Other Languages > Deutsch
The Wave (online) - Deutsche Übersetzung/ -German Translation
forget-me-not:
Here are some more of my present thoughts ;)
As long as the recipients capacity of seeing meaning and order depends on the capacity of his imagination, he is not yet qualified to judge nature. As the recipient deals with structures of a higher order that look like chaos to his mind most of the time, a vedict like "wrong" or "error" leads to destructive downshifting or downgrading of the outer or inner nature. He brings nature low, humbles it instead of being humble. So the "meaningfull patterns" I can associate when analysing an amorphous structure are allways based on my own patters, which depend on my state of knowledge, on my capacity of simulating the outside world. Thing is, if I actually understood nature, if I could simulate it perfectly, if I were qualified, a judgement wouldn´t be possible. Here the circuit would be complete. What does this tell us about "judgement" and about "truth", about "expectation", "right" and "wrong"?
Hier sind noch ein paar meiner derzeitigen Gedanken ;)
Solange die Wahrnehmung von Sinn und Ordnung in der Natur von der Vorstellungskapazität des Betrachters abhängt, kann er sich noch kein Urteil erlauben. Da der Betrachter es mit Strukturen der höheren Ordnung zu tun hat, die er mit seinem Verstand zumeist nicht vollends erfassen kann, führt das Urteil "falsch" oder "Fehler" zu einem destruktiven "Downshiften" oder "Downgraden", und zwar in Bezug auf die eigene und/ oder die ihn umgebende Natur. Damit erniedrigt er die Natur und damit auch sich selbst, und zwar im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Welche "sinnvollen Muster" ich also in den amorphen Strukturen der höheren Ordnung assoziiere hängt also immer von den Mustern ab die ich darauf anwende, die ich in mir habe, und zwar als Resultat meines derzeitigen Verständnisses, auf Grundlage meiner derzeitigen Außensimulation. Das Ding ist, wenn ich nun die Natur tatsächlich verstünde, sie also deckungsgleich simulieren könnte, wenn ich mich qualifiziert hätte, wäre ein Urteil nicht mehr möglich. Dann wäre der Kreis geschlossen, der Zyklus beendet. Was sagt uns das über das Urteil und über die Wahrheit und über die Erwartung, über richtig und falsch?
Data:
--- Quote from: f ---Hello Arc,
--- End quote ---
Well, his name is Ark. A bug in typing?
--- Quote from: f ---But then I wonder why I am a little obsessed with it. Anyway.
--- End quote ---
I am also curious about it. One could say, it is disproportional.
--- Quote from: f ---In the german translation "a bug" is just "an error" or "fault". Its quite the same. By the use of "Fehlerbehebung" your definition is flushed down the toilet.
--- End quote ---
You are missing that we translated "debugging" and not "bug", hence "Fehlerbehebung" and not "Fehler".
--- Quote from: f ---While I was reading "The Wave" I suddenly came to the conclusion that nature works properly, regarded from an objective point of view. There are no errors and faults, no essential misconceptions.
--- End quote ---
On a high enough level, probably. But are we on this level yet?
--- Quote from: f ---The universe works exactly like it is supposed to work.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- Quote from: f ---Whenever there is an error its wrong and must be corrected, even if its nature.
--- End quote ---
Are you implying in your paragraph that "debugging" is referring to "its wrong and must be corrected, even if it is nature"?
--- Quote from: f ---The devine creators products should not be treated like its ignorant and stupid childrens ones.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- Quote from: f ---You are adapting yourself to nature, you are not fighting it. In this case you are not dealing with errors that must be corrected, you are rather dealing with an living and breathing enviroment that has its own rights which interfer with each other.
--- End quote ---
Are you implying that "debugging" is referring to "fighting nature"?
--- Quote from: f ---STO and STS. That is what i try to point out. Such an adapting attitude I would describe as humble, rather STO: There is a little self eager for knowledge accepting the universe as the great master who will reveal his secrets as long as the little self does not fight him or her, the great IT, so to speak. Its about humbleness.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- Quote from: f ---"Fehlerbehebung im Universum" sounds not very humble, on the contrary: It sounds quite presumptuous. It sounds like: Lets correct nature, make it work properly.
--- End quote ---
So you are saying that when you're replacing a damaged light bulb in your house, this is presumptuous? Would you rather leave the light bulb off?
--- Quote from: f ---My point is that we should start "de-bugging" our language as well.
--- End quote ---
Certainly! Georges Orwell was of the same opinion in this essay! But why is "debugging" language not "presumptuous"?
--- Quote from: f ---There are many words that need to be split up, that need to contain the basic attitude: STS or STO, "bug" instead of "error" for example.
--- End quote ---
You probably know that the term "bug" comes from the early days of computer science, where real bugs caused short circuits in the computers. Where, then, is the difference between "bug" and "error"?
--- Quote from: f ---I hope I cleared it up :) If I really exaggerated it too much I would be sorry. Being wrong would be as interesting as being right, as long as I am learning something ;)
--- End quote ---
So you want to learn something. Wouldn't this also be "debugging" or, in German, "Fehlerbehebung"?
I think you miss the point that STO and STS would use the term "debugging" quite differently. STO candidates would work on debugging THEMSELVES (for improving), while STS would work on 'debugging' ALL OTHERS (changing and fighting the universe so that it more conveniently fits their demands).
Data:
--- Quote from: f ---As long as the recipients capacity of seeing meaning and order depends on the capacity of his imagination, he is not yet qualified to judge nature.
Solange die Wahrnehmung von Sinn und Ordnung in der Natur von der Vorstellungskapazität des Betrachters abhängt, kann er sich noch kein Urteil erlauben.
--- End quote ---
Why do you think "seeing" depends ever on "imagination"? I think you meant, when the capacity of seeing is not well developed. Then this is certainly true: If I cannot see that a person is as tall as me, then I am not qualified to judge the size of the person.
Warum denkst du, dass "Wahrnehmung" jemals von "Vorstellungskapazität" abhängt? Ich denke, du meintest, dass die Wahrnehmung noch nicht gut entwickelt ist. Dann stimmt die Aussage sicher: Wenn ich nicht sehen kann, dass eine Person genau so groß ist wie ich, dann kann ich über die Größe der Person nicht urteilen.
--- Quote from: f ---As the recipient deals with structures of a higher order that look like chaos to his mind most of the time, a vedict like "wrong" or "error" leads to destructive downshifting or downgrading of the outer or inner nature.
Da der Betrachter es mit Strukturen der höheren Ordnung zu tun hat, die er mit seinem Verstand zumeist nicht vollends erfassen kann, führt das Urteil "falsch" oder "Fehler" zu einem destruktiven "Downshiften" oder "Downgraden", und zwar in Bezug auf die eigene und/ oder die ihn umgebende Natur.
--- End quote ---
Again, which of the two polarities would have such verdicts?
Nochmals, welche der zwei Polaritäten würde solche Urteile fällen?
--- Quote from: f ---Thing is, if I actually understood nature, if I could simulate it perfectly, if I were qualified, a judgement wouldn´t be possible.
Das Ding ist, wenn ich nun die Natur tatsächlich verstünde, sie also deckungsgleich simulieren könnte, wenn ich mich qualifiziert hätte, wäre ein Urteil nicht mehr möglich.
--- End quote ---
Here you are fully contradicting your first sentence. And you are saying that, for example, a qualified, learned and experienced structural engineer (who by definition should understand nature) cannot judge if a bridge holds under a certain weight load. I think you are not understanding that there is a difference between objective and subjective judgment.
Hier wiedersprichst du gänzlich deinem ersten geschriebenen Satz. Und du sagst auch, dass z.B. ein qualifizierter, gelernter und erfahrener Statiker (der definitionsgemäß die Natur verstehen sollte) nicht beurteilen kann, ob eine Brücke unter einer gewissen Belastung standhält. Ich denke, du verstehst nicht, dass es einen Unterschied zwischen objektivem und subjektivem Urteil gibt.
--- Quote from: f ---What does this tell us about "judgement" and about "truth", about "expectation", "right" and "wrong"?
Was sagt uns das über das Urteil und über die Wahrheit und über die Erwartung, über richtig und falsch?
--- End quote ---
Let me guess, you think that all is null and void, right?
Lass mich raten; du denkst, sie alle sind null und nichtig sind, richtig?
Edit: Translation
Bearbeitet: Übersetzung
forget-me-not:
I hope I am not bothering you, but I think writing authentically, what I am thinking, even if it may sound presumptious or narcissistic sometimes, is the best way to evolve ;) I belief by encountering each other in a teasing way, a person can debug himself quite well. Writing authentically requires the most efficient use of words and that seems to be one of the cruxes of this matter. My own use of language is flawed!
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---Hello Arc,
--- End quote ---
Well, his name is Ark. A bug in typing?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
I am sorry. This is a very little bug caused by some biochemical interference somewhere on the way between brain and fingers, I guess. Haptics of movement maybe. This one may live ;)
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---But then I wonder why I am a little obsessed with it. Anyway.
--- End quote ---
I am also curious about it. One could say, it is disproportional.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Maybe its disproportional because I am nuts about something really irrelevant that has led me astray somehow or it appears disproportional because I am using the wrong words, which makes me fight for being understood ;) I haven´t decide it yet. Its experimental thinking and I don´t know what the result will be. But its quite educational.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---In the german translation "a bug" is just "an error" or "fault". Its quite the same. By the use of "Fehlerbehebung" your definition is flushed down the toilet.
--- End quote ---
You are missing that we translated "debugging" and not "bug", hence "Fehlerbehebung" and not "Fehler".
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
But you did translate "De-bugging"(title) and you also translated "Bug"(text). Why did you translated them in the first place? Those words exist in the german language as well.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---While I was reading "The Wave" I suddenly came to the conclusion that nature works properly, regarded from an objective point of view. There are no errors and faults, no essential misconceptions.
--- End quote ---
On a high enough level, probably. But are we on this level yet?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
NO! And that is why we should be very carefull with words like "Fehler". In the minds of our misguided fellows even a human can be a "Fehler". Those guys also squash bugs.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---The universe works exactly like it is supposed to work.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
The words "Fehler (error)" and "Fehlerbehebung (error-shooting)" do :)
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---Whenever there is an error its wrong and must be corrected, even if its nature.
--- End quote ---
Are you implying in your paragraph that "debugging" is referring to "its wrong and must be corrected, even if it is nature"?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
If "debugging" means the same thing as "Fehlerbehebung (error-shooting)" without additional meaning then yes.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---The devine creators products should not be treaten like its ignorant and stupid childrens ones.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Our language does. Where is such a differentiation in our words? Lets reprogram people to make them belief. Its just another software, just another machine. Is finding something undesirable in the code of a computer-programm and terminating it really the same as finding and squashing a bug crawling between wires and relays, as reorganizing our DNA to avoid psychopathical behavior? I mean, you could let the bug live! Put him away insted of killing him.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---You are adapting yourself to nature, you are not fighting it. In this case you are not dealing with errors that must be corrected, you are rather dealing with an living and breathing enviroment that has its own rights which interfer with each other.
--- End quote ---
Are you implying that "debugging" is referring to "fighting nature"?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
If "debugging" means the same thing as "Fehlerbehebung (error-shooting)" without additional meaning then yes.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---STO and STS. That is what i try to point out. Such an adapting attitude I would describe as humble, rather STO: There is a little self eager for knowledge accepting the universe as the great master who will reveal his secrets as long as the little self does not fight him or her, the great IT, so to speak. Its about humbleness.
--- End quote ---
Who sez otherwise?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Our language does. This can have a misguiding impact on our decisions. Language could support the STO-tendency. Instead, our language is influenced by the STS-thought-patterns. It has been contaminated over a very long period of time. I wonder why Gurdjieff decided to create strange new words to make people understand.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---"Fehlerbehebung im Universum" sounds not very humble, on the contrary: It sounds quite presumptuous. It sounds like: Lets correct nature, make it work properly.
--- End quote ---
So you are saying that when you're replacing a damaged light bulb in your house, this is presumptuous? Would you rather leave the light bulb off?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Your example does not belong to the natural creations. Light bulb is a rather low-grade human creation. You see? Differentiation is required. Still it is a good example: It is a dead error (not a bug) because its based on an essential misconception that is even desirable. Because of moneymaking its not meant to keep working all the time. Its meant to stop working after a short period of time. Moneymaking alone is keeping people from following the way of pure essence, of pure quality and efficiency, the actual way of life.
If your example was alive and you respected life you would avoid killing it. You would try to find another, more balancing way. And if there was no other way you would feel bad after having killed it. And feeling bad makes you feel humble, and humble is good :) Nobody expects you to keep your white west unspotted. I guess its all about how you feel wearing that spotted west. If hell was a place were people were forced to dine with giant chopsticks, heaven would be exactly the same. The only difference would be that people from heaven were helping each other.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---My point is that we should start "de-bugging" our language as well.
--- End quote ---
Certainly! Georges Orwell was of the same opinion in this essay! But why is "debugging" language not "presumptuous"?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Its not presumptuous in case you do it out of humbleness, out of respect for other beings and free will. Interfering in a more balancing way. So its good to have a word for error that reminds us of respecting nature and its rights, that makes us feel humble, if we are forced to inerfere in a destructive way. "Bug". Otherwise you get "Starship Troopers". :)
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---There are many words that need to be split up, that need to contain the basic attitude: STS or STO, "bug" instead of "error" for example.
--- End quote ---
You probably know that the term "bug" comes from the early days of computer science, where real bugs caused short circuits in the computers. Where, then, is the difference between "bug" and "error"?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
That is exactly what this is all about. Now the difference should be quite clear. Why do people use "bug" instead of "error" or "Fehler", "debugging" instead of "troubleshooting" or "solving problems" or even "Fehlerbehebung"? Just because its funny? Haha! Look, an error that can crawl and breath, that thinks it has a right to be. SQUATSCH! Remember Starship Troopers. Maybe the fact that bugs happened to cause mailfunctions in oldschool-computer-systems could be an oportunity to define an error including its right to be? A source of an undesirable behavior called "Bug" implies, that it could also be something alive :) There should be a difference between dead and living "errors", especially when it comes to breathing "machines" that we just begin to understand. Unlike our artificial systems natural systems live and have rights. De-Bugging the Universe. This is our chance!
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 09:35:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---I hope I cleared it up. If I really exaggerated it too much I would be sorry. Being wrong would be as interesting as being right, as long as I am learning something.
--- End quote ---
So you want to learn something. Wouldn't this also be "debugging" or, in German, "Fehlerbehebung"?
I think you miss the point that STO and STS would use the term "debugging" quite differently. STO candidates would work on debugging THEMSELVES (for improving), while STS would work on 'debugging' ALL OTHERS (changing and fighting the universe so that it more conveniently fits their demands).
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
You put me the wrong way. I am not against debugging. I am against "Fehlerbehebung" unless you put the bug inside :D I dont say that "de-bugging" language could completely avoid STS-thinking. But at least it would be easier to differentiate the ways to go. So its good to have a word for error that reminds us of respecting nature and its rights, that makes us feel humble, if we are forced to inerfere in a destructive way. Sure, a psychopath would not feel anything. Normal people would.
forget-me-not:
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 10:41:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---As long as the recipients capacity of seeing meaning and order depends on the capacity of his imagination, he is not yet qualified to judge nature.
--- End quote ---
Why do you think "seeing" depends ever on "imagination"? I think you meant, when the capacity of seeing is not well developed. Then this is certainly true: If I cannot see that a person is as tall as me, then I am not qualified to judge the size of the person.
--- End quote ---
When exactly is this capacity well developed? Third density, fourth, sixth? Seeing something refers to your limited sensory equipment (pure data, rather objective view unclowded by likes and dislikes, unfiltered like a stream of consciousness, describing judgement) and imagination refers to the data processing (understanding, theories, improving-concepts, likes and dislikes, evaluating judgement, simulating or inner trial and error, mimesis).
Judging is one of those tricky words but its also a chance for a better connection between sensory equipment and data processing, if you split it up: describing judgement and evaluating judgement ...wait! You really have found a bug! :( It is caused by mixing up two different meanings of the same word. In my paragraph I should have pointed out that its about evaluating judgement. Damn. Ok, apply evaluating judgement to my writings.
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 10:41:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---As the recipient deals with structures of a higher order that look like chaos to his mind most of the time, a verdict like "wrong" or "error" leads to destructive downshifting or downgrading of the outer or inner nature.
--- End quote ---
Again, which of the two polarities would have such verdicts?
--- End quote ---
In case of evaluating judging STS and STO-Candidates alike, I guess. But the STO-candidates feel humble. They feel sorry for the poor little bugs.
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 10:41:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---Thing is, if I actually understood nature, if I could simulate it perfectly, if I were qualified, a judgement wouldn´t be possible.
--- End quote ---
Here you are fully contradicting your first sentence. And you are saying that, for example, a qualified, learned and experienced structural engineer (who by definition should understand nature) cannot judge if a bridge holds under a certain weight load. I think you are not understanding that there is a difference between objective and subjective judgment.
--- End quote ---
Its actually about the death of subjective judging, that is no longer needed, in case you have got everything by being everything. This is how I imagined the end of times ;) ok... hmm ...Do you really think you can avoid subjective judging right now, acting objectively? :/
--- Quote from: Data on November 25, 2009, 10:41:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: f ---What does this tell us about "judgement" and about "truth", about "expectation", "right" and "wrong"?
--- End quote ---
Let me guess, you think that all is null and void, right?
--- End quote ---
No its not. Its part of our lifes. It keeps the engine running and viewed from above it can be even funny (when watching a realistic movie). "Judging" really is one of those tricky words that both sides are using.
Is your subjective and objective judgement equal to my evaluating and describing judgement?
Now judge for yourself :/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version