austin_ep on will start over
Ideograms for English. Creatively making English graphic.
Ha! I just noticed that I committed an id “spelling error” in this post. For “early” and “late” with the clock for time, “late” should have a darkened circle on the right, “early” an unfilled circle on the left.
Musings in my diary this morning. These thoughts are consistent with George Lakoff’s idea in Philosophy in the Flesh that the conceptual system is rooted in and makes use of the same brain circuits as the visual and motor systems. I entertain the idea that mind and consciousness themselves do the same.
This morning it is raining a little. I just had the idea of having a more focused life. Focus your life. This is the opposite of a random uncontrolled aimless life (living). Without focus the person has no personal or even social existence. Without focus there is no effective living. Without focus you might as well be a plant or a child. Focus is a characteristic of serious adult life. Remember that the top part of focus is a lens. I am basically a lens. My visual system is lens-like. My being is lens-like. The self (perhaps) is a repository of anti-foci. (What is an anti-focus?) Whereas the visual system focuses on or in space, the mind, which is a similar lens, focuses both in space and time, on the real and the meta-real (the abstract). The mind focuses through (in, on) time. Abstraction is a time-binding, meta- temporal phenomenon. We look out not only on space but on time. To think of oneself as a lens, to be aware of oneself as such, is, I believe, an advancement in consciousness. Consciousness and awareness are lens phenomena, focal phenomena.
A page from my transcription book. George Lakoff’s Philosophy in the Flesh, a great book, p. 255-6. I scored a delightfully improved id for “grammar” (correct/words (sentence)/way).
This material is about as abstract and complex as you can get, and ids work fine for it.
While not a Scientolgist, I have much admiration for SOME of LRH’s work. Was just looking for something good to transcribe. I actually think Scientologists would do well to use neoideograms because they are in the direction of greater extensionality, greater confrontation with language, as well as of greater creativity and control.
A passage from George Lakoff’s Philosophy in the Flesh. I was just admiring how compact the ids are compared to the roman script text. I always enjoy transcribing because I come up with delightful improvements. My best one here was my new id for “unconscious”–a graphic opposite of conscious. It has “shine lines” showing that though dark and unknown, it still shines. It fits well into Lakoff’s view of most thought being unconscious.
I read the book a couple of years ago and am rereading now. This is the inside back cover. As I read I record new id ideas. I just noticed a couple of good ones that I have not yet put in my “dictionary”.
the “structural similarity to reality” I refer to is Alfred Korzybsky’s assertion that any real semantic content can only consist of structural similarity to reality.
An afterthought addendum to the post for “hegemony”