"I ascribe a basic importance to the phenomenon of language. To speak means to be in a position to use a certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language, but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization.” - Frantz Fanon




I'm very tempted to say that 'syntax' is the gov't's slice of what you pay for sinning, but....

There are a few basic constructs of 'is' syntax:

1) A charateristic's opposite is it's NOTcharacteristic.

For example, in 'is', no declaration would be made that the opposite of good is evil. It's too ambiguous. Otherwise, you could claim, for instance, that the opposite pairing (and I'm talking PURE opposite here), could be good-bad, or good-distasteful. So in 'is', for clarity, the only acceptable expression of any descriptor's opposite is to precede or follow it with the prefix (or suffix!) 'NOT'. These would be the only acceptable opposite pairings for 'good': either NOTGOOD, or GOODNOT. The placement of the NOT qualifier before or after is irrelevant (It'll usually come before... that's my habit, with one exception).

There is no hierarchy of syntax as in other languages, except for the use of brackets to clarify the NOT operator if, by 'running into other words', it gets lost in the letters (i.e. NOTNOTHING or NOTHINGNOT might better be written (NOT-NOTHING). We need the brackets in this case, because as you'll see in just a sec, the dash is used to separate words in a phrase. Without the brackets, it would be ambiguous which word NOT was to be associated with. An equivalent alternative to the two examples above would be (NOT-GOOD) and (GOOD-NOT). The brackets serve no other purpose than clarity.

2) All 'is'-WORDS and 'is'-PHRASES are linear in nature, and BINARY in state (meaning they can be read accurately and meaningfully from either end towards the middle). {sidenote, as you saw awhile ago, I'm working on applying the concept to an English passage, but obviously because of the increased complexity it's a tough exercise...I'll keep at it though!}

3) Further, confirmed words (meaning 'agreed-upon'), or debatable words (meaning 'under discussion') in 'is' are written in capital letters, not so that they appear to be 'shouting' as is the language of the Internet, but rather, so there is no interpretation of subtlety implied, intended or misrepresented by emphasizing one word over another. An 'is' word is clear of all different interpretation and of all context that is not specifically included. No 'is' word will ever have an explanatory definition exceeding one other 'is' word. (Hang on a bit, that explanation is coming right up!) It puts an absolute and clear boundary around any issue under discussion by drawing an 'is'-LINE. It specifies what gets included and agreed upon. All else, by definition, is excluded. In 'is', a binary choice is made between 'this' and 'everything else'...see the discussion on Drawing Lines in a much earlier blog).

i.e. PEACE and TOLERANCE are words that I have been capitalizing and using in virtually every posting since the beginning of January. I have been using them within the context of 'is' in that sense, although it is quite clear that you and I no doubt have vastly different ideas as to what is meant by those two words.

4) 'is'-WORDS can be mixed within the body of English sentences, usually to assist in declaring an 'is'-WORD's context or agreed-upon meaning.

5) The three parts of speech available (so far) are:
a) an 'is'-WORD,
b) the 'is' bracket, which can be used as a prefix (i.e. 'is'-WORD) to redundantly emphasize the characteristic of capitalization, or more commonly to isolate and identify the
c) 'is'-PHRASE within a body of other 'is'-WORDS or PHRASES.

i.e. 'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-'is' would be an example of an 'is'-PHRASE, moreover a closed 'is'-PHRASE bracketed with the 'is' brackets. But further, since there is no 'agreement' component here, I could simply encapsulate the concept of TOLERANCE within that of PEACE, and more succinctly state:

'is'-RICK-PEACE-'is'.

If someone came along and challenged me on that, and said what do you mean, I'd do two things. First, I'd extract the most significant characteristic that I thought necessary to PEACE, which in my case is TOLERANCE. I'll be talking about establishing 'the most significant characteristic' later in terms of the concept of threshold (i.e. Lowest Common Denominator that is both necessary and sufficient), and second, I'd 'open up' the other end of the debate. The expression would therefore become:

'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-

It means that I believe to get to the meaning of PEACE that I see, we first have to achieve agreement on 'is'-TOLERANCE. I have defined TOLERANCE in earlier posts as simply allowing the existence of any and all other points of view and actions to be possible, even though the five basic tenets would dictate that ones that are harmful in nature may have opposing action taken against them. In other words, as long as this kid doesn't actually throw the rock, he has the same right to wear that T-shirt as Mahatma Ghandi had the right to suggest we pluck out eyes.

6) As a preview of how this will be carried forward into B.A.T., if you and I as TWO people agree on the same meaning of TOLERANCE, and further that we agree that it is a pre-requisite for PEACE, (I'll assume your name is SUE for the illustration), the above 'is'-PHRASE would be

'is'-RICK-PEACE-SUE-'is'.

That means that as far as SUE and I are concerned (and remember tenet #5b) states that only the first step is a binary one) TOLERANCE becomes an encapsulated component of PEACE (it becomes part of the default decision-making mechanism....did that just make a small insight for you re: the 5 basic tenets? We can add to our inherent default system; the classic body-function example is learning to drive stick-shift, or walking and chewing gum!). Unmuddy the waters. Let the default system do its work. Trust your gut. Get rid of what we agree on so we can focus on solving the problem between us ... or the growth if we don't perceive it to be a problem ...interactions don't always have to be negative!!

