Some time ago I had what I could best describe as a breakdown. And, although for the past several years I've been dealing with quite a lot of trauma, ironically, this breakdown was unrelated to that, as it was caused by uncertainty, or, to be more precise, my growing certainty of uncertainty. Bear with me long enough to explain the intricacies, though.
First thing, which is, of course, related, is that, lately, my thinking's getting more complex, or I perceive things as more complex then I perceived them before. This, I believe, is not seeing complexity where there is none, though, and comes from the increased knowledge on a range of subjects, which has made me see the mistake people so often make in reasoning and evaluating things, occurences and statements - simplifying.
Here's an example of a rather complex problem presented to me by someone:
Say you want to buy a videogame, and the price tag states that the price of the game is 2$ + half of the games price. This is an exact word for word here.
My first instinct is to replace the number with a variable, to simplify any operations. Next thing, however, is that for me, the above statement, even when rephrased, doesn't make sense.
My communication isn't that well, so chances are that I will be either not understood or misunderstood, but for me, the equation ends up going towards infinity.
The rather simple explanation, which baffled me, yet left me feeling a hole there, was as follows.
Price of game = X
X = 2 + 1/2X
Thus
X - 1/2X = 2
1/2X = 2
X = 4
Okay, in a way, this equation totally makes sense, but, even so, the statement itself is what leaves me not accepting it.
Price = X
Half of price = 1/2X
If we follow up what was in the simple equation above, yet hold onto the statement that price of the game is its price + the half of it, each time you calculate that price, you have to recalculate it. To me this occurs because I see the statement as something being itself, yet half more of itself.
If after calculations, price is now X = 4, then, price is, once again, this X = 4 + 1/2X = 8, then, again, and again, ad infinitum.
My alternative solution to this was to use two variables (keep in mind that the statement itself STILL does not make sense to me, and no matter how I tried to explain that, the other person did not understand me, it is the uncertainty created here that also made things hard - did the person not understand me because the way I perceived the statement was contradictory? Or was it because I couldn't communicate it properly? Or was it that I was right about the statement being contradictory, yet the person didn't perceive this contradiction? Or was it something else?)
So, onwards:
Price of game = X
Variable which we place instead of the number 2 in the equation will be Y
Half the price of the game = 1/2X
X = Y + 1/2X
1/2X = Y
X = 2Y
This is completely compatible with the first solution. No problem in the solution. The problem, as I'm repeating once again, is the presentation of the statement, or, rather, my resistance to statements when the value of something is increased by itself, because, from the way I see it, each time it is increased (each time the result is calculated), if we really hold onto the statement, to me it seems that it should increase itself again.
Some while ago, incidentally, I had stumbled on something really simiar to this, in a Doom3 mod script (for those interested, this script piece was essential to make incremental spread in relation to time one holds the trigger, so that, for precision, the player should shoot in small bursts).
The part of the script that matters is this:
gradual_spread = gradual_spread + spread_incre_factor * (1 - (attackDiff /maxAttackDiff));
Once again the same problem for me (maybe it's because I skimped on math in the last grades, maybe there is a solution to this I don't know of, or maybe there is no problem there [which, might I add, is the most tragic case, because then I will *NEED* someone to explain it to me thoroughly enough until I get it] and I'm just in the wrong)
Paraphrasing the above equation with variables.
Z = Z + F * (1 - (U/I))
Using a simple approach here eliminates Z altogether, so that does not work here.
Using any other approach I can think of makes it larger every time it's calculated (which is the necessary part for the script) until it reaches a limit, if one is set.
Now there are two ways for statements like these to have limits. Within the statement itself. Basically, you calculate it only a certain number of times and then that's that, or, with the variable having a numerical limit.
In the first example (price of game) there was no limit stated, so it really depends on how one looks at it. In the latter, there was a limit, without which the problem would be exactly the same.
If I made any errors there, I urge you to present and explain them to me.
Okay, this part is out. Next part is something I've been dealing with for some time, too, but hadn't given it much thought, which is the problem of definition.
To explain, I will start with a rather simple question:
What makes pizza a pizza?
Sure, this sounds absurd and all that, but, from what I've noticed, oftentimes something seemingly absurd can have a rather intricate meaning lying under it. Often, when someone says something that just doesn't seem to make sense, it can make sense if one digs deeper.
Digging further.
How a pizza is pizza and a shoe is not?
How a pizza is more of a pizza than a shoe?
And now, the kicker:
The thing I'm trying to get across is that pizza is only a pizza because it is called so, and it is called so, well, because it is called so, and it is called so, because within this certain linguistical system we agreed that the word (which, itself, a collection of symbols making another symbol) pizza is used to describe a pizza, and not a shoe. Intrinsically, there is no more connection between the word pizza and the actual object - pizza, than there would be if we would refer to the object - pizza with any other set of symbols, be those numbers, letters or seemingly random smearings.
That might seem confusing, of course, and it confuses me too, in a way, but things only seem confusing if you know enough about them to get the confusion, but not enough to clear that confusion out.
Going on a slight tangent, yet, related. Letters are symbols, each of which are, in the spoken languages, used to illustrate sounds. S is an s because it sounds like an s in the sense of it being pronounced, and there is no error for me there, but the shape of the symbol S has no connection to the sound other than the one we made up. We could as well as use * to write down an S sound, and it would make just as much sense. And from that on, it would make exactly as much sense if we used, to describe the object - pizza, a set of symbols like this: ))@$*1&h@?k. Pretty common sense, it seems now, you'd say, hence the reason why different languages have different sets of symbols (and sometimes different symbols themselves) to describe the same object. The only words, that, at least in a relative sense, have intrinsic meaning, are onomatopoeias, which are words that are used to describe exactly the things they sound like. A meow is a meow because a meow sounds like a meow.
Here I got off track, it seems like I'm missing some point in my above musings, so I'll have to cultivate that, but onto the next point, which is also quite strongly related.
P is a symbol
I is a symbol
Z is a symbol
A is a symbol
Each of these symbols stand for something.
Combining them, however, in certain ways, creates another symbol.
So words themselves are symbols made of symbols. Okay, heading onwards.
If letters, numbers, etc are symbols that are used to construct more symbols, can a sentence be viewed as a symbol as well?
To me, it seems that it's not always the case.
P symbolizes something
Pizza symbolizes something else, but it needs the P symbol in the right place to symbolize exactly the thing it symbolizes. Of course, we could understand if someone wrote ppizza, or pizzzzzza, or pizzaa, that the word is refering to the object - pizza, but that would be because we already agreed that word pizza symbolizes object - pizza, from which, then, with associations, we understand other deviations of that word/symbol.
Would you be understand what I meant if I wrote you an invitation like the following?
Let's order some )(-.>**!
I meant let's order some kebabs (bet you thought it was going to be pizza, no, I have to keep you alert).
Yet, outside the symbolic system, or, maybe, in another system, that makes perfect sense, or, at least, as much sense, if I actually wrote the word kebabs.
We rely on symbols all our life, often not noticing the huge role they have in our life. As we learn more symbols, we are able to learn more symbols, then we learn about their symbolic interactions and relationships between each other in a certain system, and, before we know it, we cannot escape their grasp. We no longer see a brick as just a blunt, rectangular object of a certain color, it is a brick. When we see a brick we don't think: "Hey, a bordeau colored rectangled object." We see a brick, and, by a chance, we will always see it as a brick once we know that it's a brick, or, at least, that it's called that.
Yet another related thought to this I had is that it might be both beneficial and not if you were listening to a song which was sung in a language you comprehend.
In the case where you don't comprehend the language, you are not familiar with the symbols used, you perceive the words as a bunch of phonetics. Sounds. Nothing more. But once, if ever, you come to learn and understand that language, the experience of listening to the song will never be the same again, no matter how you try, after this change you will not be able to NOT pay attention to the meaning of each of the symbols used. Of course, if the words sung were similar to any you have encountered before, association would kick in and transfer meaning from the associated symbol to the newly perceived one, but, if you come across something you never encountered before, that experience is in itself pure.
Of course, once you familiarize yourself with the symbols used, you see it differently, which is why, when I was a small kid and didn't know english, as I listened to songs that were sung in english, I only perceived it the way I described it above, but after that, well, that's a whole new story, really.
Which leads me to remembering that today I had a thought to find some music in Latin. Why? Well, it's considered a dead language, it sounds (emphasis on sounds, I don't know Latin for shit) quite intriguing to my ears, and the experiment could help me understand what I have been trying to communicate to you here. After some time I may or may not want to know what the actual song is about, what is the meaning behind the symbols, or, to be more precise, what is the meaning ascribed to those symbols.
As for the person who has either suffered or skimmed through the whole text up to this point, take this as an invitation to explore something unknown. That's the intriguing thing for me with the 'weird' music. When you've listened to it for years and heard the same sounds over and over, once you hear new sounds, or enough deformed deviations of sounds heard previously, it is quite an experience, really, and this applies not only to music.
And this leads me to another thing that has frustrated me for a while, but I've exhausted myself, and, possibly, by reading this, if you really tried to understand, you may feel exhausted too (unless none of this was new to you and you had thought it over years ago, in which case, great, present me with your findings, for I am interested, my dear, yet I'm not sure in what exactly).
By the way, if you got this far, and have forgotten how I started this entry, check the beggining once again. Thought trains, ibiorio.
- Wall of text crits you for 13'507
- You die.
Eh, WoWtimes.
