ErnieM on WAKE UP AND LIVE! austin_ep on will start over
It’s been a long time since I’ve posted here. I’ve actually taken a semi-break from the project in favor of other hobbies. Not that I haven’t been adding to and transforming my id work constantly. I lost enthusiasm somewhere along the way for trying to interest others in it. Yesterday I listened to an interview recent follower Dr. Joseph Suglia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o13_OFGgrIY&t=358s in which he says good writing should be done for the sake of the writer himself. (The novel he discusses in that interview, Table 41, is not my cup of tea, but I sure liked this trailer for his movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w82UK0gQT_8 , especially the music!) My ids are like that. I do it to delight myself. It is personal art. Decisions on how to represent words/ideas are artistic–I just come up with something that works for me, and it might not be agreeable or understandable even to others. Nevertheless, I’m still convinced of the tremendous potential of this new medium I’ve developed and have formed the intention of doing a lot of posting from now on to get it out there. Something good and interesting might come of it. If I can get one person creating along the same lines and sharing results with me, I’ll feel gratified. So, stay tuned!
Below is the above verbiage transcribed into ids, with notes.
I was thrilled the other day to see in this blog post
Leibniz’s symbol for “=”: Π
From the post:
“There’s Π as an equals sign instead of =, with the slightly hacky idea of having it be like a balance, with a longer leg on one side or the other indicating less than (“<”) or greater than (“>”)”
In fact, Leibniz’s notation Π, with 2 lines of equal height and a top crossbar, is a very good representation of our actual experience with equal things—people of equal height, for example. Because it represents the structure of reality better, it is a clearer, better symbol than “=”. I surmise that Leibniz appreciated this, though the blog author Wolfram doesn’t, and even disses Leibniz’s reasonable improvements for “<” and “>”.
A relevant quote from Korzybski’s Science and Sanity, p. 59:
“As words are not the objects they represent, structure, and structure alone, becomes the only link which connects our verbal processes with the empirical data . . . (therefore) we must study the structural characteristics of this world first, and, then only, build languages of similar structure, instead of habitually ascribing to the world the primitive structure of our language.”
According to Kodish in his Korzybski biography, “Korzybski defined structure as a complex of relations consisting of multidimensional order.”
(Korzybski, by the way, considered his work an extension of Leibniz’s, and that with it “The dreams of Leibniz will become a sober reality.”)
My ideograms, as visual, graphic concepts, aim, where possible, to reflect the structure of the realities they represent. This idea of a graphic representation or other idea being structurally similar to reality deserves, I think, a term. I’ll call it “rectistructural”. Π is more rectistructural than = and is therefore superior—more accurate, more useful, more conducive to clear, effective thought. Wolfram hints at this: “To me it’s remarkable how rarely in the history of mathematics that notation has been viewed as a central issue. . . . And I suspect that Leibniz’s successes in mathematics were in no small part due to the effort he put into notation, and the clarity of reasoning about mathematical structures and processes that it brought.”
With neoideograms I am building a language that is structurally more similar to reality than conventional language. Often I am stumped and have to posit an arbitrary convention, but that’s unavoidable.
Wolfram says that Leibniz “talked about decomposing ideas into simple components on which a “logic of invention” could operate.” Neoideograms are a step in this direction.
Wolfram also says that “despite all his notation for “calculational” operations, Leibniz apparently did not invent similar notation for logical operations.” As far as I know present day symbols for logical operations have no relationship to the structure s of the realities concerned—they are not rectistructural. I’m optimistic that I can come up with reasonable first attempts at rectistructural ones—so that the “or” sign actually resembles what happens with the “or” operation, for instance. We’ll see.
I deleted all of my posts–64 of them. All of the work I did them that is important to me –the id creations–are saved in my dictionary, excepting the work I did on ids for Japanese and German, but I can figure that out again if I ever decide to tackle it. I’ll start posting again soon with a new approach.