Nothing at all to do with keris.

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.

31st March 2010, 08:05 AM	#4
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.

21st March 2010, 09:30 AM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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	#5
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	#6
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.