Solid State up to Bat

1) Big Bang theory assumes some point in the past there was no time.

2) Using Existential Graphs we can reason about #1: by postulating 1) that the Sheet of Assertion represents space, and 2) that the Line of Identity represents time.

3) To interpret #1 and make it clear refer to the geometric theorem of the Pythagorean theorem that the smallest distance between two points is a straight line.

4) If there were no time a point would not become a line, assuming that a point is an abstract representation of a spatial location without size.

5) This is analogous to Big Bang theory, however the problem is not the physical science, but the formal science.

6) If time were not necessary, the second axiom of Existential Graphs would not be necessary. So, the second axiom is necessary to express some fact about the first axiom.

7) Therefore, Big Bang theory has an inconsistency, but not in physical theory, rather in formal theory.

2 Axioms

A1- D.O. - F(s): Space: Sheet of Assertion

A2 - I.O. - F(t): Time: Line of Identity

Grued

 I can take the semantic content of July16, 2024:

“Hegel is the sine qua non of relevant history to our problem. To interpret the most difficult to the easiest semantics would take you through Godel’s theorems. However this is not our subject. The proper object to be observed is (I.O.)“its familiar determinations.”

and change the (I.O.) to (D.O.) and still derive the same conclusion.

I see Kant’s use of Dasein as existence, which has a Spatial quality to it. But exist is not a real predicate for him, foreshadowing the failure of the transcendental deduction. Hegel’s Dasein as the indefinite immediate is likewise problematic in applying an index to it due to the former spatial constraint and now a temporal one. My former signification of it as a I.O. was a hurried attempt to express it, and is meritoriously criticized.  However, the debate over Subject and Object in grammar is mediated by Peirce’s development of the D.O. and I.O., respectively. In fact, he has transitional rules for translating the I.O. to an D.O., and vice versa, which to my knowledge has not been published yet.

To the point: “The hard-ness of a diamond carries its semantics into future instantiations that are met with in experience” does not entail confusing Dasein, or the sign in this case, as an existent. Mediums with less physically verifiable semantics are just as path-worthy when wearing the boots of dynamic object. The sign is still determined by its object, and thereby determines an interpretant, which is why Peirce proclaimed that a Diamond never met with in experience is just as hard as one that is, because this is what we mean when we use language consistently, minus the Grue and fancy poetry.

This last point is what is entailed in placing the three branches of government into an Existential Graph. This is what the language of the law would mean when used consistently.

N.B.: we should not think of human being in terms of a sign. Rather Peirce was fond of saying Man is a Symbol. Perhaps future man will be a symbol minus particular psychologistic notions as time goes on.

Note on the Plan

 Guénon, René, and Marco Pallis. Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. Luzac & Co., London, 1945, p.81.

“This very brief survey will make it plain why in the East there cannot exist anything comparable with the Western nations; the reason is that the appearance of nations within a civilization is undoubtedly the sign of a partial dissolution due to the loss of the element which constitutes its basic unity.”

Interpretation:

Hindu religion is not a top down structure like nationalism. It is a lived experience shared by individuals who are able to reflect the essence of their experience in their lives. If I were to interpret anything into Leo Strauss’ last publication, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, it would be this dichotomy between philosophy and religion, on the one hand, and politics and morality, on the other, interpreted Semeiotically.

Solution to Movement in Virtual Reality Environments

This is a mere essay toward the development of a useful, and fun technology. The solution is robotics. I can’t say how many types of robotic configurations I have seen, however it became apparent when I witnessed a room of small dog like rovers “exercising” all in sequence: push-ups, arm and leg extensions, down, up, backward forward … 

I thought, what if you turned that think over and put a foot hold on one of their limbs? That’s it. Problem, or at least conception, solved. To keep you from breaking your legs, some sort of sensor or guard could be implemented. And, perhaps a harness, suspended from above, to keep you from falling over.

Some may decry combinatorics. Indeed, there is a way.

Objectivity?

There is no subject in the economic rationality of Marxism; there is in Marxist revolution, but the ‘founding fathers’ have left us no thoughts about it while the academic Marxologists of today can hardly wait to get rid both of meaning and of the subject in the name of some ‘objective’ process …

Julia Kristeva, The System and the Speaking Subject

Baubo speaks: Olive Juice I.O.

Revised Interpretive Frame for O.L.M.

 

Revised Theory of Proposition