::Please don’t mind the cheesy title. . 

::Haha, hi.

::Good, you’re here. Ye.

::So, tell me. I’m listening.  

::Uh, you start? I’ll tune in to some music.

::I am in a fix. I don’t know whether the fundamentals we have built our intellectual castles upon are strong enough to withstand it. I believe, no matter what you do or say, it should have some connection to meaning. It should not, not mean anything. All language, be it English or Maths, should always strive to convey meaning. I do not see the meaning in meaningless propositions.  

::Of course, there is no meaning with the meaningless propositions. I mean it clearly says that, meaningless. But the primal obstacle to the physicality of things and conviction of language to achieve always leave room for an abstract disparity, which also makes the most fascinating poetry, I think. Probably, you know. I don’t know if they care enough, if they teach enough in classes or in lives to tackle this broad abstraction.

Also, i think as long as we are here, Sunset lover seems like this perfect song because not much words. Haha. You go.

::It does not necessarily have to leave room for an abstract disparity.  Abstraction arises when you give language the control of your throttle. It takes you, just anywhere. Using language to describe something around you or inside you, is what its purpose should be. There can be a lot of permutations of one word, but it doesn’t always mean something, does it? That’s all I’m trying to say. Use the tool. Don’t stare at it. You.

::Maybe on many levels, in many situations and even you know sometimes, in the same situations the permutations of one word do mean something. However, how we can, most consciously and without no conflict give language the complete throttle, i cannot fathom. I think at one point of space, it falls short and you know, it is much more than the tool we think and use it to be. Language are used to determine and most of the times assess facts; we can’t deny facts, which in turn give rise to logic which only seem the natural successor to human intuition and thereby are the ultimate judgement on our questions or more precisely our search for answers of the very same. What happens is that, when something is that gigantic in its fundamental nature how do we at times not fall prey to it, how do we use it without being involved in it in such an amazing way where is starts to influence our questions and their answers and gets the disparity up. Go.

::It’s really simple how to not fall prey to it. You want to make sense of something, you go about it, try explaining it with different languages, and you see which is the closest description of what you’re trying to describe. However, if your livelihood is thriving on you creating confusion in the masses, and thereby attaching an intellectual tag to it, just because the common man cannot understand what you’re trying to say, should most definitely create an abstraction. Real intellectualism lies in simplicity, sometimes maybe even trickled down from complexity. You go.

::Not much to say here except the old maxim that, easier said than done. If these were the beautiful way we worked and maintained and identified with ourselves with such clear, simple and apt definitions, we would not have any intellectual bewilderment. It’s not really scientific, all our enquiries of how nature works or does not or this or that. In the face of that it has been over time and becoming deeply ingrained in the probably cultural syntax or linguistic expressions which are difficult to just upturn right now. These are the premise of probably all the confusion around, confusion of the masses, confusion about the masses. Just like that problem we were discussing about dimensions? Mathematical, physical or contextually in any manner, it induced a broad mess of the true understanding of nature, or thereby any questions we might have. You go.

::I like maxims. Here, it’s easier done than said! You just have to simply and clearly pursue what you’re trying to. I don’t see any difficulty in that, if one is true to oneself, that is. I think if we’ve made logic our God of thought, then the most logical thing to do is to do it simple and clear, if you have an intention to really do it, that is. Care has to be taken of the jargon. In fact, the most essential task is to lay anything out clearly, just the way it is. I do not know why people find it so tough. If you don’t know, you simply say I don’t know! “I don’t know’’ is the greatest possibility in one’s life, because it gives you a definitive reason to pursue it. They talk about several dimensions, dark matter, and what not. In the true sense of the theories, neither are the dimensions they talk about physical(yet), nor is the matter which is dark as they say it, really matter! I think the world media should look and state and ask, just the way things are, which is why, media needs people in it who speak the language of whatever it is that they’re laying out in front of the masses.You go.

::No more to say, haha. That was what we need, that is what we wanted to go for. It really requires just some simple common sweet sense to talk properly and communicate in more efficient ways than this and know where language in only but, language. If i should go on to be a bit more derivative, the Wittgenstein, especially and controversially so (as Wittgenstein was most times) said or mostly curated as, “On this conception of the philosophical enterprise, the vagueness of ordinary usage is not a problem to be eliminated but rather the source of linguistic riches. It is misleading even to attempt to fix the meaning of particular expressions by linking them referentially to things in the world. The meaning of a word or phrase or proposition is nothing other than the set of (informal) rules governing the use of the expression in actual life. Like the rules of a game, Wittgenstein argued, these rules for the use of ordinary language are neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false: they are merely useful for the particular applications in which we apply them. The members of any community—cost accountants, college students, or rap musicians, for example—develop ways of speaking that serve their needs as a group, and these constitute the language they employ. Human beings at large constitute a greater community within which similar, though more widely-shared, language-games get played. Although there is little to be said in general about language as a whole, therefore, it may often be fruitful to consider in detail the ways in which particular portions of the language are used.

Even the fundamental truths of arithmetic, Wittgenstein now supposed, are nothing more than relatively stable ways of playing a particular language-game. This account rejects both logicist and intuitionist views of mathematics in favor of a normative conception of its use. 2 + 3 = 5 is nothing other than a way we have collectively decided to speak and write, a handy, shared language-game. The point once more is merely to clarify the way we use ordinary language about numbers.”

It’s long, a lot of long things but worth it. Go on, I have no more to say, no more words. Haha. You go.

::I should admit, that whatever I have said, is inclining towards Utopia. If we really had people in the world who said exactly what they wanted to, without a sense of hesitation or conceit, we wouldn’t be talking about this tonight. It’s really tough to do a simple task simply when you yourself strive for complexity, because the society itself breeds it. Saying no more. Haha.

::Differing with you out of sheer sincerity and not simply to keep the devil’s advocate rolling, I think it is not Utopia you wished for. Yes, it is difficult beyond expression to emphasize the fact enough about speaking out right, it surely should not be as far as Utopia sounds, that’s a sham to our institution of intellect. That much we should strive to be, that much we could just be. I think it’s just some people way too much but some mass view could be shaped up alright. Just bein’ plain optimistic, or probably it’s just been a very thoughtful day, my brain’s fried lol.

::“I don’t know who you are, I don’t know what you want, but what I have is a very specific set of skills. I will find you, and I will simplify you.”

::Russell would’ve been proud, son. Done are we?

::When are we ever done?

::Welcome to Vemodalen Conference, ladies and gentlemen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s