Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 07:51:54 -0600
Nexx wrote:
/
/ ----------
/ > From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
/
/ > But Shadowrun would still be
/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
/
/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got to be
/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
/ different.

But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
perceived abstractly?

And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
different." works.

Just because your perspective is different then Adam's doesn't make
Adam's perspective any less significant.

Are we having fun yet :)

-David
--
"Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines."
- Sir William Hamilton
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 2
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:13:04 -0400
David Buehrer wrote:
>/ > But Shadowrun would still be
>/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
>/
>/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got to
>be
>/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
>/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>/ different.
>
>But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
>perceived abstractly?

Perceived abstractly? I don't quite follow...

>And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
>Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
>viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>different." works.

Yes, unless having Y is a requirement for being X. Take that
sentence, replacing X with "a cube" and Y with "six sides".
"A cube would still be a cube if it didn't have six sides". Not
so... Since Y is a defining characteristic of X in this case, the
statement is not necessarily true (damn char set doesn't have
symbolic logic symbols, or I'd write it out :-).

>Just because your perspective is different then Adam's doesn't make
>Adam's perspective any less significant.

No, but it remains to be shown that magic is not a defining
characteristic of Shadowrun...

>Are we having fun yet :)

Eh. What choice do we have?

James Ojaste
Message no. 3
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 09:33:41 -0600
Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
/
/ David Buehrer wrote:
/ >
/ >But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
/ >perceived abstractly?
/
/ Perceived abstractly? I don't quite follow...

Sorry :) I was remembering my highschool days when we discovered
metaphysics and had long debates about nothing, and subsequently
wrote a sentance that bordered on being metaphysical.

However, I will try to explain.

I can look out the window and see a parking lot that has automobils
parked in it. Most of the autos are cars, with an SUV and a couple
of minivans. There're a wide variety of cars: two door, four door,
sport, sedan, etc. There're also a wide variaty of manufactures:
Saturn, Ford, VW, Honda, Chevy, Toyota, etc (the Fords seem to be in
the majority).

When using a word such as auto, it's easy to see that it symbolically
describes an abstract idea. There really is no such thing as an
auto per se, and yet there is in the eye of the beholder.

The word car also symbolizes and abstract perception. A VW Fox GL
can be percieved as a car. A Ford Probe can be percieved as a car.

You'd think that when you get down to the level of Ford Probe that
you are no longer percieving abstractly. But you are. Think about
everything that that perception represents (depending on who you
are): sports car, fast, agile, two seater, babe magnet, middle aged
pacifier, etc.

It's not possible to not percieve something abstractly.

On a biological level your eye first interprets the light that is
reflected off of objects. Your brain then interprets this
interpretation. You then assign values to the interpretation. Is a
Ford Probe first and foremost a sports car? Or do you view it as a
babe magnet? Or is it something that middle aged men by to reclaim
their lost youth? Or is it just a car? Or is it a conglomeration of
seperate machines engineered to combine their functions to produce an
end result?

Whether you're reading or listening, you're interpreting abstract
symbols to interpret someone else's abstract perception of the
world. And when you communicate with someone you are attempting to
share your abstract perception of the world with that person by using
abstract symbols to define those perceptions.

It's a wonder we can communicate at all :)

/ >Are we having fun yet :)
/
/ Eh. What choice do we have?

<chuckle>

-David
--
"Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines."
- Sir William Hamilton
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 4
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:15:29 -0400
David Buehrer wrote:
>/ >But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
>/ >perceived abstractly?
>/
>/ Perceived abstractly? I don't quite follow...
>
>Sorry :) I was remembering my highschool days when we discovered
>metaphysics and had long debates about nothing, and subsequently
>wrote a sentance that bordered on being metaphysical.

We usually had debates about theoretical physics... :-)

>However, I will try to explain.
>
>I can look out the window and see a parking lot that has automobils
>parked in it. Most of the autos are cars, with an SUV and a couple
>of minivans. There're a wide variety of cars: two door, four door,
>sport, sedan, etc. There're also a wide variaty of manufactures:
>Saturn, Ford, VW, Honda, Chevy, Toyota, etc (the Fords seem to be in
>the majority).
>
>When using a word such as auto, it's easy to see that it symbolically
>describes an abstract idea. There really is no such thing as an
>auto per se, and yet there is in the eye of the beholder.

Ah. So you mean that the descriptions of "auto" is an abstraction
for what's there. I've got a problem with this ("description" as
opposed to "perception"), but we'll get to that in a minute...

>The word car also symbolizes and abstract perception. A VW Fox GL
>can be percieved as a car. A Ford Probe can be percieved as a car.
>
>You'd think that when you get down to the level of Ford Probe that
>you are no longer percieving abstractly. But you are. Think about
>everything that that perception represents (depending on who you
>are): sports car, fast, agile, two seater, babe magnet, middle aged
>pacifier, etc.
>
>It's not possible to not percieve something abstractly.

Ah. Here I disagree. When somebody perceives something, they cannot
possibly perceive everything about it. We can't *know* everything
about it. Therefore, our perception is incomplete - but not
necessarily abstract.

>On a biological level your eye first interprets the light that is
>reflected off of objects. Your brain then interprets this
>interpretation. You then assign values to the interpretation. Is a
>Ford Probe first and foremost a sports car? Or do you view it as a
>babe magnet? Or is it something that middle aged men by to reclaim
>their lost youth? Or is it just a car? Or is it a conglomeration of
>seperate machines engineered to combine their functions to produce an
>end result?

It takes more and more processing power to recognize finer details
in what you observe. In a blink, you can probably recognize it as
"an object I don't want to run into". A little more time, and it
becomes "a car". A little more time, "a sports car", some more time,
"a Ford Probe".

As this is going on, at each stage your mind is grabbing memories,
comparing sensations etc to a) figure out what the object is and b)
figure out what use it is. So the act of perception involves both
recognition and analysis. The analysis bit may well include
"babe-magnet", but also "fast transport" and "expensive".

>Whether you're reading or listening, you're interpreting abstract
>symbols to interpret someone else's abstract perception of the
>world. And when you communicate with someone you are attempting to
>share your abstract perception of the world with that person by using
>abstract symbols to define those perceptions.

This is a pretty rough way of trying to communicate what you mean -
I'm pretty sure I understand you only because I've thought a fair
bit about the nature of reality and you're describing what amounts
to 4 reality shifts... If you really care about what I'm talking
about, look at http://ojaste.ml.org/~ojastej/reality.html

>It's a wonder we can communicate at all :)

Heh. :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 5
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:58:02 -0400
Once upon a time, David Buehrer wrote;

>But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
>perceived abstractly?

No, "Language is a virus from outer space" - Laurie Anderson

&
>It's a wonder we can communicate at all :)

A sampled(?) quote from EBN-OZN's AEIOU sometimes Y ?


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
-Through the Looking Glass

I am MC23
Message no. 6
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:11:37 -0600
MC23 wrote:
/
/ Once upon a time, David Buehrer wrote;
/
/ >But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
/ >perceived abstractly?
/
/ No, "Language is a virus from outer space" - Laurie Anderson

:) I'd say that language is a virus from inner space.

/ &
/ >It's a wonder we can communicate at all :)
/
/ A sampled(?) quote from EBN-OZN's AEIOU sometimes Y ?

Um, no. At least I don't think so. I thought it was a line from some
movie.

/
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
/
/ "When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
/ tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
/ -Through the Looking Glass

Now *that* book plays with language.

-David
--
"Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines."
- Sir William Hamilton
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 7
From: Sheldon Rose <scrose@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:22:54 -0500
David Buehrer wrote:
>
> Nexx wrote:
> /
> / ----------
> / > From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
> /
> / > But Shadowrun would still be
> / > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
> /
> / Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got to be
> / the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
> / few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
> / different.
>
> But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
> perceived abstractly?
>
> And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
> Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
> viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
> different." works.
>
> Just because your perspective is different then Adam's doesn't make
> Adam's perspective any less significant.

In what turned into a rather heated flame war some weeks ago. I got
about the same results as Adam did by making a statement that many
misunderstood. My campaign is very magical tech is even down played to
some extent. Then again so is major mojo street level folks don't have
access to some of this stuff.

The big question is Would it be SR without all the parts IMO no. The
game would become nothing more than a 2nd rate clone of other games. In
this case no high tech and cyber toys it becomes World of darkness (The
white Wolf games) and conversely without magic it's a of clone CP2020.
While I like those other games and even use ideas form them every now
and then in SR IMO it's more fun than other of the other games in many
ways.
Message no. 8
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@******.BACKBONE.OLEMISS.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:32:22 -0500
At 07:51 AM 5/7/98 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>Nexx wrote:
>/
>/ ----------
>/ > From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
>/
>/ > But Shadowrun would still be
>/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
>/
>/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got
to be
>/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
>/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>/ different.

Wow, I've seen some trolls in my time, but that was one of the more
annoying.



Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand and Dwarven Illuminati
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 9
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@******.BACKBONE.OLEMISS.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:01:23 -0500
>At 07:51 AM 5/7/98 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>>Nexx wrote:
>>/
>>/ ----------
>>/ > From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
>>/
>>/ > But Shadowrun would still be
>>/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
>>/
>>/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got
to be
>>/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
>>/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>>/ different.
>
>Wow, I've seen some trolls in my time, but that was one of the more
>annoying.

Don't you hate it when you snip to much?

"And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
different." works."

Is what I was refering to. And, to clarify my point, while David meant
this as humor (I think), this is illogical, and he knows it (or should).
The only possible reason you make an arguement like this is to get people
to keep arguing. The cake analogy makes more sense. I'd like to see
anyone get through a math or logic course using the previous statement.


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand and Dwarven Illuminati
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 10
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:39:55 -0400
Michael Broadwater wrote:
>>Wow, I've seen some trolls in my time, but that was one of the more
>>annoying.
>
>Don't you hate it when you snip to much?
>
>"And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
>Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
>viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>different." works."
>
>Is what I was refering to. And, to clarify my point, while David meant
>this as humor (I think), this is illogical, and he knows it (or should).
>The only possible reason you make an arguement like this is to get people
>to keep arguing. The cake analogy makes more sense. I'd like to see
>anyone get through a math or logic course using the previous statement.

