i knew all this stuff already, by the way.. something just gave me confidence.

There are several things wrong with the human cogniscium, and I don't even use that word to refer to social, economic, national, environmental or psychosocial elements..

I'm talking about the fundamentals of the way we think, and those are hard to identify. One "easy" (read: probably *too* easy) way to identify it would be to call it an excess of attention over the left-hemisphere functionalities..

Obviously this ailment applies more to men than women, though I would suggest of course that this is necessary and functional, or at least elementarily preferred, to some some certain degree..

Another "easy" way to identify it would be to point to language. Language *is* a problem, but we won't exactly kill it so I have more on that yesterday..

Language acts as a minimal buffer between people for expressing their moods, intelligence and reactions to people.. even romance sometimes finds itself within the snares of the limitations of this buffer. Words aren't that fun, they're very heavy elements because their meanings are rather unitary and relatively unchanging through time. Grammar is both a restrictor of ways of using words and a container for expressing idea via them -- so it has its blessings and its curse; however, it still does prove one thing: words are based somewhat in category theory; otherwise they would not ascribe to the bounds that put them on the logical table amenable to grammatical construction or limitation, or its necessity [or preference (read: 'assumed necessity'..)].

This is part of an apt delineation between semantics and semiotics; it's semantics when it's based in language, and more primarily in logic. Logic is binary, by the way; somebody proved already that logic and mathematics are isomorphically related; all numbers reduce to binary sequences; and category theory is intimately related with what we call 'logical deduction,' like so:

All composers write music.
Beethoven was a composer.
Therefore Beethoven wrote music.

This is 'true', of course, but only because, by definition, 'composers' is a category with 'writes music' absolutely as a sub-category (the Venn diagram where circles are concentric and not intersected).

What we do when we do what we call logical deduction is all a semantics game, or more precisely it is semantics but it's only a semiotics game. The reason for this is that it never really goes anywhere.

Consider this statement:

All swans are white.
This bird is a swan.
This bird is therefore white.

...what if the premise was false? (and yes, I know that's where induction comes in..)
In other words I'm saying, what if not all swans are white? What if they found a black swan..? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cygnus_atratus_Running.jpg)

In mathematics, you start with your elemental axioms and go from there.  All mathematical deductions start with those.  It's a lot like language, but you know what you're doing..

In language, it's an endless game of container-theories, and where did it start, and when are the premises true?

Worse, in language the words have significands that *are* meaningful in actuality, and that hurts when you misuse them..

Some people claim that a word's meaning *is* its definition.  This is actually false, because it's just an endless game of container-theories; a definition is an *apt* and *constructive* (read: rather than deductive, but partially deconstructive) way of 'explaining' a concept.  If all words' meanings were their definitions, you could define 'red' to enlighten a blind man.

And *I* probably could, but that doesn't prove me wrong here..

If all words' meanings were their definitions, then you could understand a whole language, if you took a long enough time, by reading their dictionary.  This is obviously impossible because, grammatical orderings notwithstanding, a dictionary can be described isomorphically (read: 'technically..') as a web of words linking to each other.  That is, you can read the entire web of word-linkages and if you're Kim Peak maybe you can remember it, but that won't tell you what any word in the dictionary means at all.

Yes, it *could*.. if you're imaginative to have figured out how, but that's only because you know a language already and it's pretty close to the other language in question because we all live on the same earth.  So it's sort-of like deciphering a letter-substitution code by knowing about letter-frequencies in its language of choice.

In principle, however, my point still stands; a word's meaning cannot be its definition.

Similarly to the sum or wavepool of intentionalities of the French in inventing a linguistic element in http://inhahesfavs.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-still-havent-figured-out-what.html, the real or *actual* meaning of a word is in the summation of all the people who've ever used it vis-a-vis the ways in which they've used it in every specific circumstance or scenario.. but don't make the mistake of thinking that means you must use the word in *that* way, by the book, according to the sum of its usage -- you're not a genera.  Every person's personality is a spin on the entire network, and hence each person's usage of a word is a spin on the entire word-net's *and* on the entire network..

