed from an appraisal or indoctrination at some level.

  It is intellect-rooted. The fact that we lose track (or don't exercise awareness) when we first create our values leads us to assume (wrongly) that there is no intellectual connection between an emotion and a logic tether to a value.

  Behind every emotion you have is a value placed. Change the value content and you change the emotion.

  One quick example.

  I use to be scared to death of certain movies, alone in the dark noises, etc. because I had been taught that there were actually existing invisible persons who were DEMONS!

  When I stopped believing that I devalued the concept. Now I can't get scared in a film even when I want to! I can be totally alone in the house with all sorts of creaks and shadows and nothing whatever happens to me emotionally.

  That's the most vivid example.

  Jealously would be another.
• 

  gumby

  Terry.....have I ever mentioned the fact that you have pretty titties?

  Gumtrisexual