🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep29.051350.6608@sandbox.kenn.wa.us> wstatler@sandbox.kenn.wa.us (William Statler) writes:

>>This assertion [by Robert Anton Wilson] that removing "is" from the 
>>language sets us in the so-called modern universe sounds like mishegoss 
>>or at best Intellectual one-upmanship.
>
>Yes, I figured it might sound that way if I didn't quote vast portions of 
>his book.  I'll have to stick to a few short examples.  Let's start with 

I'm curious about this Modern Universe.  James Burke had a T.V. Special some
time ago called "the Day the Universe Changed", is that what you're referring
to?  Upon closer examination, the Universe itself didn't change, but our
conception of the Universe changed, so for all practical purposes, it appeared
that the Universe changed.  Can anyone define what the Modern Universe is
in one sentence?  Keep it short, as this is misc.writing, and as we can all get
terribly distracted on various philosophies, to wit: the rest of this posting.

>[some good Fred Welden (TM) Theory omitted and some responses to it]
>
>Let me present a different example, this time out of physics:
>"A photon is a particle."
>"A photon is a wave."
>
>Twentieth century physics has shown that photons may act like particles 
>or like waves depending on how they are observed.  In fact, many 
>experiments have demonstrated photons acting like waves and particles at 
>the sime time.  (Recently, similar results have been obtained with whole 
>atoms.)  Many physicists believe that one can make no valid statement 
>about what a photon (or an atom) "is", but only about what it _does_.  As 
>a result, many have (unconsciously?) dropped "is" from their scientific 
>papers.

Scientists are often sloppy in their writing, which can be embarassing
later.  Some of the old fellows (such as, Maxwell, I believe) were actually
quite readable.  The "Starry Messenger" by an ole geezer called Galileo is
pretty good reading also.  :-) They seem to be better writers than their 
followers.

>Should we care?  I used to think that this issue only mattered to 
>particle physicists, but "non-isness" is starting to look like a 
>fundamental feature of the universe.

What we have here is a nasty problem -- confusing the meta-level with the
fundimental level.  People often get so confused between the meta-levels that
all kinds of funny stuff comes out.  When the scientist is trying to describe
what a "photon" "is", he attempts to formulate a model which he can understand
and predict the behaviour of light.  The "photon" is merely a model or a 
meta-level which describes light, and is not light itself.  Not all scientists
are aware of this, which can make things extremely confusing.  As far as
"non-isness" being a fundimental feature, this arises more and more as people
confuse meta-levels.  Mixing meta-levels can lead to confusion, or in better
times, to some good jokes, such as "I'm Lying".  The Map is not the territory.
You can fold up the map, but not the territory.  One of the most fundimental
and interesting ability that the human mind has is the ability to form these
meta-levels with almost no effort.  A computer may be able to do this in a 
very restricted sense -- it may be able to formulate one meta-level, but only
if it is specifically programmed to formulate and use that meta-level.

Okay, so as far as the meta-level goes, a photon IS a particle.  Switch
contexts.  As far as this other meta-level goes, a photon IS a wave.  But in
the real world, I turn on the terminal, and by the light, read misc.writing

This problem is not new.  The "non-is-ness" was something the old
Greeks got into heated arguments over.  [It's been 9 years since I've
heard the arguments, so by now I've forgotten who said it] My
observation is that the human mind works almost entirely in
meta-levels, the meta-levels being updated through what the senses
observe of the what's outside.  One fellow expressed that internally
the mind has its own virtual reality with its own virtual physics, its
own virtual chemistry, its own virtual [fill in the blank] which do
not necessarily correspond with what's out there, although we'd like
to think that it does.  But even a meta-level that is a little off can
still be a useful tool; or be enormously destructive.

By the way, the meta-level idea is itself a meta-level.  Take it with a grain
of salt, for what it's worth.  :-)  Self-referential things are always 
troublesome.

>We can't blame the verb "to be" for all this. 

Correct.  "To Be" is one of the most commonly used verbs, besides being one of
the most irregular in almost every language.  By the way, the verb "To Be"
in English is actually a combination of three separate verbs.  I don't remember
off the top of my head but they were "Beon", "Wesan", and "Essen" or something
like that.  Does anyone know the details?

>I think Wilson was making a similar point: as a tool for dealing with the 
>modern world, "English-with-isness" fares poorly.

It seems to me that the Greek Philosophers grappled with this, as well as
some of the Zen and other Oriental folks.  Is there nothing new under the
sun?  But the sensitivity to the meaning becomes the most important when
one is dealing with poetry, especially when one deals with what the words
actually say.  Ciardi said that the Language of Poetry is exact. Poetry
allows little room for verbal sloppiness; with prose (such as this USENET
posting), I can get away with a lot of chozzorai.  I'm not so sure that
the poorness comes from the "isness" or from just plain sloppy writing.

Note that sloppy writing often indicates sloppy thinking.  Sloppy writers
beware!!!  [I'd better beware, for that matter!  :-D ]

>I've also got a more down-to-earth reason for wanting to write without 
>"is": I use it too much.  I got most of my early writing practice from 
>generating political diatribes in college.  And I found you can really 
>generate some impressive-sounding logical arguments if you use "is" a 
>lot  
> [Good humourous quote omitted]

Good analytical writing will wind up using "is" anyways; the verb "to be" is
in any language, usually the most irregular, being the most frequently used.
Perhaps the best way to get rid of overusing "is" would entail reading much
good writing, and perhaps imitating the style.  People continually rediscover
the same basic principles.  Read the sentences you write -- you should 
carefully look at what you just write and ask yourself: "Does this sentence
REALLY reflect what I want to say?"  You may have to write "one word at a
time" instead of "one sentence at a time".  You'll get rid of a number of
overused "to be's" as well as a lot of other garbage which is WORSE!
Expressing thoughts concisely can be arduous work; but it has many rewards too.

DY :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
     +1 (301) 295-3304     | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=