(no subject)
Dec. 19th, 2005 09:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaI've been working on the Rheomic project.
In my last post on the subject i asked, "[H]ow do I come up with a way to say a sentence like, "My dog is playing on the front lawn"? The problem is parsing this perception in a way that does not divide into subject-verb-object, which is the whole point of the endeavor to create a verb-based language that captures perception in terms of flow.
I have a start on an answer to that. The verb-flow at the center of the thought is play, in this case specifically the kind of play of a dog on the lawn. There is also a flow of interbeing between the playing dog and the observing speaker; the observer's amusement -- or lack thereof -- feeds back into the dog's enthusiasm and enjoyment -- or eventual lack thereof -- of his play. There is also an archetypal flow, the emotional and cultural flows of comfort and world-at-ease brought up by the experience in general of watching a dog at play. The last part is implied in the making of a statement and so does not have to be explicitly stated. The second part, the interbeing between playing dog and observer, i want to bring to mindfulness with at least a grammatical particle expressing, in a word, how the speaker feels about what she is describing.
So the sentence in Rheomic would have a literal translation of "Play 'dogly' flows, and mutual-amusement-comfort-affection flows." Or, alternately, if it entails a different emotional dynamic, "Play 'dogly' flows, then annoyance-impatience flows towards this flow to dampen the flow of play, then obstinance-disobedience characterizes the flow of play."
I don't know yet how to speak about where and only a vague idea of how to speak about when.
Edit. The implication of this linguistic style of parsing is that it downplays the notion of will and volition, where actors are seen as agents guiding the course of events. Rather, events are depicted as flows which sometimes occur via living beings (which are themselves flows). The implications of this kind of view are manyfold... The dog isn't even parsed out as a specific element; the statement is not about the dog but about the playing that's going on. Note also that there would be no way to translate "my" into Rheomic, at least easily. These are all things which were stated as desirable from the project's outset.
In my last post on the subject i asked, "[H]ow do I come up with a way to say a sentence like, "My dog is playing on the front lawn"? The problem is parsing this perception in a way that does not divide into subject-verb-object, which is the whole point of the endeavor to create a verb-based language that captures perception in terms of flow.
I have a start on an answer to that. The verb-flow at the center of the thought is play, in this case specifically the kind of play of a dog on the lawn. There is also a flow of interbeing between the playing dog and the observing speaker; the observer's amusement -- or lack thereof -- feeds back into the dog's enthusiasm and enjoyment -- or eventual lack thereof -- of his play. There is also an archetypal flow, the emotional and cultural flows of comfort and world-at-ease brought up by the experience in general of watching a dog at play. The last part is implied in the making of a statement and so does not have to be explicitly stated. The second part, the interbeing between playing dog and observer, i want to bring to mindfulness with at least a grammatical particle expressing, in a word, how the speaker feels about what she is describing.
So the sentence in Rheomic would have a literal translation of "Play 'dogly' flows, and mutual-amusement-comfort-affection flows." Or, alternately, if it entails a different emotional dynamic, "Play 'dogly' flows, then annoyance-impatience flows towards this flow to dampen the flow of play, then obstinance-disobedience characterizes the flow of play."
I don't know yet how to speak about where and only a vague idea of how to speak about when.
Edit. The implication of this linguistic style of parsing is that it downplays the notion of will and volition, where actors are seen as agents guiding the course of events. Rather, events are depicted as flows which sometimes occur via living beings (which are themselves flows). The implications of this kind of view are manyfold... The dog isn't even parsed out as a specific element; the statement is not about the dog but about the playing that's going on. Note also that there would be no way to translate "my" into Rheomic, at least easily. These are all things which were stated as desirable from the project's outset.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 10:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 06:28 pm (UTC)You might find a book by Rabbi David A. Cooper, God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judism, interesting. It talks of rethinking our subject/object linguistic relationship to the world and instead of, for example, "being
God is not an agent of action, in this sense, but the action itself: "Godding" describes what we now term as existence.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 12:45 am (UTC)I've been meaning to put Whitehead on the queue with relevance to this as well.
Bohm mentions that the original structure of Hebrew is verb-centered, and so "God as action" or "God as process" is definitely compatible with Jewish mysticism. (::Homer Simpson voice:: Lousy Tertullian and his substantia...)