Other Languages > Deutsch

The Wave (online) - Deutsche Übersetzung/ -German Translation

<< < (2/8) > >>

forget-me-not:
I rather doupt the German translation of De-Bugging in general. I am referring to the original meaning in the sense of an Ex-Termination.

Ich zweifele vielmehr an der generellen deutschen Übersetzung von De-Bugging. Ich beziehe mich hier auf die ursprüngliche Bedeutung im Sinne eines Kammerjägers.

forget-me-not:

--- Quote from: Data on November 22, 2009, 05:38:48 PM ---
--- Quote from: floetus on November 22, 2009, 04:18:21 PM ---
In my own words the second quote (Laura) means: ... but the truth is, whenever someone thinks he deals with a universal fault, like war and crime, its simply his own limited mind speaking out of fear and wishfull thinking. Its the flawed view, not the flawed world, the distorted mirror that reflects its surrounding in a flawed way.

--- End quote ---
Rather than back-translating a translation (which needs by definition the double amount of work and is prone for errors of meaning), you could directly read the original version of The Wave, since it seems that your English is very good already!
Anstatt eine Übersetzung 'zurückzuübersetzen' (was definitionsgemäß die doppelte Arbeit benötigt und für Bedeutungsfehler anfällig ist), könntest du direkt die originale Version von Die Welle lesen, da dein Englisch sehr gut zu sein scheint!


--- End quote ---

Hello Data :)

You are right. I just wanted to explain/ translate the two German quotes because I didn´t know the English ones. There are some quotes i noted while i was reading the German books, you know, to remember the chain of arguments . Unfortunately I didn´t note the exact location in the series, so I couldn´t compare them and quote the original, which would have been better of course, sorry ;)

Hallo Data :)

Sie haben recht. Ich wollte lediglich die beiden Deutschen Zitate erklären/ übersetzen, weil ich die Englischen Originale nicht kannte. Ich habe mir einige Stellen herausgeschrieben, als ich die Deutschen Bücher gelesen habe, um mich einfach an den Argumentationsverlauf erinnern zu können. Leider habe ich nicht die genaue Quelle notiert, so dass ich sie nicht vergleichen und die Originalzitate verwenden konnte. Das wäre natürlich besser gewesen, sorry ;) 

forget-me-not:



--- Quote from: Laura, last chapter of the wave series; last sentences ---Remember: meeting a jaguar can change one's way of looking at the world. And once we have met the jaguar, once we have understood that we "will do what we will do," let's remember the words from Ark's journals:


--- Quote from: Ark ---So, let's state the hypothesis. The only reasonable hypothesis that I can state is that one which comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the World has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain "bugs" in the construction.

It is quite possible that using the meta-language one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program which has bugs, but which has the built-in capacity for self-improving.

There are, therefore, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to find out the methods of debugging.

--- End quote ---

So, let's get on with Debugging the Universe, starting with our minds.

--- End quote ---

Sorry, I cant help it. The word "Bug" has the potential to be interpreted in a more appropriate way. "Fault" or "Error" has not. Mailfunctions in nature can´t be compared to those of a very human software. This analogy is flawed.

In nature those are caused by interferences, by uncountable effects based on uncountable rules, so they are an unavoidable result of an ultra-high complexity. Imho that is what Arc means when he speaks of unavoidable bugs that are caused by a systems complexity. Think of it. Mailfunctions in nature are like a perfectly constructed aircraft that works properly untill a very heavy, perfect storm occures that could have an even deadly impact on that perfect aircraft. So perfect and flawless parts interfere with each other, unconsciously like the storm or consciously like the lizzies, to a degree causing mailfunctional effects. That is life. So dealing with a bug  implies dealing with a parasite, dealing with an interference of effects, that needs to be exterminated. By the way improving something is not the same thing as repearing or correcting a thing. Modifying things could lead to a better adaptation. This is what life does all the time. Imho this is what Arc means when he speaks of the built-in capacity for self-improving.

In software-programmes and machines constructed and coded by humans mailfunctions are a totally different business. Those are based on ignorance and naivity, prejudices and simpy the wrong concepts that dont fit nature, that cant work properly untill they are based on natural concepts.

Applying the word "fault" or "error" to nature is like implying ignorance and naivity which would be arrogant and totally untrue. This not so humble opinion is a kind of self-glorifying for the benefit of wishfull thinking. In a moment of weakness this could be fatal. Think of people as being portals. The guy who discovers "the error" suddenly thinks he knows better than nature. Here the tail starts wagging the dog. This guy starts playing god, making the world fit his expectations, creating gene-technological enhancements for the benefit of good looking and being smarter. In the end we look all the same due to our glorious corrections: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

As I said before "error", "fault" and "expectation" are tricky words. In the wrong and powerfull hands they might lead, and as we can all see do lead to wishfull thinking. Even Gurdieff knew his messages would be disstorted, unconsciously or maybe even conciously by his own students, by those people who think that bugs and errors are quite the same ;)

German translation is following soon ;)

ark:

--- Quote from: floetus on November 24, 2009, 04:28:38 PM ---
Sorry, I cant help it. The word "Bug" has the potential to be interpreted in a more appropriate way. "Fault" or "Error" has not.

--- End quote ---

When I used the term "bug" it was to mean "a source of an undesirable behavior", with understanding that "undesirability is possibly uncomputable", that is it  can not be "predicted" - even in principle.

Of course one would like to define, at least tentatively, "undesirable", but that would be like trying to read the mind of the Creator.

Concerning your comment, however, I am lost. What exactly did you try to say?

forget-me-not:
Hello Arc,

Its an honour to meet you here, at least within words. :) Maybe I have exaggerated it a little. Maybe its not such a big deal at all. But then I wonder why I am a little obsessed with it. Anyway.

The definition of yours is exactly what the word "Bug" means to me, and the figurative association that comes along with it, fits this exact meaning and supports it: "a source of an undesirable behavior" 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.

So whats an error? 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. The universe works exactly like it is supposed to work. So "error" seems to be a very human term that refers to a wrong human concept, to a certain misconception that does not lead to the expected result. Its part of a STS-thinking-pattern. Making it fit my expectations. Whenever there is an error its wrong and must be corrected, even if its nature. Even a person could be seen as an error that must be, well... you know. Its all the same. The devine creators products should not be treated like its ignorant and stupid childrens ones.

"Bug" would be the alternative. It is something else that allready works properly, that is not based on the wrong concept because it even lives and even has rights! So regarded from an subjective point of view, which is of course necessary if you wanna live and get your rights, you discover many sources of an undesirable behavior that you wanna get rid off. So you start adapting by the use of different kinds of self-improvement- and enviroment-improvement-techniques. 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. Its more like chipping your way through the jungle.

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.

"Fehlerbehebung im Universum" sounds not very humble, on the contrary: It sounds quite presumptuous. It sounds like: Lets correct nature, make it work properly. Lets clear the entire jungle. Lets show the old silly master what mastership really means. My point is that we should start "de-bugging" our language as well. 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.

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 ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page