« Home | Alien Communications? WHAT-IF? » | Pee: The Four Quadrants, Tagged by Mackey » | Soulless: Mackeydoodle: Rona :other » | Moving From FACT to What-If:Resolved » | Index to May 2006 'is' Blogs » | What is, in fact, a FACT? » | The Pattern of Four » | Final Exam - Soulless » | In Response Part 2 - Soulless » | Everything: EVERYTHING »

Interpretations and Meaning - If Blogs Could Talk

Introduced by "The Quotes".

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"There are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world -- in order to set up a shadow world of 'meanings' ." - Susan Sontag


"There are no facts, only interpretations". really, Fred. is that a FACT?


1) Yesterday, I included this fractal as the fourth of four, and simply labelled it "Other", but I had given titles to the other three.

2) [adding more meaning]. Yesterday I titled this fractal "Other".

3) The title says it all.

Now there's a bit of a language paradox, eh? Interpreting those three statements, it appears that, the shorter the English sentence is, the more meaning it contains. Each word in a short sentence carries more of the "meaning weight" than the same word in a longer sentence might.
Does sentence #3 MEAN: "It's an incredible visual capture of the essence of the ephemeral 'other', that which we know not to exist; but how can we know such a thing?"
Does it MEAN: "Yeah! That's bargain bin material for sure."

Consider the five-symbol string title.

(At this point, because of at least two possible interpretations, thus introducing ambiguity, I don't know if you are now considering the symbol-sequence 'o-t-h-e-r', or the symbol-sequence 't-i-t-l-e'. )

Consider the five-symbol string t-i-t-l-e.

If this was intended as a CLARIFYING statement, we're now both focussed on:
Let's stipulate to that, and get on with it, okay?
(well, actually that's now a 10-symbol string, but just like you ignore spaces between words in English, you're likely ignoring the minus signs (or are they dashes, or hyphens, or something else?) and the period at the end, and you're just considering the four alphabetic letters t,i,l and e. (notice the first three alphabetic characters are separated from each other by the non-alphabetic character ,, but the last one is separated from the other three by the three alphabetic characters a, n, and d.)

Consider how the above statements started big, got small, got big again, then got small again.


Words can breath.


Here's my interpretation of the story just told to you by "The Quotes".

FACT: Quotes can "talk".
INTERPRETATION: Quotes are like talking.
FACT: (TALK means to make vocal noises loud enough and distinct enough that someone else, using the sound translation mechanisms built into their ear devices, and the de-coder of sound strings that they have learned and carry around with them (somewhere in the brain, it's believed, it doesn't really matter, we can stipulate to a lot of totally irrelevant things), can assign an interpretation or meaning close enough to what your original intent was that the message didn't get distorted too much in translation (in other words, it didn't lose too much of the entropy you assigned it when you spoke it in the first place, although some will always be lost, the second law of thermodynamics shows that to be a generally-agreed-upon FACT).
INTERPRETATION: Let's you and me stipulate that the shape-sequence on the screen in front of you now, [TALK], is, for all intents and purposes a simple FACT.
INTERPRETATION: Assumes prior assumption that you and I either agree on what a FACT is, or it doesn't matter for the purposes of this INTERPRETATION.

End of one possible INTERPRETATION.

Well if words can breath, and quotes can talk, is it that big of a stretch to your imagination that blogs can have personality, and voice? Give the blogs a voice, I say!

"Oh hi...sorry about that. I guess I should introduce myself if you got this far. I'm Evydense's latest invention {rolls eyes}... the first 'talking blog'. See, for him to be able to show you his alphabetic shape code, he has to get one step further away from you, and it turns out, I'm the go-between, apparently.

"Here, let me show you what he MEANS.

"Remember this puppy? Well, let me tell you how I see it from HIS point of view. He and I have agreed that we see it the SAME way, so I can speak for him.

"You have to look at it three different ways to get the full effect.
1) First, however you see it. That's your starting point.
2) Second, how he sees it. That's his starting point.
3) If you two want to have a meeting of the minds, (BINARY AGREEMENT), you each have to get from where you're at to where the other is, and do it simultaneously. It's like that experiment I told you about awhile back in New York City where the different strangers found each other within hours, knowing only one thing "They were each looking for each other."
4) Evydense's plan is to connect your point of view to his point of view with the same sequence of connections, no matter which end you start at. He's going to have to get inside your head a little bit to do that. Ask him sometime to show you his soul and you'll understand how to get inside someone else's head (i.e. share thoughts). It's a pretty cool trick he uses, really!!.

"Here, let me show you, using his three-step approach (3 options plus 'other').

1) He sees it as a visual example of his theory of shapes.
2) Now look at it as if the two halves, left and right, are characters mirroring each other, looking for common ground, as well as unique differences.
3) Cover up one half of the picture (any half, top half, left half, background half), and imagine it is an ENTITY looking for it's mirrored TRUTH.
4) Add an appropriate, one-word title to tell the artist what you thought of it.
What single word captures the essence of the picture as far as you're concerned (the BAT negotiations have begun!) I'll tell him what you said the next time I'm talking to him.

"see how it works?

"To me, the picture is just the colourful part of what I'm (saying/wearing) today. The rest is all (just) words.

"Been nice chatting with ya. But Evydense wants the computer. He wants to write the comapnion blog to this one, the meaning of letter-shapes. It's a coding structure he's invented to help measure the entropy or context of a word. Really neat stuff, actually, check it out.
It's the one he called "Letter Shapes: The Code".


P.S. Here's an interesting play I found that I think says pretty much the same things I've been saying. I think it's pretty good. If sexual themes or language offend you, and you don't want to be offended, then maybe you'll choose to pass on reading it. The technique of having two characters have two characters each, and also having them perform some thoughts simultaneously instead of sequentially, is particularly interesting to me. "Hold That Thought!"

Links to this post

Create a Link

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me