Science/Religion/Magic

[wolven7]

Saw this, over at mech_angel's stuff: Hitachi Promises Mind-Machine Interface by 2011. The only problem being, if they get it, many people will take that as meaning that the brain can be mapped, and that that's all we are.

I was reminded, by this, of the conversation I had, yesterday, regarding these great many things, starting from the Peter Carroll quote, I posted, awhile ago. I'll repost it, for those of you just joining us: "The problem for scientists is that they are observing and trying to describe effects due to something which they refuse to believe can exist. The problem for magicians is that they refuse to believe that the effects they create or observe could be due to something for which equations could be written"- Peter Carroll

It is-- and I believe this to be my most brilliant metaphor, in this arena-- a problem of translation. Think of this as a "Disease of Language" issue, iun that we are working with processes, in translation. When we describe faith, or Magic[k], or science, or mathematics, we must change the words we use, the language in which we parse, and to state that one cannot do justice to another is to say that the works of Shakespear cannot be translated, nor Poe, nor Baudelaire. While perhaps it is true, that a measure of syntax and meaning may be lost, there is the core meaning, and the essence of syntax is in filling in the gaps, Is It Not?

You're god damned right it is.

So. We look at eash instance of a linguistic itteration, and we say "I want to say that in a way that Magicians/Scientists/Mathematicians/Hatians/Lithuanians/New Agers/Christians will understand. How do I translate that?" And you set to finding the analogous modules, within the languages. "Glossolalia" becomes "Speaking in Tongues," and "Procphecy" becomes "Accessing the Probaility of the Collapse of the Wave-Function at the Point of Personal Insertion." See? Simple as Pi. E? Anyway. We have different words for what mean the same things, and yes, we will have issues fully understanding each other if we never learn the language, for ourselves-- if all we know how to do is, basically, ask "¿Donde esta la biblioteca?" But fuck it, right?

At least we're going where the books are.

You catch that little analogy, there? It was pretty slick, wasn't it? Yeah. It was.

Time to go spend more time with my beautiful girlfriend. Ta.

Comments

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree to an extent.

Any student of language knows that, while a certain basic meaning can be infinitely tanslated between linguistic paradigms, many ideas are unique to a language. At least the elegance of certain statements and thus the impact of those statements, is greatly impaired by linguistic barriers making a complete, contextual understanding nearly impossible. To paraphrase Heinlein, one cannot grok until one can speak Martian. Gist is important to purely practical settings like finding where the library is, as in the example. To understand subtext, referentiality, culturality, to have a full structural - functional mode of understanding requires fluency, not simply competence.

This is why, in English for example, we use expressions like Zeitgeist, kaizen, amore, c'est la vie and Carpe Diem. While these statements all have English equivalents, even direct translations, the cultural cache associated with the original term conveys a meaning that goes beyond the literal. This is also, for instance, why jokes, especially puns do not effectively translate.

You assert that syntax is merely filling in the gaps. I agree but take issue with the word "merely." This is no small thing. It is, in effect, the essence of communication, itself. The works of Shakespear, James Joyce, Gothe, Yuramaki and even Confucious can be made cursorily understandable to nonspeakers of their native toungs but something beyond the gist, and just as important is lost. Syntax, in this sense, turns information into poetry.

Speaking directly to the science/magic(k) issue, how difficult is it to explain quantitative diciplines, mathematics, physics, economics et al, to someone who has only a qualitative grasp of the concepts. I like the supply and demand example because it is so commonly misunderstood. Just about all educated Americans think they understand this basic economic principle but virtually none actually do. To effectively explain the concept requires a knowledge of Algebra, specifically of Cartesian mapping and even then some people can't really grasp the ideas involved. This is where the minunderstanding originates, in trying to bring one idea, expressed in a given data paradigm into a radically different informational setting. Some information cannot be effectively removed from context without perversion of definition.

I could go on but it's late.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I never used the word "merely," and I would not, in regards to something as important as syntax. I said that the Essence of syntax was filling in the gaps, and that connotes far different things than "mere".

Unless you are a native speaker of a particular time and place, or are Thoroughly educated in the ways of a past time, you will always lose something. The beauty of a work is either in how purely it is itself and its place and time, or how timeless and universal it is, or how much it manages to be Both. See of Leaves.

Spirit of an Age is a good translation, for Zeitgeist. I think it evokes the proper understanding.

"It is said that what is called ‘the spirit of an age’ is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world’s coming to an end…

"For this reason, although one would like to change today’s world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best of out of every generation." (Yamamoto, 68)

[salrushdy.livejournal.com]

in his "Tao Of Physics", Fritjof Kapra discuss this Language problems nicely. He operate with terms of physics(he is a physicist), vs. East philosophy perception. I think you will have good time with this book.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'll be on the lookout for it. Thanks.