Heh - one of the things that I learned in my logic courses at UW
was that you can build logical systems to prove whatever you want.
It's just a matter of choosing appropriate axioms to derive the
rest of the system from, and then convincing everybody that those
were the right axioms to choose... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:41:05 -0600
Michael Broadwater wrote:
/
/ >At 07:51 AM 5/7/98 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
/
/ Don't you hate it when you snip to much?
/
/ >"And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
/ >Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
/ >viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
/ >different." works."
/
/ Is what I was refering to. And, to clarify my point, while David meant
/ this as humor (I think), this is illogical, and he knows it (or should).
/ The only possible reason you make an arguement like this is to get people
/ to keep arguing. The cake analogy makes more sense. I'd like to see
/ anyone get through a math or logic course using the previous statement.

Sorry. Wasn't meant to be a troll. Although James and I are in a
lively private conversation :)

And my defense would be that I've been getting into philosophy quite
a bit lately.

-David
--
"Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines."
- Sir William Hamilton
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 12
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:48:40 -0600
Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
/
/ Michael Broadwater wrote:
/ >>Wow, I've seen some trolls in my time, but that was one of the more
/ >>annoying.
/ >
/ >Don't you hate it when you snip to much?
/ >
/ >"And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
/ >Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
/ >viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
/ >different." works."
/ >
/ >Is what I was refering to. And, to clarify my point, while David meant
/ >this as humor (I think), this is illogical, and he knows it (or should).
/ >The only possible reason you make an arguement like this is to get people
/ >to keep arguing. The cake analogy makes more sense. I'd like to see
/ >anyone get through a math or logic course using the previous statement.
/
/ Heh - one of the things that I learned in my logic courses at UW
/ was that you can build logical systems to prove whatever you want.
/ It's just a matter of choosing appropriate axioms to derive the
/ rest of the system from, and then convincing everybody that those
/ were the right axioms to choose... :-)

Or in my case, plain old Xioms :-D

-David-who's-agoin-straight-to-hell-for-that-one
--
"Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook it shines."
- Sir William Hamilton
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 13
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:08:26 -0400
OK guys this topic is getting worn thin. It's over.

MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante
Message no. 14
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:28:29 +0100
And verily, did MC23 hastily scribble thusly...
|
| OK guys this topic is getting worn thin. It's over.
|
|MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante
|

LOL!
Whatever next. DLoH impersonators?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 15
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:59:24 -0600
At 17:08 07/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
> OK guys this topic is getting worn thin. It's over.
>
>MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante

<grin>

MC23 is right. This has strayed way off course.

-Adam
But that doesn't make him GridSec ;)
-
http://www.interware.it/users/adamj \ fro@***.ab.ca \ ICQ# 2350330
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ FreeRPG Webring \ TSS Productions
The Shadowrun Supplemental \ SR Archive Co-Maintainer \ RPGA Reviwer
Message no. 16
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 00:08:36 -0400
|> From: Adam J
|> Sent: May 7, 1998 6:59 PM

|> At 17:08 07/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
|> > OK guys this topic is getting worn thin. It's over.
|> >
|> >MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante


|> But that doesn't make him GridSec ;)

But he didn't say he was GridSec. He was saying he's one of those
Vigilante who target Gridsec. ;)

Katt Freyson
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 17
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:05:12 -0400
Once upon a time, Spike wrote;

>And verily, did MC23 hastily scribble thusly...
>|
>| OK guys this topic is getting worn thin. It's over.
>|
>|MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante
>|
>
>LOL!
>Whatever next. DLoH impersonators?


<Booming voice>
Spike, It is I the new Dark Lord upon High<tm>, tremble before my might.
No, don't look behind the curtain!
</Booming voice>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"If I was born in the 17th century, I wouldn't have to turtle wax the
van."
-Azreal Abyss, Goth Talk (SNL)

I am MC23
Message no. 18
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 02:13:35 -0400
Once upon a time, Katt Freyson wrote;

>|> From: Adam J
>|>
>|> >MC23, ShadowRN GridSec Vigilante
>
>|> But that doesn't make him GridSec ;)

Shhhhh!
<giggle>

> But he didn't say he was GridSec. He was saying he's one of those
>Vigilante who target Gridsec. ;)

Stop trying to get me in trouble, I can do that well enough on my
own.
B>P#

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"But we know evil is an exact science,
being carefully, correctly wrong!"
-Shriekback, Nemesis

I am MC23
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:51:03 +0100
Spike said on 23:28/ 7 May 98...

> LOL!
> Whatever next. DLoH impersonators?

Easy enough... Just put a different name and address in your mailer and
sign with "Have fun! Play games! And something else!"

(Okay, so it won't stand up to not very close scrutiny (like reading
headers) but it'll fool some people at least...)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Just passing time.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Nuances of Language, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.