|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 25, 2021 18:30:37 GMT
- What is it the context?
- And is it possible for the context to be measured?
Different resources, and thinking of it deeply as well, say that to get the meaning of something we have to get something additionally, and that addition is the context. So, let's write it formally:
S + C = M (1)
by this forumala for any something we should have a context to understand its meaning. Honestly, this formula (1) sees to be closely to this one:
S + R = P (2)
that can be translated into to get properties of something we should've got some relations of that something. Since in two those formulas S is being taken in common, so:
M − C = R − P (3)
It must be clear now if in some cases the context is the same as properties, then the meaning will be equal to the relations:
If C = P, then M = R (4)
Sincerely, I wouldn't trust neither to (4), nor to (2) and (3). I think they must've been rewritten into:
P + R = S (2')
Then the rest will be:
M − C = P + R (3')
Finally, we can't be close to what the meaning is:
M = P + R + C (4')
But this formula tells nothing about the context, so let's reformulate it:
C = M − P − R (5)
This formula we've got is a little weird, why according to this formula there must be something else, except for properties and relations? And what that else must be? Trying to achieve the answer on this question is the same as to ask about the measuring the context. According to the law of the content from the traditional logic we can have this:
M = I/E (6)
What this law means and what is E, and what I mean? It can be read as the larger the number of specific cases by which we determine an object to the total number of cases for determination of this object, the more larger the meaning of this object. So that E means - the extention, or the total number of cases, and I means the intentional number or specific number of relevant cases. Putting (6) into (5), we've got:
C = I/E − P − R (7)
Generally, we want to try to find the key formula, so:
C = I − P/E − R/E (8)
To measure the context one needs to find the number of specific cases for this S, then to exclude the number of the properties of this S comparaly to the general number of properties (for this case), and to exclude the number of specific relations to this S comparaly to the general number of relations (for this case).
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 26, 2021 16:29:30 GMT
- What is it the context?
- And is it possible for the context to be measured?
Different resources, and thinking of it deeply as well, say that to get the meaning of something we have to get something additionally, and that addition is the context. So, let's write it formally:
S + C = M (1)
by this forumala for any something we should have a context to understand its meaning. Honestly, this formula (1) sees to be closely to this one:
S + R = P (2)
that can be translated into to get properties of something we should've got some relations of that something. Since in two those formulas S is being taken in common, so:
M − C = R − P (3)
It must be clear now if in some cases the context is the same as properties, then the meaning will be equal to the relations:
If C = P, then M = R (4)
Sincerely, I wouldn't trust neither to (4), nor to (2) and (3). I think they must've been rewritten into:
P + R = S (2')
Then the rest will be:
M − C = P + R (3')
Finally, we can't be close to what the meaning is:
M = P + R + C (4')
But this formula tells nothing about the context, so let's reformulate it:
C = M − P − R (5)
This formula we've got is a little weird, why according to this formula there must be something else, except for properties and relations? And what that else must be? Trying to achieve the answer on this question is the same as to ask about the measuring the context. According to the law of the content from the traditional logic we can have this:
M = I/E (6)
What this law means and what is E, and what I mean? It can be read as the larger the number of specific cases by which we determine an object to the total number of cases for determination of this object, the more larger the meaning of this object. So that E means - the extention, or the total number of cases, and I means the intentional number or specific number of relevant cases. Putting (6) into (5), we've got:
C = I/E − P − R (7)
Generally, we want to try to find the key formula, so:
C = I − P/E − R/E (8)
To measure the context one needs to find the number of specific cases for this S, then to exclude the number of the properties of this S comparaly to the general number of properties (for this case), and to exclude the number of specific relations to this S comparaly to the general number of relations (for this case).
Eugene, your formulations are a bit too abstract for me. Consequently, whether they are logically correct or not, I cannot tell whether they are appropriate, that is, whether they lead to an undestanding of CONTEXT, which you require (as you pointed out at the beginning) for the understanding of something. Does such a required context require another context in order for it to be understood? You seem to imply that to understand something you need an infinity of contexts.... // Do you understand "cugter" in this context? "When the cugter whipped his horse, the horse stopped and neighed very loudly, but the dogs ran wildly." I am sure that if you understood all other words of the sentence, you understood "cugter". |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 27, 2021 4:49:00 GMT
- What is it the context?
- And is it possible for the context to be measured?
