Hello Curt. I have just found and started to read some of your articles. Minds like yours are rare, and for reasons I can’t yet explain, it gives me hope. Gordon
Hallo Curt, deine Veröffentlichungen auf YouTube verfolge ich seit gut einem Monat. Es fasziniert mich positiv wie du deine Interviews gestaltest und mit wem du über Physik.....und Gott und die Welt Diskussionen führst. Das eine war 4 Stunden lang(das habe ich komplett bis zum Schluss geschaut) ich konnte nicht aufhören zu schauen... Curt mach weiter so 👍
I think etymology is interesting and historically informative, but it says nothing about current meaning. The sources I would recommend on meaning are the early (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and late (Philosophical Investigations) Ludwig Wittgenstein. In the Tractatus he attempts a rigorous, logical approach to language, including his picture theory of meaning. (Sentences, and many words, are “literally” pictures of experiences - of course we can compose untrue sentences by combining pictures.) Years later, in the Investigations, he recants. Pictures are insistent, but are not the real meanings, which are just the (context dependent) uses of words and sentences. Meanings are sometimes impossible to pin down - notably when a word is applied to a whole family of ideas, linked in a chain of family resemblances which, confusingly, may indirectly link some pair of ideas which have nothing directly in common. Try defining “game” or “table” and it is generally easy to think of a case which does not fit into the definition. Nevertheless, “ordinary language” works. Little children of no special intelligence, with no concept of sentence or syntax or indeed definition, learn a language, or multiple languages, with ease.
However, when we try to define a more precise language for a specific field (e.g. logic, mathematics or physics) we are always working with, and dependent on, ordinary language. I suppose that, just as Eugene Wigner concluded “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics… is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve”, so we must accept that the unreasonable effectiveness of ordinary language - in life, in philosophy and in science - is a glorious mystery, the great social feature which defines humanity.
Thank you, Curt, for such a beautiful post! Matthew Widen is totally correct that the means justify the ends. No matter how carefully we plan, we cannot predict future events. Instead, we need to be prepared to adapt to any plausible series of events.
Prayer and meditation are very helpful in this regard. These practices greatly reduce the tendency to fret, worry, and procrastinate. Each of these is an enormous waste of time.
An organization becomes corrupt when the key decision makers focus on their twisted belief that the ends justify the means. Noble lies build on noble lies until the entire system collapses and everyone involved loses.
If you come to the conclusion that your organization is hopelessly corrupt, but things are still going OK, leave before the mass exodus and don't look back!
Curt, I know you are a busy man and there are so many interesting ideas in the universe and unfortunately time and our personal experience with t atm is finite. I have watched and admired your podcasts for a couple years. I love most of your guests and so many have come close to TOE but never quite to completion. I’m not saying this is TOE but what this man has uncovered and been able to replicate is a huge piece of anyone that strives for TOE must include.check it out you won’t be disappointed
I transcribed this article into ideograms, visible at https://neoideograms.com/. Ideograms as I do them are visual concepts, a mode of meaning, and an enlightening one at that, from my experience.
Thanks for your reply and interest, Curt. I will make a new post on my blog to explain, since I need to illustrate with ideograms. It will help to know if there is something specific you don't understand or if it is what I am doing in general. Please feel free also to contact me at the email provided. If you read my post Leibniz Had the Idea you will see a connection to physics, math, etc. I also have a post on Sanskrit terms that might interest you.
What I have done is not just a trivial new way of writing, but a new mode of thinking and of relating to language and ideas that is strongly impactful psychologically in more ways than one.
So, please do check at neoideograms.com for further explanation. I should have something new posted by late 11/27. If you look, there is already quite a bit of explanation there.
the manifold view is already the contemporary empirically grounded linguistic community's consensus. the monolithic view resembles a naive, pre-theoretical folk theory and sadly also some bizarre currents within anglophone analytic philosophy.
descriptive, pragmatic linguistics simply makes better sense of our actual linguistic behavior as opposed to the prescriptive, monolithic view, that's why it's not really some lively open debate among empirically grounded inquirers anymore.
