Klitzing wrote:"meta" clearly is "beyond".
But not a "beyond" in the sense of "outside", "exterior", "around"
(that one better would be given by "hyper"),
rather in the sense of "beyond the so far mentioned".
That is, "meta" well could mean "inbetween", "intermediate" then too.
--- rk
As shown on my web site and implied in PDF, non-occupied space exists beyond the quasi-physical intermediate buffer-zone called gravity ergo metaphysical is beyond the quasi-physical and physical.
These are not complicated or complex abstractions and the PDF graphics depicts in 2D what I've intended in 3D.
As you say meta is clearly "beyond" so score one for agreement.
R6
rr6 wrote:0-- Abstract concepts space ergo intellect aka mind is metaphysical
-----------------------------
oo-- Macro-micro non-occupied space beyond our finite, occupied space Universe is metaphysical
( )-- finite, space occupying, quasi-physical gravity aka spacetime membrane(?) is metaphysical.
-O!O+ finite, space occupying, physical i.e. energy is the oscillating transitions between fermionic and bosonic existence.
That is three, cosmically most generalized forms of meta( beyond ).
Mind is concepts of space ergo meta-space is implied but not beyond not beyond intellectual concepts of space.
This is the first, cosmically distinct differentiation between mind( intellect ) and two catagories of space i.e. non-occupied space and occupied space.
If others cannot grasp these three elatively simple concepts then of the top of the heirachy ergo they are missing the concepts of the greatest set of wholeness.
Begin with the whole, and no parts can be left out....R.B. Fuller.....
Why most people, that, I attempt to communicate the above concepts have a mental block to non-occupied space, beyond our finite quasi-physical and physical Universe ideas of non-occupied space, is still a mystery to me.
I think it perhaps has to do with years of precondition thinking, makes it difficult for most people to think beyond all they have been told is existence. In fact that is the first error i.e. people tend to only think of space occupying as equaling existence, so to say there is an existence of non-occupied space beyond our experience is counter-intuitive.
However, all humans have the experience of a seemingly non-occupied space between two houses, or two trees, two auto-mobiles etc.....so, many of us know that a seemingly non-occupied space between two physical things is filled with other physical stuff we cannot see with our eyes.
So at this level of physical -O!O+ existence, as listed above we can can eventually arrive at the sub-category in the fermionic category of what we can visually see. It was Richard Feyman who firsted pointed out that pit vipers see in the infra-red( heat range ) which is invisible too human eyes, without being assisted by a an instrument.
r6
As shown on my web site and implied in PDF, non-occupied space exists beyond the quasi-physical intermediate buffer-zone called gravity ergo metaphysical is beyond the quasi-physical and physical.
These are not complicated or complex abstractions and the PDF graphics depicts in 2D what I've intended in 3D.
As you say meta is clearly "beyond" so score one for agreement.
R6
wendy wrote:These words have particular meanings. Use them correctly.
meta = in the middle of, amongst
quasi = as if,
ergo = therefore: non-occupied space does not imply beyond, and certianly not beyond = middle of. Next ye'd be saying that because Time square is in the middle of new york city, it is beyond it.
Klitzing wrote:Dear rr6,
don't be too harsh now. Wendy is clearly knowing what she tells. If she suggests "better" terms or "corrections", then she just tries to prevent clashes of meanings - might be ones in more general contexts.
Sure, it is up to you, to adopt those or not. But at least you should not be stubborn yourself, insisting on your own terms. If you won't like her suggestions, it would be wise at least to enter a discussion in the search for better terms for your aims.
Such phenomena occur often when bringing up some vocabulary from one context to an other. Esp. in cases of home-grown researches. Even research groups from different universities sometimes get into that.
Sometimes there is no way out, but to learn either meanings by heart, and will have to translate every announcement "of the other side". But if possible, one should aim to avoid that. - This is, what Wendy was pointing out.
Perhaps it might be that it is you who has not carefully read what she was telling you?
Btw., don't be disappointed by me either. I just come in to cool things down again.
If you would like to insist on your ideas / terms / etc. then it would be better to publish them in printed media. But as you've entered a forum, you clearly were willing to get discussions, no?
Best regards,
--- rk
Cardinal
10 ti'u
11 ellifu
12 tólf
...
100 tiú tigir
110 ellifu tigir
120 hundrað
200 hundrað ok átta tigir
240 tvau hundrað
1200 þúsund
Klitzing wrote:Can't speak of the medial englsh one, but to the romans "C" was considered 100, not 120.
Btw. german language has also old number names: Dutzend = 12 (engl.: dozen), Gros/Groß = 144 (engl.: gross).
An historical special importance of 120 is not known to me, so.
--- rk
wendy wrote:Fuller's 120 derives from the symmetry of the icosahedron. He was an architect with lots of sea experience, largely inappropriate for use on land.
The attached bitmap is for Richard Klitzing, who has not heard of Hundert being used to represent vi scores in german.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests