On Sense and Nonsense

Day 21

What is sense, and what is nonsense? For something to make sense, means that we understand that something. To understand something is to know it, at least in some way. To know something is for that something to fit into the world in some way. If that thing fits into the world in some way, then that thing is a gem, and since it is a gem, it connect to things in the world. One way or another that gem connects to all gems in the world. Thus that gem is accessible from every other gem in the world. Sometimes it is accessible directly, and sometimes it is accessible by a series of steps. Thus, your knowledge of a rabbit you have had since you were a child may not directly connect to your knowledge of the great wall of china on the other side of the world, but it accessible somehow. You can understand how they relate to each other. If you presently do not, because you understand how the rabbit relates to something, and how that something relates to another thing, and thus and so on until the rabbit relates to the great wall of china, you can connect the rabbit to the great wall of china. Every indirect connection is possibly a direct connection between two gems. Everything that is in the world makes sense, and so for something to make sense, that means that it is in the world.

Since everything that is in the world makes sense, if something is nonsense, then that something is outside the world. Or rather, that something is unconnected to anything else in the world. Yet, because you can perceive that something, it connects to things in the world through you. Thus, if you are aware of something, if something is in the world at all even if you do not yet know it and how it connects to other things, then that thing makes some sort of sense, and can make more sense. We might think of degrees of making sense here, or of minimum sense. We might also have an issue of two types of logic field(Lf) within a world, two ways of understanding the world and linking gem and shards together. Thus, a particular gem may exist in one Lf but not in another Lf – just as a poem might mean something different to different people, yet it is the same poem they are both on about. So something can be sensible compared to a certain point of view, or if the world or gem is at a certain angle or you have a certain emotion. Thus, things may make more or less sense, but they do not make total nonsense. If something makes total sense, then that something clearly connects to everything, but this is vanishingly rare. Foundational pillars might sometimes act like this.

Because everything that is in the world is, depending on what schema you consider the world to be, either a gem or a shard, or is a logical thing/logical relation, or is some other thing under a third schema, and everything in the world makes sense, only things which are not do not make sense. That is, if as far as you are aware something exists, then that something can make sense. The only thing which cannot make sense are things that we do not encounter, and which do not effect the world in any way. Thus, what was nonsense can later make sense, because we have found out that it effects the world in some way. For example, the strong nuclear force was once nonsense – we didn't know it existed, and there is a whole bundle of theory needed to understand what it is. As far as we knew it did not exist and did not effect us, until it did. Eventually we discovered something strange happening in the world and looked for an explanation – and found one. The strong nuclear force is real in that it exists, but it may be slightly incomplete, in that we can still learn things about it, such as what effects it or if it just an aspect of another force we haven't found yet.

Once something becomes sense, or enters the world, can it later become nonsense? It can certainly lose sense, and become less understood as the world changes or as we learn more about the thing with sense and start to open it up and tear it apart. To ask if something can later become total nonsense is to ask if that thing can exist in the world. We have said earlier that worlds are make up of shards and gems, and can break and reform. A shard is like an experience which is not yet connected to anything else. If we can forget a shard, then that shard is not in the world anymore. I think that this is not a common activity, but certainly shards can become very fuzzy and unclear over time. Since gems are connections and collections of shards, a gem can be removed from the would by either dissolving it into its constituent shards or by re-constituting it into a different gem. This is not the destruction of the gem, but rather the transformation of the gem. Because of the connection between gems and worlds, gems can become nonsense in a world only by not existing, which changes the world as well. Because worlds and gems are always shifting, gems tend to go though periods of movement through greater and lesser degrees of sense. This is the breaking and reforging of the world, as we try to make sense of things. We forget things and change the world, thus moving back and forth through degrees of nonsense as we try to understand and learn more, is a natural movement and a regular tendency of ourselves.

Because the shape of the world is such that it generally has firm foundational pillars at its center and crumbles along the edges (both edges), we can imagine that there are two major areas of the world. The near and firm world, and the far and fragile world. This is analogous to our stronger awareness of some parts of the world than others, because of level of knowledge or care. Thus, the world right around me and which I am remembering clearly is generally a stronger world, or a logical field which is more stable and clear, then the parts of the world that forget and which are far from me. These areas can change as we change, and as our world or environment changes. Thus, as I type on a computer the area of the world which is about that is near, but the area of the world which is about woodworking is far. If I got up right now and started to do some woodworking, then it would take me some time to 'get in the groove' of the work – to remember what to do and how to do it. If I was an expert woodworker, then it would take me less time because that part of the world would almost always be nearer, stronger, and more stable then any other part of the world. The opposite, as regards the computer, would likely be the case then. A friend that I have in front of me, or which I am remembering right now, is closer to me in the world then a friend whom I haven't seen in years. If my old friend comes back then he is closer to me, but perhaps fuzzier, for he has been on the edges of the world for a long time and my knowledge of him has crumbled a bit as I forget him or fuzzier as he may have changed when he was far away. Or he might be an old friend and a pillar, even if I haven't seen him much. None of this is meant to be a rule, but rather a series of guidelines, a series of anecdotes as an assist in understanding and picturing the issue of sense and nonsense along with world-structure.

It has been said that sense and nonsense are issues of language, and that what we cannot talk about we mst be silent about. I agree, and disagree. I agree that if language is the world, if everythng in the world can be said or talked about in some way, then since what is in the world is sense and what is outside the world is nonsense and the only thing that is nonsense are things we do not encounter, then what we cannot talk about is not in the world, then if we cannot talk about something it must be nonsense. Thus, I agree in principle and by a certain definition.

However, I disagree in several ways. 'Talk' is a very broad term. To talk to someone does not just mean to say certain words. Rather, it is to communicate with them and connect to them in the world. Talk can be direct or indirect. Thus, I say that 'I love you', or I can say that “I am to you as a red, red rose”. The first is clear (or as clear as love can be), and the second is unclear. The second alludes to a certain poem, but needs to be interpreted. There is no direct translation that covers its entire meaning. That is, to explain the meaning of the first we need to define all the terms, which is theoretically possible. To explain the meaning of the second, we need to define terms, talk about the poem, come up with some method for translating metaphors, do a translation of the meaning of the sense, then create a new sentence with an acceptable grammar which we can compare to the old sentence and verify that it matches, and only then can we finally communicate the second sentence to a new party. Both of these are the same method of communication, but with different degrees. I said that it was possible in theory to define all the terms in the first sentence. Since a word is a thing, a thing is a gem in the world, and a gem in the world is defined by its connections to all other things, to totally define a word we need to define the entire world. Since the world is open, we do not know how to do that. So, a word cannot be totally defined. What a word can be is effectively defined, to be defined enough to use. To use a word is be able to use the word like a tool to effect the world, either by saying the word or by understanding the meaning of the word. Under the second method, we define not just the words but also the means by which to use the words. We have information about language, history, and emotion all wrapped up in 'I am to you like a red, red rose”. That is, we have connections, a type of little world, or a part of the world. A type of gem. So we can understand communication to be the transfer of gems in the world. If I speak to you then I essentially throw a gem at you, at the place in the world where you are. If there are other minds, then you incorporate this into your world. If the world is solipsistic, then this gem-force changes the world and effects how your mind works.

Language is a group of words, how they fit together, and how they connect to the world. Each word in a language is a type of gem, and the language itself is a giant gem, a giant logical construction. Language is a part of the world, but is also a part of the world which effects itself. The entire world effects itself of course, but language, just like our present life, seems to be better connected. It is a tool for communication, but is not the only method of communication. I don't need to tell you that I want to hurt you – I can also just attack you with a baseball bat. We can communicate, or 'talk' to each other through skinship or example just as effectively as with words in a language. We can speak the language of flowers just as well as the language of English, too. Our very existence effects the world, and thus we can speak with sound, as well as with silence. If even inaction is action, then even silence is speech.

Can we move outside the world, and can we say that which cannot be said? I do not think so. Although, we do not know what is impossible, for the world is open, and so we do not know what cannot be said. Have you ever felt an emotion you have no name for and have never felt before? That is you speaking to yourself. We most often speak the same language as of old, but on occasion we do attempt to communicate that which has never been communicated before. We attempt to make the impossible possible, and sometimes we succeed. Thus, I agree in theoretical principle with statements that we cannot go outside the world, and we cannot say what cannot be said, but I disagree in theoretical practice. - “The laws of god, the laws of man, he may follow that will and can; not I.”*

*The laws of God, the laws of Man. By A.E. Housman