MA'AT PHI PSYCHE

[uwot]

Depends on who you ask. What ordinary language theorists such as Wittgenstein have to say is quite interesting.

Did Wittgenstein have anything to say about decoding in the sense WanderingLands means?

[Ginkgo]

Depends on who you ask. What ordinary language theorists such as Wittgenstein have to say is quite interesting.

Did Wittgenstein have anything to say about decoding in the sense WanderingLands means?

Perhaps indirectly.

Sounds to me like WanderingLands is talking about decoding in the sense that language contains within it a deeper underlying reality that we can discover through proper analysis. The modern view is that language is just convention. However, I may be doing Wanderinglands a disservice. Probably should wait for his response.

[uwot]

Depends on who you ask. What ordinary language theorists such as Wittgenstein have to say is quite interesting.

Did Wittgenstein have anything to say about decoding in the sense WanderingLands means?

Perhaps indirectly.

Sounds to me like WanderingLands is talking about decoding in the sense that language contains within it a deeper underlying reality that we can discover through proper analysis. The modern view is that language is just convention. However, I may be doing Wanderinglands a disservice. Probably should wait for his response.

Well, WanderingLands mentioned Occultists and hidden sages, tentatively to be fair, and I'm pretty certain Wittgenstein would only refer to such things very indirectly. I'm just curious what the evidence is.

[WanderingLands]

This is all new to me. What has research discovered so far?

So far, I've actually had decoded some words that I shall post right now. I'm also devising a system that is based on the sounds of the letters as well as the inclusion of the usual vowels and consonants, and adding the nmber system to it. It'll be a long development, but I'm looking forward to see what larger discoveries that I can pull of.

[WanderingLands]

An answer to also Ginko; looking at the conversation between yours and uwot.

You are correct in my trying to find deeper meanings within language, as I have been finding a lot of anomalies within the English language, and have read up a bit on Hebrew Gematria, and more of skimped over the Masonic ciphers. I haven't heard of Wittginstein, but I will look him up as I soon as I post more stuff on this thread, which should be about now.

[WanderingLands]

Alright, let's get into other words.

Earth
EA.rth (hrt)
EA (Enki, the Sumerian force of water) heart, or
Your heart
Or it can just be simply rearranged as HEART
Planet Earth is our HEART, as it ties the Microcosm to the Macrocosm.

Exit
X.it (referring to Magic, or by marking things in any context, such as writing)

Name
N.M.E (or ENEMY)
Your Name (a label put on you in society, or moreso the material world) is your ENEMY, or can be your ENEMY. Maybe a polar opposite of ENEMY?

ENERGY
N (In). R (er). G (as in God)
INNER GOD
The Energy within and transcendent is the Inner God, becase it is the Life Force that moves us every day.

Information
IN(ner).Formation
Information is the Forms that are made from the Individual, in research, in talking, in contemplating, etc.

I = EYE (our seeing eyes that percieve reality)
EYE
Y (which was interchanged with I before it was invented)
Yah (God)

Force
4.Ce (See; Eyes)
4.Ce = Foresee, which means to be aware of something that hasn't occured yet (seer into the future)
The Force is the FOR.CE (Foreseeing) of things that aren't aware of; all things occur by the Force, or Life Force.

Nothing
NO.THING

Internet
INTER (Inner) NET(work)
The Internet was created by those of the INNER NETWORK (the elites)

TIME
TIE (To tie into many things in one scene, creating reality)
EMIT is TIME spelled backwards, so TIME is us EMITING our reality, as TIME is not absolute.

God
Dog
DOGS are the gateway to GODS, because they see and sense things that we Humans cannot.

Machine
MA (Mother). CHI (Energy) ne

[WanderingLands]

I've kind of devised a system that will further my advancement into the decoding of langages.

I am using Gematria, as in adding the numbers to the letters (A through Z; 26 Letters).
A = 1
B = 2
C = 3
D = 4
E = 5
F = 6
G = 7
H = 8
I = 9
J = 10, 1
K = 11, 2
L = 12, 3
M = 13, 4
N = 14, 5
O = 15, 6
P = 16, 7
Q = 17, 8
R = 18, 9
S = 19, 10, 1
T = 20, 2
U = 21, 3
V = 22, 4
W = 23, 5
X = 24, 6
Y = 25, 7
Z = 26, 8

The reducing of the numbers after nine gives proof of the English Numerology Table down below.

A, J, S = 1
B, K, T = 2
C, L, U = 3
D, M, V = 4
E, N, W = 5
F, O, X = 6
G, P, Y = 7
H, Q, Z = 8
I, R = 9

Vowels:
A = 1
E = 5
I = 9
O = 15, 6
U = 21, 3

Consonants are the compounds of the pure Vowels.
B = 2
C = 3
D = 4
F = 6
G = 7
H = 8
J = 10
K = 11
L = 12
M = 13
N = 14
P = 16
Q = 17
R = 18
S = 19
T = 20
V = 22
W = 23
X = 24
Y = 25
Z = 26

The A's: A, F, H, J, K, L, R, S, X
The E's: B, C, D, E, G, P, T, V, Z
The I's: I, O
Only one O
The U's: Q, U, W

I will be doing further investigations into this.

[Arising_uk]

More of the same reaction that I see from Sir Arising from the UK.

And more of the same guff from you I see.

[Ginkgo]

Well, WanderingLands mentioned Occultists and hidden sages, tentatively to be fair, and I'm pretty certain Wittgenstein would only refer to such things very indirectly. I'm just curious what the evidence is.

Wittgenstein starts out by saying that words give us a particular picture of the essence of human nature. it is assumed that every word has a meaning that stands in a isomorphic relationship world. In other words, the study of words and sentences will give us a simple essence of meaning that is universal and clearly defined.