7) If SUE disagrees with my views on TOLERANT as an inherent pre-requisite to PEACE, and that is our only difference about PEACE, and therefore we can't share PEACE views yet, then I would write the expression from my point of view as :

'is'-RICK-NOTTOLERANCE-SUE-PEACE-

(building from my extraction above of 'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-). From SUE's point of view (her mirroring of the situation), she'd just reverse our names...it wouldn't change the meaning one twit.

This states that, before we even begin to think of the first step in our agreement of what PEACE should be, (and there will only be a maximum of two), we have to resolve our differences about the NOTTOLERANT pre-condition. Note, Sue does not have the same pre-condition, her only interaction with me whether in the context of PEACE or of TOLERANCE, is TOLERANCE. The decision has been made. If she wants my help attaining her vision of PEACE, we have to get through our current conflict of TOLERANCE as my pre-requisite. Either she convinces me I'm wrong in my 'is'-RICK-TOLERANT-PEACE-'is' view, or I convince her why it needs to be a part of the threshold, or perhaps, we come up with a third option. By the way, the only time TOLERANCE or NOTTOLERANCE would become an issue is if SUE thinks NOTTOLERANT is a necessary prerequisite to PEACE. Otherwise, it's a non-issue, and we move straight from:

'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-SUE-'is'
to
'is'-RICK-PEACE-SUE-'is'

Further, if I agree with her about her one most significant pre-condition to PEACE (let's, for the sake of illustration, say she has determined it to be ACCEPTANCE), then the phrase:

'is'=RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-ACCEPTANCE-SUE-'is'
becomes
'is'-RICK-PEACE-SUE-'is'
which becomes
PEACE.

The obvious focus then is to determine how to set the one most significant qualifier to any concept. I have a method! Stay tuned for later blogs...we can't do everything at once!!

8) Notice that if either end of an 'is'-PHRASE is terminated by the 'is' bracket, it is a closed end of the line. If a PHRASE ends with an non-agreed-upon word, that end of the phrase remains open, as in the illustration in step 7) above ending with SUE-PEACE- )

9) Finally, using this syntax, the PHRASES can easily become quite long and complex, particularly depending on the issue at hand. As I said above, for instance Sue could have decided that ACCEPTANCE was her only requirement before PEACE.

That might yield a phrase 'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-ACCEPTANCE-SUE-'is', which puts three variables between the two of us. Since the first step is a binary one, we'd have to re-arrange our resolution map as something like:

'is'-PEACE-TOLERANCE-RICK-(NOT-ACCEPTANCE)-SUE-ACCEPTANCE-PEACE-'is', which gets way too complicated because the same variables are appearing multiple times. Rather than taking that route, we apply the solution that is consistent within the theory of 'is': Turn around and look at the reflection of the complexity. Every problem contains its own solution. Every seed has the capacity to give birth to itself. Simply put, a problem is an example of a problem after all, and the five basic tenets apply universally. So, we start off with the following sequence instead:

'is'-RICK-TOLERANCE-PEACE-
'is'-SUE-ACCEPTANCE-PEACE-
'is'-SUE-ACCEPTANCE-PEACE-TOLERANCE-RICK-'is'

This gives a closed phrase, and so all else is excluded. PEACE isn't an agreed-upon value yet, but it's still an included option and goal...our mutual default systems aren't running on the same fuel, so we have to settle that first. Do we resolve

'is'-SUE-NOTACCEPTANCE-RICK-'is' first, or
'is'-SUE-NOTTOLERANCE-RICK-'is' first.

It really doesn't matter, they both have to be resolved first before 'is'-SUE-PEACE-RICK-'is' will be attained. But that's as complicated as it gets. You might have to solve two problems to get one solution. The three sides to a binary problem.

It might sound a tad complicated or confusing at first, but it will become (it is my hope!) a powerfully handy shorthand language for discussing very complex and involved concepts.

The next step will be to develop a procedure for selecting the "first rabbit you pull out of the hat" (i.e. what is the one most significant pre-requisite which is necessary for a binary agreement to be reached, given a generic problem, and two unknown, interacting entities?).

As a footnote, this whole concept has all stemmed from a question a student asked me one day when he was working on a lab assignement I had given the class. I asked them to write a program (in Pascal) to demonstrate linked lists and binary tree structures. Their assignment was to write an interactive "guessing game" program (i.e. "I'm thinking of an animal"), and with each person who played, the player would add a discerning question, so the program's 'intelligence' grew the more it was played. This particular student (an honours student) was particularly frustrated one day, and asked me rhetorically, "Can't we just build a computer that can figure out how to program everything about itself so they won't need us?" At first I brushed it off as typical student frustration, knowing that he'd figure it out (he did!), but his question resonated with me. What if we could? All conditions, all problems, all circumstances, all previously unknowns, some undiscovered-yet unknowns. Everything. One size fits all, but when 'all' is defined as individually unique. Afer all, that's essentially what we use computers for now. I'm using one right now to enter text, you may be drawing fractals, or tapping on someone's phone line, or analyzing why eating too many hamburgers causes hickies. So why not?

I pondered it on and off as I was teaching after that, but had some of my major "breakthroughs" in thinking when I was blessed with being diagnosed bipolar. It allowed me to see two alternative and conflicting views simultaneously. It was the breakthrough I think I needed. I'm still convinced, but you will be the ultimate judge. In the meantime:

'is'-RICK-B.A.T.-'is'
'is'-RICK-B.A.T.-



PEACE


(Click on picture to read phrase if its too small)

Posted by Evydense on Friday, March 10, 2006 at 8:10 a.m. | Permalink