Post by XZ on Mar 26, 2017 23:50:36 GMT
its got a lot of ups and downs, slopes, shapes, zig zags, subtleties, utilizes a large variety of sounds, it does have something of a squareness to it (though I dont think im the first to at least think I think this), a slight rigidity, yes t can be said its got a harshness, at times, a cuttingness, exactingness, as opposed to maybe spanish and italian that is more smoothed over, rounded, but I dont know anywhere near enough about these languages to say anything, this is just an attempt at intuitive straw grasping, perhaps it would be, or is said, something about consonances? one of the main words I was looking for that whole time, which was implied by the squareness anyway, was angularity, perhaps one thing I was attempting to express with zig zags is it seems sometimes there are just 'great leaps' from sounds, even within a single word, im sure this happens in every language, but like, it had to start somewhere, people had to come up with these ideas, sounds and letters and pronunciation and naming, and holy crap couldnt imagine using twitter with these word limits do you think that was a conscious nefarious decision to make twitter word count so small (well obviously, save server space...but?)
I guess its pointless : to think of how I just was about language, from a biased, foreign view, we are all foreign to language, can there be no normal objective language, or they all are... no one mouth sound from one earth region is any more purely rationally sensical than any
well that cant be true: for one could name a very common item a 300 letter word, would be a good argument against that, but then comparing every language to every other, that are not at such extremes, yea, but going into it like: what sounds can we make, categorize them,
we must use those: to name things. And then so many different styles developed. As how, biologically the human is similar, so many different language styles developed...thats what I was attempting to get at I think, the interesting of that
starting from scratch: what mouth sounds can we make, what mouth sounds are "natural" to us, to me, to the inventor of language, to the group? where does that naturalness come from? how many possible mouth sounds are there?
I guess math in that sense can: be considered the pure, language, but then if it always must come down to speaking, the math must be turned into speakable words, ala one, uno. then there is images. and it, without me thinking much but just spitballing, maybe is possible to understand
language : and it relation to the world, without ever learning or needing to speak it, but just, the letters apple = the red roundish thing that we eat, and we dont even need to think about sound, the speaking part is just an extra "transcendent" aspect by proxy
we dont even need to learn: (technically, theoretically, for sake of this thought train) sounds of these letters, to know that the purely, symbols, a, p, p, l, e like mathimatically, as if they were number, equaled visual object, red round sweet thing
the sounded letters apple contain no more pure reality info than any other spelling of apple in another language (they contain none), in this sense maybe it is how it is said music is some universal language, as its sound touch some fundamental inner aspect of the constructions of our cognitions, similar waves, functions, motions of mechanisms, rises and falls in energy, are mimicked, or 'fractally reflected' perhaps similarly to how I can say red, roundish, sweet, and 'touch upon something of an apple'. The letters apple dont touch upon anything about the physical apple, just as pomme does not (maybe this is arguable, a there may be something about nature that dictates some spellings and words sounds, but likely not, as due to the wide variety of languages, naming things so different), though a particular sequence of notes, sound, can touch upon, sadness or happiness. Or even, the feeling of skipping in a field of flowers in spring... though how much possibly of that can be objectively contained in music, is likely closer to laughable than arguable.
(eating 3 potatoes, made me write this)
But can everything about an apple be depicted, expressed, explained, understood, purely via math, and what is, purely math? Math is symbols and imagery depicting quantity, motion, quality, shape/form, change (force, energy, time, space), is language then ""just an extension of math"? Do we not need to express red, roundish, sweet, purely mathematically, though it can be? Can a person understand 'sweet' (sweetness) without taste? (or red, without sight?), (I believe these are ancient questions, of course conceptually things can be approached, red may be easier, as can be explained in terms of photon/particle/waves/frequencies... the idea of read... the...apparent cause of red... but the 'experience' of red, cannot, we suppose). We have sensual, sensational, correspondences. So much of the world is 'created' and of, sensation... obviously, if we all had no senses, would we, could we be? Physical data and mechanisms interacting with physical data and mechanisms creating 'results' that are fed to 'whatever we fundamentally essentially "are"', results such as "red" and "sweet".