This so called, "picture theory" can be traced to logical atomism. Having built up this idea, Wittgenstein now goes about rejecting it. In his later writings he goes on to say that there is no simple essence we can find when it comes to language. The problems of language cannot be solved by mathematical or empirical procedures.Wittgenstein writes:

"Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and you know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and you no longer know your way about"

[uwot]

Wittgenstein writes:

"Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and you know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and you no longer know your way about"

Thanks for that, Ginkgo. As you are probably aware, 20th century analytic philosophy isn't my forte. One of the books on my degree preparation reading list was Language, Truth and Logic; the idea that philosophers should be interpreters of science, as Blaggard seems to suggest, made my heart sink. But I did my duty, ploughed through the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, went to all the lectures on Quine and Putnam and somewhere along the line, probably under the influence of Feyerabend, decided that logic and analysis is of limited value, because context is everything. I like Popper's take on this too:
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."

WanderingLands, while I was checking that quote, I came across this, which sums up my position better than I could:

"If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers."
Doug Larson.

How can you tell if your interpretation is the right one? So for instance you mention Earth

Earth
EA.rth (hrt)
EA (Enki, the Sumerian force of water) heart, or
Your heart
Or it can just be simply rearranged as HEART
Planet Earth is our HEART, as it ties the Microcosm to the Macrocosm.

What if it's Art, eh? What then?

[Ginkgo]

Thanks for that, Ginkgo. As you are probably aware, 20th century analytic philosophy isn't my forte. One of the books on my degree preparation reading list was Language, Truth and Logic; the idea that philosophers should be interpreters of science, as Blaggard seems to suggest, made my heart sink. But I did my duty, ploughed through the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, went to all the lectures on Quine and Putnam and somewhere along the line, probably under the influence of Feyerabend, decided that logic and analysis is of limited value, because context is everything. I like Popper's take on this too:
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."

That's Ok, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I am here ( and elsewhere) because I want to know what you, and a number of other people know.


Interestingly enough, I think Popper would say that numerology and astrology cannot be falsified, so it doesn't qualify as science.

[Blaggard]

Depends on who you ask. What ordinary language theorists such as Wittgenstein have to say is quite interesting.

Did Wittgenstein have anything to say about decoding in the sense WanderingLands means?

Perhaps indirectly.

Sounds to me like WanderingLands is talking about decoding in the sense that language contains within it a deeper underlying reality that we can discover through proper analysis. The modern view is that language is just convention. However, I may be doing Wanderinglands a disservice. Probably should wait for his response.

Actually after Russel published his 1400 page treaty: It Is Numberwang, both Russel and Wittgenstein were silent in 1952.

I suspect though Russel and Witgenstein would acknowledge that what wanderinglands does with numbers although obviously far inferior to the great "game" is at least an approximation of something like numberwang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

It's all here:

the relevant material is at 1:42:

"The Faculty of Numbers
except ninety."

Lol.

the idea that philosophers should be interpreters of science, as Blaggard seems to suggest, made my heart sink.

I never said that or that at least is not what I meant, science is best done by scientists, philosophers get involved in interpretation issues and methodology, but they certainly aren't qualified to analyse science experiment, although obviously those studying philosophy of science at PhD level might well be versed in some areas.

I am using Gematria, as in adding the numbers to the letters (A through Z; 26 Letters).

Yeah what about the greek or the Cyrillic alphabet though, and Chineeses 6000 letter mind maze of pictograms? Have you ever seen a chinese keyboard, it doesn't have just shift alt and ctrl it has about 5 functions to change the letter which obviously means you can have exponentially more weird lines. :S

I am using the axiom of choice but hey whatever floats your boat, it's a rather conventional way of using numbers but it works.

1+1=2

And if you had to ascribe letters to them x is a variable a is usually a constant, and pi is a massive facking pain in the rectum although very useful, don't get me started on e^x or the exponential it is related to log(x) which is useful in decay models such as radioactive decay, and you don't want to know what they did to i. There's also the golden ratio which is related to pi and seems to be selectively beneficial as it appears all throughout nature as the most adaptable number strategy to form.

Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of bins, each containing at least one object, it is possible to make a selection of exactly one object from each bin. In many cases such a selection can be made without invoking the axiom of choice; this is in particular the case if the number of bins is finite, or if a selection rule is available: a distinguishing property that happens to hold for exactly one object in each bin. To give an informal example, for any (even infinite) collection of pairs of shoes, one can pick out the left shoe from each pair to obtain an appropriate selection, but for an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no distinguishing features), such a selection can be obtained only by invoking the axiom of choice.

Although originally controversial, the axiom of choice is now used without reservation by most mathematicians,[2] and it is included in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), the standard form of axiomatic set theory. One motivation for this use is that a number of generally accepted mathematical results, such as Tychonoff's theorem, require the axiom of choice for their proofs. Contemporary set theorists also study axioms that are not compatible with the axiom of choice, such as the axiom of determinacy. The axiom of choice is avoided in some varieties of constructive mathematics, although there are varieties of constructive mathematics in which the axiom of choice is embraced.

wiki

[Ginkgo]

A curse upon BBC 2 and Godel. Oh, and Russell while I think of it.

[Blaggard]

Actually it's more BBC4 these days but...

I can see why you hate Godel and BBC2 but I will not stand by and have the creator of Numberwang's name taken in vain!







Fibonnacci sequence.

A version of the divine proportion again related to the golden ratio if you have been living in a cave for 20 years the last picture is a nautilus shell.

[Ginkgo]

Bugger it all Blags, if we are going to talk ratio then I would rather talk about Tomkinson's schools days and his actual size scale model of an Icebreaker.

Ellis: [ in metalwork room] I say, Tomkinson what's that you're got there?