Different resources, and thinking of it deeply as well, say that to get the meaning of something we have to get something additionally, and that addition is the context. So, let's write it formally:
S + C = M (1)
by this forumala for any something we should have a context to understand its meaning. Honestly, this formula (1) sees to be closely to this one:
S + R = P (2)
that can be translated into to get properties of something we should've got some relations of that something. Since in two those formulas S is being taken in common, so:
M − C = R − P (3)
It must be clear now if in some cases the context is the same as properties, then the meaning will be equal to the relations:
If C = P, then M = R (4)
Sincerely, I wouldn't trust neither to (4), nor to (2) and (3). I think they must've been rewritten into:
P + R = S (2')
Then the rest will be:
M − C = P + R (3')
Finally, we can't be close to what the meaning is:
M = P + R + C (4')
But this formula tells nothing about the context, so let's reformulate it:
C = M − P − R (5)
This formula we've got is a little weird, why according to this formula there must be something else, except for properties and relations? And what that else must be? Trying to achieve the answer on this question is the same as to ask about the measuring the context. According to the law of the content from the traditional logic we can have this:
M = I/E (6)
What this law means and what is E, and what I mean? It can be read as the larger the number of specific cases by which we determine an object to the total number of cases for determination of this object, the more larger the meaning of this object. So that E means - the extention, or the total number of cases, and I means the intentional number or specific number of relevant cases. Putting (6) into (5), we've got:
C = I/E − P − R (7)
Generally, we want to try to find the key formula, so:
C = I − P/E − R/E (8)
To measure the context one needs to find the number of specific cases for this S, then to exclude the number of the properties of this S comparaly to the general number of properties (for this case), and to exclude the number of specific relations to this S comparaly to the general number of relations (for this case).
Eugene, your formulations are a bit too abstract for me. Consequently, whether they are logically correct or not, I cannot tell whether they are appropriate, that is, whether they lead to an undestanding of CONTEXT, which you require (as you pointed out at the beginning) for the understanding of something. Does such a required context require another context in order for it to be understood? You seem to imply that to understand something you need an infinity of contexts.... // Do you understand "cugter" in this context? "When the cugter whipped his horse, the horse stopped and neighed very loudly, but the dogs ran wildly." I am sure that if you understood all other words of the sentence, you understood "cugter". Thank you for some important notifications. Surely, there may be mistakes. I'd rather intend to say some things were required for understanding, but the context was a sum or a union of those things. Interesting you ask me whether I understood every sentence. I'm not a google, ha ha. Ok, maybe I should try to understand some words. "Cugter" was never heard of me, and it seems that the context here is required. But why? Hadn't I said I didn't know the word? I might think there's a mistake taking "cugter" instead of "cutter", but the consequences are it seems your intentions aren't so, are they? Besides doesn't "to understand every words" sound provocative? Whenever it is, if I had previously heard this word I would probably answer. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 2, 2021 22:24:04 GMT
- What is it the context?
- And is it possible for the context to be measured?
Different resources, and thinking of it deeply as well, say that to get the meaning of something we have to get something additionally, and that addition is the context. So, let's write it formally:
S + C = M (1)
by this forumala for any something we should have a context to understand its meaning. Honestly, this formula (1) sees to be closely to this one:
S + R = P (2)
that can be translated into to get properties of something we should've got some relations of that something. Since in two those formulas S is being taken in common, so:
M − C = R − P (3)
It must be clear now if in some cases the context is the same as properties, then the meaning will be equal to the relations:
If C = P, then M = R (4)
Sincerely, I wouldn't trust neither to (4), nor to (2) and (3). I think they must've been rewritten into:
P + R = S (2')
Then the rest will be:
M − C = P + R (3')
Finally, we can't be close to what the meaning is:
M = P + R + C (4')
But this formula tells nothing about the context, so let's reformulate it:
C = M − P − R (5)
This formula we've got is a little weird, why according to this formula there must be something else, except for properties and relations? And what that else must be? Trying to achieve the answer on this question is the same as to ask about the measuring the context. According to the law of the content from the traditional logic we can have this:
M = I/E (6)
What this law means and what is E, and what I mean? It can be read as the larger the number of specific cases by which we determine an object to the total number of cases for determination of this object, the more larger the meaning of this object. So that E means - the extention, or the total number of cases, and I means the intentional number or specific number of relevant cases. Putting (6) into (5), we've got:
C = I/E − P − R (7)
Generally, we want to try to find the key formula, so:
C = I − P/E − R/E (8)
To measure the context one needs to find the number of specific cases for this S, then to exclude the number of the properties of this S comparaly to the general number of properties (for this case), and to exclude the number of specific relations to this S comparaly to the general number of relations (for this case).
