sondheim at gmail.com
Tue May 18 17:09:15 CEST 2021
It's in Limassol, Cyprus, and trompe l'oeil (sp??) paintings on houses in a
small back area. It's wonderful! Limassol is wonderful!
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:52 AM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
> That photograph is fantastic! Where is it, and who's the artist?
> On 17/05/2021 01:37, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> > Theory
> > http://www.alansondheim.org/P1050632.JPG
> > "Theories don't give meaning, but they limit the kinds of
> > meanings we can give."
> > - from Judith Roitman, Introduction to Modern Set Theory, 3rd
> > edition, 2013, p. 29
> > I've been having a really difficult time with this book; at this
> > point I don't have the background to read it, but I'm trying in
> > any case. But this sentence seems remarkable to me, and what it
> > might imply in general. Theory becomes, not explanatory, but
> > descriptive of the limits of meaning. Bear with me. Think of a
> > theory has describing the underlying, scaffolding of a domain or
> > domains which are always both leaky and circumscribed. (For
> > example, particle theory, cosmology, quantum theory, and so
> > forth.) The theory elucidates the scaffolding within limits. What
> > is the phenomenology of meaning in this regard - for example
> > Einstein's "The Meaning of Relativity"? I'm talking I fear, on
> > the level of high-school philosophy here. If one construes
> > meaning within a particular domain - energy for example - one
> > might say "The meaning of energy is E = Mc^2." It's a translation
> > from one language, perhaps to another. It explains. The meaning
> > lies in the explanation. But suppose theory does the opposite -
> > limits explanation, not by offering a (provable?) equivalence,
> > but by indicating the limits of the meaningful. This idea (and
> > I'm sure I'm misreading all over the place) might indicate that
> > theory is a form of paring-away at one ontological domain, by
> > re-producing something more or less true within the epistemo-
> > logical. To continue on my high-school (or earlier) level, for
> > example, if God is ontology, and gravity epistemology, then one
> > way of looking at this might be to consider that God and "God"
> > are weakened by the structural "leaking" of gravitational theory.
> > In terms of my own thinking re: somatic ghosting, the "leaking"
> > from analog to digital apparently empties the body of its
> > gristle, at least on a popular level; the resulting dubious
> > ontology of the body slides into, and is subsumed by, the fabric
> > of over-arching digital epistemologies, which appear as the
> > horizon of fundamental praxis itself. I'm aware that nothing can
> > be said sensibly within such a paragraph as this; on the other
> > hand, there is something in the quote which resonate, as if some
> > other and perhaps more skeletal appearance were present,
> > disturbances in the current and past order of things.
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
*directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel
718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour