Re: Borgs speak IE

Glen Gordon wrote:

> ...Unless there is mutual interference during the development and then it
> starts getting messy, but yes, that's what I'm saying. One point of interest
> though is that some cultures maintain a use of indigenous sign for
> overcoming spoken taboo. One wonders how old such sign languages are.

Gerry: Yes! And are sign and other forms of nonverbal communication
present in that template (from Chomsky) that lies within our brain?
N'thals used signs; A'piths used signs; and on that evolutionary ladder,
which species predated A'piths? Or is that question too difficult to
assess?

> >>>Gerry: The given (back to Hawking) is that the universe has >>>always
> >>>existed.
>
> >>Glen (ME): Not really. Prove it exists and then I will accept it as
> >> >>fact.
>
> >Gerry: Don't be silly! A given is a given and doesn't need to be
> >proved. Such with laws of God as well as laws of science.
>
> Well then you must practice a different kind of science because as far as I > understand, all facts must be supported with logical reasoning whether these > "facts" are of God or of science. If they are not proven in some way they > cannot be rationally called "givens". They are _assumptions_ or _beliefs_.

Gerry: Not necessarily; hmmmm, possibly so. Now I don't mean to go
realtivistic on you, but *science* is only ONE way of analyzing a
problem. Take "mindreading" for example; or all forms of *art*.
Neither can be fully analyzed scientifically and to think one could do
so is wrong headed. An example: in an oil painting, the canvas can be
scientifically analyzed and it's composition determined; so can the
chemistry of the oils. The arrangement of oils on canvas can be
mathematically/geometrically described. However, the artist's feeling
cannot be placed in that scientific analysis machine. To understand the
message the artist is conveying one needs to go beyond *science* and
come up with a set of criteria that could possibly describe the
"emotion" being conveyed by the artist. Same with a playwright or
musician etc. Only when this aspect of "beyond science" has been
determined will we be able to re-merge science with art.

> Glen: Secondly, my view, that existence and non-existence are one and the same, is > the most scientific view since it assumes the least amount of things. In > fact, there are less assumptions than assertively claiming that we exist (or > that we don't exist as with nihilism), since we are also assuming that there > are specifically two states as opposed to "n" states. Zero/One state is less > assumptive than assuming a distinction between existence and non-existence.
> Think about that!

Gerry: I like your idea about existance and non-existance being the
same thing. Care to explain in more detail?

> >Gerry: Yup. Occam and his razor should turn over in the grave. No >one > >ever said things were simple and the more I learn the less I >know.
>
> Well yes, Gerry that's right. The sage is the fool and vice versa. If
> existence is non-existence then all oppositions blur together and logic > itself becomes irrational, yet it's just as irrational to assert that we > exist without proof. Thus, logic erodes yet again, hence proving that > existence truely is non-existence by the "can't-win" principle. At that, > indeed, the sage and the fool are One and distinguishing the two via the > internet becomes an exceedingly hard task :)

Gerry: Absolutely correct. And not only on the internet! Can and does
occur in academe. And it's necessary for both sage and fool to be
present. One balances off the other. Even Valery Alekseev said so when
we discussed scholarship and academe. What's interesting is the fact
that the followers of the fool think they are following the sage. But
no matter as long as everyone is happy.

> In fact, by loosely connecting this back to IndoEuropean, if we say that > existence and non-existence are the same, we could logically support the > view that there is only one declensional case and that there is no > distinction between noun and verb... Why we could even say that there is no > distinction between Indo-European and Uralic.

Gerry: Absolutely. For noun and verb are both words and exist as part
of the syntax. And I-E and Uralic are part of the great mega-language
spoken by the people of the world (as opposed to the languages spoken by
the Borgs who live on another planet). It's a simple matter of lumper
vs splitter.

Gerry

>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unique Valentine gifts, available now at eGroups.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1154/0/_/2431/_/950167523/
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=cybalist&m=1

--

Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com