In other words, it just expresses your personality...:P

And, of course, the network is varyingly linked and you're more likely to use or prefer words in the ways in which you've heard by listening to the media, talking with your friends and/or reading books.  That's aside from where personal creativity stands and comes in the way..

Neale Donald Walsch, in conspiration with God-allmighty, came up with an interesting list of subjects for classes.  Here's the list:

Understanding Power
Peaceful Conflict Resolution
Elements of a Loving Relationship
Personhood and Self Creation
Body, Mind, and Spirit: How They Function
Engaging Creativity
Celebrating Self, Valuing Others.
Joyous Sexual Expression
Fairness
Tolerance
Diversities and Similarities
Ethical Economics
Creative Consciousness and Mind Power
Awareness and Wakefulness
Honesty and Responsibility
Visibility and Transparency
Science and Spirituality

Please note, this is not a list of secondary subjects to teach in addition to the usual tripe; this is not optional.  The other option is not to have schools.  Also, I won't dare you by now to say that schools must not be mandatory.  Ok...?

When you send your kid to school, the process goes something like this:

Your kid was duped into believing you that school is a good thing when they were very young, because they trust everything and even you, despite how much you hurt them.  Also buildings are kinda fun..

Your intentions were good, if you define "good" as chicken-shit from the law, and anyway you kept up the speed-boat process by using a few reinforcement measures:

1) conditionified love.  That is, if they get bad grades on their report-cards, you may do one of the following, or even something else you came up with sometimes..:
  a) drown them out by cutting off their social contact and general liberties..  this consists of these parts:
    1) force of physical threat
    2) threat of calling the cops
    3) threat of the pain of tearing their heart apart with yelling..
  b) direct physical force itself, e.g. spanking (and by the way it's not right, and neither is the birth-slap.. and i won't get into novacane..  for presents re spanking read Norway. sigh. i'm tired of the long essays.)
  c) yelling at them, their heart is fragile enough after all that abuse of yours and yet they're not hurt unless they care.. they're children and their ultimatum in survival tactics is to remain human.
2) jevenile hall.  this one is not the fault of the parents; it's the fault of the Law..  Chuck Norris sued Law & Order for stealing the copyright on his two legs respectively: Law, and Order.
3) while we're speaking of the law, they can also - and this is the more likely scenario, as well as the more pertinent because we're speaking of parents who want to make their children go to school - take the children directly away from their parents.  now, as a citizen, here's how i would do it: Whether it's Juvy or #someone-else responsible for having your children taken away and given to #foster-parents, get yourself some resources and splatter brains on the wall.  it won't end well... it never does, but at least it gets some things accomplished..

By the way, one more thing I forgot.. i don't know quite where cursive was invented, but i know that it's used profusely in schools because the teachers are afraid of the pain of seeing the children write out their pain and psychal confusion in the broken slurry of lines and curves we call manuscript.. so they like cursive because it enforces beautification through conformity and dresses up the problem..

In another interesting story, in The Matrix Revolutions, the binary life-forms bore, literally drill, downward into the ground to kill off Zion.  Now, in both The Matrix and the Holy Bible, Zion represents a sanctuary, a last refuge of the genuinely living, perhaps..

Interestingly, in some teachers' circles, the way to teach math is referred to as the "drill and kill" method.  I'm sure it's not a coincidence, but whether you believe me or not, it's 'interesting' phraseology for how to treat a child.  Nothing comes out of a vacuum...well, Hawking radiation maybe, but he was wrong about the aliens anyway.

I can only joke about law because just because I'm the Sun doesn't mean I can wield magical powers, and I have too much respect for obama right now.

& here's the short, short version - it starts with jails..

i need a webserver.



--notes to be fulfilled later.--
another way of knowing
essay on other ways to use language
a little bit less conversation
link to the post about rock skipping.
link to post about poetry.
the master and his emissary.