Nothing at all to do with keris.

ganjawulung · 21st March 2010, 04:54 AM

Interesting topic on interesting book,

May i quote this interesting statement of Mr van Deemter on vagueness, as Alan posted in this thread:

...In the course of this book, it will become clear that vagueness is
everywhere: if you believe a concept to be completely crisp, then examine
it more closely and it will often prove to be vague. Size-denoting terms
such as ‘small’ and ‘large’ are obviously vague, for example, but so are
colour terms, at least in ordinary language, where sharp boundaries are
not artificially imposed on them...

and also,

...The aim of this book is to explore how vagueness works, and why it
pervades communication. It is part and parcel of this enterprise to ask
why vagueness is not always a bad thing: we shall see that sometimes
vagueness is simply unavoidable, while on other occasions vagueness is
actually preferable to precision. We shall also devote considerable space
to discussing the implications of our findings for the construction of
Artificially Intelligent systems, which are slowly but surely starting to be
endowed with a human-like capacity to produce and understand ordinary
language....

We deal with vagueness, everyday, in our Warung kopi here. Are we all crisp? As Waroeng itself, in the daily meaning in Jawa is also a place of "vagueness" in the sense of people in Jawanese waroeng, sometimes will talk about serious things -- whether it is political matter, or criminal matter, even moral matter -- in a vague way....

GANJAWULUNG

A. G. Maisey · 21st March 2010, 09:30 AM

Think about tangguh --- or any other classificatory system for that matter --- in terms of the sorites paradox.

Consider the reversal of poles in linguistics.

Consider the point at which the vague becomes crisp, the threshold of relative certainty, and then consider this relationship to Eubulides.

When used in a matrixical form with the elements of supposed "keris knowledge" the concepts addressed in this book cannot fail to amuse.

Laowang · 24th March 2010, 04:29 AM

Jorge Luis Borges, in his essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", mentions an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia in which:

animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.

He concludes:

It is clear that there is no classification of the Universe that is not arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what kind of thing the universe is.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

A. G. Maisey · 31st March 2010, 05:15 AM

I was caught in a line of traffic this morning.

In front of me was great big aggressive looking SUV , that was being driven by a very clean-cut middle aged man wearing the reversed collar of a clergyman.

When I read his bumper sticker i just couldn't help but relate it to this thread:-

Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matthew 5 : 37

Again, nothing to do with keris --- or maybe everything to do with keris.

drdavid · 31st March 2010, 08:05 AM

Sombunall....is a word created by the rather off beat iconoclast writer Robert Anton Wilson, first mentioned in his book 'The New Inquisition'
He describes it as a word we badly need for describing many situations, things and ideas.........it stops us from getting stuck in the black/white, night/day, on/off etc dichotomy of thinking
It means 'some but not all'
In essence our perceptions involve abstractions (we only perceive part of a thing at any one time), we then generalise from groups of abstractions and come up with rules or facts and assume we KNOW something
In actuality we never know all, at best we know sombunall

David · 31st March 2010, 01:26 PM

Awesome Dr D. Another R.A. Wilson fan. I've read quite a bit of his work and saw him lecture a few times.

A. G. Maisey · 1st April 2010, 05:10 AM

Yes, true:- we all have only a part of knowledge in any field, and maybe what we regard as knowledge is not really knowledge at all.

I had never heard of R.A. Winston.

So I googleised him.

After reading a little bit about him I realised just how very fitting the quote on the bumper sticker might be.

21st March 2010, 04:54 AM	#1
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	Vagueness Interesting topic on interesting book, May i quote this interesting statement of Mr van Deemter on vagueness, as Alan posted in this thread: ...In the course of this book, it will become clear that vagueness is everywhere: if you believe a concept to be completely crisp, then examine it more closely and it will often prove to be vague. Size-denoting terms such as ‘small’ and ‘large’ are obviously vague, for example, but so are colour terms, at least in ordinary language, where sharp boundaries are not artificially imposed on them... and also, ...The aim of this book is to explore how vagueness works, and why it pervades communication. It is part and parcel of this enterprise to ask why vagueness is not always a bad thing: we shall see that sometimes vagueness is simply unavoidable, while on other occasions vagueness is actually preferable to precision. We shall also devote considerable space to discussing the implications of our findings for the construction of Artificially Intelligent systems, which are slowly but surely starting to be endowed with a human-like capacity to produce and understand ordinary language.... We deal with vagueness, everyday, in our Warung kopi here. Are we all crisp? As Waroeng itself, in the daily meaning in Jawa is also a place of "vagueness" in the sense of people in Jawanese waroeng, sometimes will talk about serious things -- whether it is political matter, or criminal matter, even moral matter -- in a vague way.... GANJAWULUNG Last edited by ganjawulung; 21st March 2010 at 07:32 AM.

31st March 2010, 08:05 AM	#5
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 372	Sombunall....is a word created by the rather off beat iconoclast writer Robert Anton Wilson, first mentioned in his book 'The New Inquisition' He describes it as a word we badly need for describing many situations, things and ideas.........it stops us from getting stuck in the black/white, night/day, on/off etc dichotomy of thinking It means 'some but not all' In essence our perceptions involve abstractions (we only perceive part of a thing at any one time), we then generalise from groups of abstractions and come up with rules or facts and assume we KNOW something In actuality we never know all, at best we know sombunall Last edited by drdavid; 31st March 2010 at 11:23 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

21st March 2010, 09:30 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Think about tangguh --- or any other classificatory system for that matter --- in terms of the sorites paradox. Consider the reversal of poles in linguistics. Consider the point at which the vague becomes crisp, the threshold of relative certainty, and then consider this relationship to Eubulides. When used in a matrixical form with the elements of supposed "keris knowledge" the concepts addressed in this book cannot fail to amuse.

24th March 2010, 04:29 AM	#3
Laowang Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: 40˚00' N, 83˚00' W Posts: 52	Jorge Luis Borges, in his essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", mentions an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia in which: animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance. He concludes: It is clear that there is no classification of the Universe that is not arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what kind of thing the universe is. I think that sums it up pretty well.

31st March 2010, 05:15 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I was caught in a line of traffic this morning. In front of me was great big aggressive looking SUV , that was being driven by a very clean-cut middle aged man wearing the reversed collar of a clergyman. When I read his bumper sticker i just couldn't help but relate it to this thread:- Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matthew 5 : 37 Again, nothing to do with keris --- or maybe everything to do with keris.

31st March 2010, 01:26 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Awesome Dr D. Another R.A. Wilson fan. I've read quite a bit of his work and saw him lecture a few times.

1st April 2010, 05:10 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes, true:- we all have only a part of knowledge in any field, and maybe what we regard as knowledge is not really knowledge at all. I had never heard of R.A. Winston. So I googleised him. After reading a little bit about him I realised just how very fitting the quote on the bumper sticker might be.