Math is, like apple, in that, it is this 2dish (at least a part of it, for this general example), 'squiggly lines' that represent 'concepts' and 'things' and 'afforementioned results' (though maybe the jury is still out (the cat is still in the bag...or box) on how accurately purely math (what is purely math? how far is considered math? can we just say 'everything is forever fated to be purely math'...of course by this we wouldnt mean, everything is fated to be purely 2d squiggly lines with flat horizontal lines and crosses and x's, but that those squiggly lines are our attempt at converting 'what and how and why and when and where everything is' into 'understandable, expressible, sensible, 'depiction'... and then we get to, are words not also squiggly lines that we do that with) how much of "Sweetness (:it self)" can math 'tackle'?
I guess its pointless : to think of how I just was about language, from a biased, foreign view, we are all foreign to language, can there be no normal objective language, or they all are... no one mouth sound from one earth region is any more purely rationally sensical than any
well that cant be true: for one could name a very common item a 300 letter word, would be a good argument against that, but then comparing every language to every other, that are not at such extremes, yea, but going into it like: what sounds can we make, categorize them,
we must use those: to name things. And then so many different styles developed. As how, biologically the human is similar, so many different language styles developed...thats what I was attempting to get at I think, the interesting of that
starting from scratch: what mouth sounds can we make, what mouth sounds are "natural" to us, to me, to the inventor of language, to the group? where does that naturalness come from? how many possible mouth sounds are there?
I guess math in that sense can: be considered the pure, language, but then if it always must come down to speaking, the math must be turned into speakable words, ala one, uno. then there is images. and it, without me thinking much but just spitballing, maybe is possible to understand
language : and it relation to the world, without ever learning or needing to speak it, but just, the letters apple = the red roundish thing that we eat, and we dont even need to think about sound, the speaking part is just an extra "transcendent" aspect by proxy
we dont even need to learn: (technically, theoretically, for sake of this thought train) sounds of these letters, to know that the purely, symbols, a, p, p, l, e like mathimatically, as if they were number, equaled visual object, red round sweet thing
the sounded letters apple contain no more pure reality info than any other spelling of apple in another language (they contain none), in this sense maybe it is how it is said music is some universal language, as its sound touch some fundamental inner aspect of the constructions of our cognitions, similar waves, functions, motions of mechanisms, rises and falls in energy, are mimicked, or 'fractally reflected' perhaps similarly to how I can say red, roundish, sweet, and 'touch upon something of an apple'. The letters apple dont touch upon anything about the physical apple, just as pomme does not (maybe this is arguable, a there may be something about nature that dictates some spellings and words sounds, but likely not, as due to the wide variety of languages, naming things so different), though a particular sequence of notes, sound, can touch upon, sadness or happiness. Or even, the feeling of skipping in a field of flowers in spring... though how much possibly of that can be objectively contained in music, is likely closer to laughable than arguable.
(eating 3 potatoes, made me write this)
But can everything about an apple be depicted, expressed, explained, understood, purely via math, and what is, purely math? Math is symbols and imagery depicting quantity, motion, quality, shape/form, change (force, energy, time, space), is language then ""just an extension of math"? Do we not need to express red, roundish, sweet, purely mathematically, though it can be? Can a person understand 'sweet' (sweetness) without taste? (or red, without sight?), (I believe these are ancient questions, of course conceptually things can be approached, red may be easier, as can be explained in terms of photon/particle/waves/frequencies... the idea of read... the...apparent cause of red... but the 'experience' of red, cannot, we suppose). We have sensual, sensational, correspondences. So much of the world is 'created' and of, sensation... obviously, if we all had no senses, would we, could we be? Physical data and mechanisms interacting with physical data and mechanisms creating 'results' that are fed to 'whatever we fundamentally essentially "are"', results such as "red" and "sweet".
Math is, like apple, in that, it is this 2dish (at least a part of it, for this general example), 'squiggly lines' that represent 'concepts' and 'things' and 'afforementioned results' (though maybe the jury is still out (the cat is still in the bag...or box) on how accurately purely math (what is purely math? how far is considered math? can we just say 'everything is forever fated to be purely math'...of course by this we wouldnt mean, everything is fated to be purely 2d squiggly lines with flat horizontal lines and crosses and x's, but that those squiggly lines are our attempt at converting 'what and how and why and when and where everything is' into 'understandable, expressible, sensible, 'depiction'... and then we get to, are words not also squiggly lines that we do that with) how much of "Sweetness (:it self)" can math 'tackle'?
