As a further consideration.... on the topic of "silence"..... einseele
What would you say on this if the "silence" is in the absence of any sort of "possibly cognizant" being? The old saw...Does a tree falling in the forest make any sound if there is no one there to hear it? But I don't want to be that completely restrictive, let's say that there is only one "cognizant being" and the rest is silence...... You or I or anyone is left solely within one's own "head"....no need to talk or communicate with oneself, is there? And even if the single cognizant being did interact only with the "silent world" and did proceed to learn or develop (intellectually) alone..... How far could that Single Silet Cognizant Being Get, on his or her own.....? Does a single cognizant being living in the Universe make any sound if there is no one there to hear it? Silence (with meaning) doesn't make sense to me... you need communication, and at least two people for it to work. nominal9 On Oct 2, 9:07 am, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > This group is lately almost silent > My subject is linguistics, so I will take advantage of this silence to > point the obvious, which is usually not so clear. > > When talking, in any language, there is always a silent portion/ > segment, words, letters, sentences, need that silence to identify > itselves. > > Also when we write. Silence when we write is represented by "empty" > space. > > There is empty space in all cases, or silence. Being perhaps the most > important component of language. > > Even if I write: > > thisgroupislatelyalmostsilentmysubjectislinguisticssoiwilltakeadvantageofthissilencetopointtheobviouswhichisusuallynotsoclear > > Even so, to convey any meaning the reader will add "missing" "empty" > space to the above, which is the first sentence of this post. > > Silence, empty space, or whatever instance this represents, conveys > meaning. It is not null, but empty. This means that in language, > emptiness is treated the same way as any positive sign. > > As in computer science as well, where the sign "0" represents the > absence of a material dot. > Binary systems need 2 values and curiously, the first is "0" > > That absence has no lesser status that any other sign, and more than > that is needed as part of the system. > > If this is valid to language, and there are a lot of languages (also > not human), why should be any different in Physics, or Nature, or > Chemistry, whatever. > > It is hard to see out there knowledge approaches talking about > emptiness in this sense, there are examples of course. Poetry for > instance, and many other. > > rgds --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
