288
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 534:
Line 534: + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words (view source)
Revision as of 05:55, December 2, 2009
, 05:55, December 2, 2009clarification?
::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a bit confused: you dwell on trivial points of logic but I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. If I understand this rightly then the entire post is basically trivial, so perhaps I'm missing something. In any case, what this has to do with memes I'm not sure.
:::So tell me if I have the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding arguments? Then I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. In any case, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. Did I get it? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)