Hello Curt. I have just found and started to read some of your articles. Minds like yours are rare, and for reasons I can’t yet explain, it gives me hope. Gordon
Hallo Curt, deine Veröffentlichungen auf YouTube verfolge ich seit gut einem Monat. Es fasziniert mich positiv wie du deine Interviews gestaltest und mit wem du über Physik.....und Gott und die Welt Diskussionen führst. Das eine war 4 Stunden lang(das habe ich komplett bis zum Schluss geschaut) ich konnte nicht aufhören zu schauen... Curt mach weiter so 👍
Thank you so much!
>Mathematically, your integral from A → B must have the dx as the good part, and not the B.
Somehow this part part looks so elegant to me, as it were a Miniature art.
I think etymology is interesting and historically informative, but it says nothing about current meaning. The sources I would recommend on meaning are the early (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and late (Philosophical Investigations) Ludwig Wittgenstein. In the Tractatus he attempts a rigorous, logical approach to language, including his picture theory of meaning. (Sentences, and many words, are “literally” pictures of experiences - of course we can compose untrue sentences by combining pictures.) Years later, in the Investigations, he recants. Pictures are insistent, but are not the real meanings, which are just the (context dependent) uses of words and sentences. Meanings are sometimes impossible to pin down - notably when a word is applied to a whole family of ideas, linked in a chain of family resemblances which, confusingly, may indirectly link some pair of ideas which have nothing directly in common. Try defining “game” or “table” and it is generally easy to think of a case which does not fit into the definition. Nevertheless, “ordinary language” works. Little children of no special intelligence, with no concept of sentence or syntax or indeed definition, learn a language, or multiple languages, with ease.
However, when we try to define a more precise language for a specific field (e.g. logic, mathematics or physics) we are always working with, and dependent on, ordinary language. I suppose that, just as Eugene Wigner concluded “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics… is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve”, so we must accept that the unreasonable effectiveness of ordinary language - in life, in philosophy and in science - is a glorious mystery, the great social feature which defines humanity.
Thank you, Curt, for such a beautiful post! Matthew Widen is totally correct that the means justify the ends. No matter how carefully we plan, we cannot predict future events. Instead, we need to be prepared to adapt to any plausible series of events.
Prayer and meditation are very helpful in this regard. These practices greatly reduce the tendency to fret, worry, and procrastinate. Each of these is an enormous waste of time.
An organization becomes corrupt when the key decision makers focus on their twisted belief that the ends justify the means. Noble lies build on noble lies until the entire system collapses and everyone involved loses.
If you come to the conclusion that your organization is hopelessly corrupt, but things are still going OK, leave before the mass exodus and don't look back!
Curt, I know you are a busy man and there are so many interesting ideas in the universe and unfortunately time and our personal experience with t atm is finite. I have watched and admired your podcasts for a couple years. I love most of your guests and so many have come close to TOE but never quite to completion. I’m not saying this is TOE but what this man has uncovered and been able to replicate is a huge piece of anyone that strives for TOE must include.check it out you won’t be disappointed
https://open.substack.com/pub/remote view
I transcribed this article into ideograms, visible at https://neoideograms.com/. Ideograms as I do them are visual concepts, a mode of meaning, and an enlightening one at that, from my experience.
I clicked the link though I don't understand it. Can you explain? Thank you so much , Steven
Thanks for your reply and interest, Curt. I will make a new post on my blog to explain, since I need to illustrate with ideograms. It will help to know if there is something specific you don't understand or if it is what I am doing in general. Please feel free also to contact me at the email provided. If you read my post Leibniz Had the Idea you will see a connection to physics, math, etc. I also have a post on Sanskrit terms that might interest you.
What I have done is not just a trivial new way of writing, but a new mode of thinking and of relating to language and ideas that is strongly impactful psychologically in more ways than one.
So, please do check at neoideograms.com for further explanation. I should have something new posted by late 11/27. If you look, there is already quite a bit of explanation there.
Best, Steve Hudson
the manifold view is already the contemporary empirically grounded linguistic community's consensus. the monolithic view resembles a naive, pre-theoretical folk theory and sadly also some bizarre currents within anglophone analytic philosophy.
descriptive, pragmatic linguistics simply makes better sense of our actual linguistic behavior as opposed to the prescriptive, monolithic view, that's why it's not really some lively open debate among empirically grounded inquirers anymore.