Context is the repetition of a phenomenon which contains further phenomenon, as repetitive context is a loop while dually being in another respect a different type of loop given the circularity between the context and that which the context contains. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 3, 2021 15:26:32 GMT
- What is it the context?
- And is it possible for the context to be measured?
Different resources, and thinking of it deeply as well, say that to get the meaning of something we have to get something additionally, and that addition is the context. So, let's write it formally:
S + C = M (1)
by this forumala for any something we should have a context to understand its meaning. Honestly, this formula (1) sees to be closely to this one:
S + R = P (2)
that can be translated into to get properties of something we should've got some relations of that something. Since in two those formulas S is being taken in common, so:
M − C = R − P (3)
It must be clear now if in some cases the context is the same as properties, then the meaning will be equal to the relations:
If C = P, then M = R (4)
Sincerely, I wouldn't trust neither to (4), nor to (2) and (3). I think they must've been rewritten into:
P + R = S (2')
Then the rest will be:
M − C = P + R (3')
Finally, we can't be close to what the meaning is:
M = P + R + C (4')
But this formula tells nothing about the context, so let's reformulate it:
C = M − P − R (5)
This formula we've got is a little weird, why according to this formula there must be something else, except for properties and relations? And what that else must be? Trying to achieve the answer on this question is the same as to ask about the measuring the context. According to the law of the content from the traditional logic we can have this:
M = I/E (6)
What this law means and what is E, and what I mean? It can be read as the larger the number of specific cases by which we determine an object to the total number of cases for determination of this object, the more larger the meaning of this object. So that E means - the extention, or the total number of cases, and I means the intentional number or specific number of relevant cases. Putting (6) into (5), we've got:
C = I/E − P − R (7)
Generally, we want to try to find the key formula, so:
C = I − P/E − R/E (8)
To measure the context one needs to find the number of specific cases for this S, then to exclude the number of the properties of this S comparaly to the general number of properties (for this case), and to exclude the number of specific relations to this S comparaly to the general number of relations (for this case).
Context is the repetition of a phenomenon which contains further phenomenon, as repetitive context is a loop while dually being in another respect a different type of loop given the circularity between the context and that which the context contains. Well, honestly, I don't know. Could be. I see the context (what is it) from the different perspective. Firstly, if x is x, then there's such a context that makes x be x. If x is y, there's another context that makes x be y. And so on. What context is, considering its formal side? – The same as anything else. I don't put any ontological conditions or limits to it. Because you've written "the context is...": a) "... repetitions..." b) "...of phenomenon..." I cannot see it like this, but I don't object to it, and don't mind it be that. In my humble opinion, the context might be not repeatable. 1,2,3... is also a context for 4, for instance. The same is about phenomenon. I can't see anything be phenomenon. What is "x"? It's rather a noumenon, than a phenomena. How can we see "everything"? It doesn't seem be possible or achievable. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 8, 2021 22:15:43 GMT
Context is the repetition of a phenomenon which contains further phenomenon, as repetitive context is a loop while dually being in another respect a different type of loop given the circularity between the context and that which the context contains. Well, honestly, I don't know. Could be. I see the context (what is it) from the different perspective. Firstly, if x is x, then there's such a context that makes x be x. If x is y, there's another context that makes x be y. And so on. What context is, considering its formal side? – The same as anything else. I don't put any ontological conditions or limits to it. Because you've written "the context is...": a) "... repetitions..." b) "...of phenomenon..." I cannot see it like this, but I don't object to it, and don't mind it be that. In my humble opinion, the context might be not repeatable. 1,2,3... is also a context for 4, for instance. The same is about phenomenon. I can't see anything be phenomenon. What is "x"? It's rather a noumenon, than a phenomena. How can we see "everything"? It doesn't seem be possible or achievable. 1. If all is subject to context, and we see context, then we see all phenomenon to some degree. In seeing a phenomenon to a degree we see all phenomenon even though we don't see them in their entirety. 2. A noumenon is observed as a noumenon thus the noumenon is a phenomenon. Seeing the fact that we don't see everything is to paradoxically see everything as what is not seen is a negative limit (as in what a phenomenon is not) which defines the phenomenon, or rather noumenon, for what it is. Not seeing a phenomenon is to see the phenomenon for what it is not thus limits which define said phenomenon occur. |
|
