lingua mortui - meta data

 

by bhtART

 

                                                                  In what direction does information move, flow, begin and

                                                                  end? META 1: referring to itself or to the conventions of its

                                                                  genre; self-referential. META 2: meaning "after" or "beyond".

                                                                  Is MetaData a WHO?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circle One:  Language Defines Me, but Defies Me

​

Imagine referencing yourself pertaining to your sense of the

world. Beginning with language, which is the only imaginable

means to endeavor the challenge, you are already self-negating

the act of being self-referential - language exists in many forms

as a gift to all - the property of none. Any individual who attempts

to embark on the challenge of giving his sense "of the times"

and space in any form, has a self-limiting factor that cannot be

omitted in the moment of making such an attempt. The most present barrier is not the individual, who for the matter at hand, is reduced in his individuality by sharing language in common with all other communicators, either the orators or the interlocutors present and/or presenting, but is language itself, about which we require metalanguage to describe it, or discuss it. Therefore, taking language into consideration in that moment, he should come to realize that even his sense of the words he uses to make such a bold exclamation of "his" sense of things, defies his very self in so doing. For even defining himself adequately is an act that is borrowed from the language he uses. Beyond himself, which has by that point been shaped by the very tool, language (chisel that it is), he has no other means of self referential data from which he may extrapolate some unspeakable fact about himself - not even one.  The sum of his presence as a body in mind is, too, summarily reduced to words: brain, heart, liver, skin, carbon, water, chemical processes and so on. The stuff of man in substance is known only through the words that make knowing any element about his existence true. In total, he is the aforementioned stuff, all of which corresponds to language that exists even if he is without a sense of the words thereof. His sense of the world limited if for no other reason than his being without a sense of himself in its exhaustive entirety.  Heart and mind, syntax to synapse; time ticked away long before a present language to describe the sodium potassium pump, whose effort was on-off, on-off, on-off, was known.  Unknown processes were but an unknown language, no matter how ordered, still chaotic where words escaped its beating presence.  However true the description, tick tock, thump thump, the reason preceded the knowledge which gave order to the perpetual event, a language yet discovered to extrapolate the fact that the heart and mind worked as one in a simple, yet complicated syntax awaiting the thick description that blood is thicker than water, and language but a long lost cousin awaiting discovery.  Was reason its awaiting partner, or its precedent parent whose gently guiding hand gave order to the chaos of self awareness?  The gross persistence of time chaotic -- were man to locate any amount of order in the chaos of his experience, did language put it there, or did he bring it to life there with a new order of lingua mortui?  Dead or alive, the words awaited reason to give order to chaos.

 

To some great extent, the individual caught up in the paradoxical game of granting a description of reality as he knows it, he is the language that he speaks. If there is a way then for him to characterize his sense of reality, then perhaps the means lies in the means itself, as language alone is self referential, knowing itself and nothing else. Therefore, the self referential portrayal of reality is merely only a diatribe about expression, or the mode of expression itself. Forgoing every retrievable experience from his memory to the date he begins, his experiences, which have also come to shape the characteristic mind who is that individual self, it must be shown that such memories are also only language in and of themselves. The imagery associated with the events but language twice removed -- how language comes to effect even our DNA, a future essay on such a topic -- the individual's future but a moment predicated on the language that preceded it and shaped it: sons and daughters of logos.  Illogical or logical -- what will such a man become -- logos? Speaking of language generationally, he is no longer the man he was, or the boy, notwithstanding the myriad linguistic moments that forged the man who is; for at various instances in his life his vocabulary would have been less, and therefore, his experience bound far more to imagery which he can only now adequately describe. He has become his future self, his own (F)father, in some sense, if not a distant relative to the boy (always only in the image of Logos, or illogos). Now a man, he reasons differently, adapts differently (via language in his internal dialogue [thought]), and in time he even comes to forgive the boy who once made mistakes which reason now allows him to avoid. He has evolved, but it is language that made it so; some memories repressed, meta-retrieval, impossible to describe. However much this may be, which is to say, however vivid his recollections are, his description of those experiences are subject to change along with his experience of, or sense, that is, of the reality he faces in the now (whatever amassed vocabulary that NOW is based upon).  Not one component of his current sense of things is above being omitted from his (now alone) lingual capacity. His facility to render a complete portrayal of his sense is thereby either uplifted by his command of time's tie to language, or mitigated by a memory that fails him. His sense of things his speech: his experience has become data about data, facts that existed, and still do exist in his mind, though once and for all he is incapable of making the necessary acquisition of the complete picture from an inability to interact with his own mind: to try would be a leap of faith, and to some extent quantum in its very own nature, as leaps go.  He is his atomic, to molecular, to cellular, to biologicial infrastructure, to sentient individual superstructure (to borrow from Marx and synthesize here):  he is the very culture of, divisions of labor of, behaviors of, hierarchy of each, the rituals of atoms, molecules, cells and the language learned from conception to infancy stored in the database of his brain and cellular history.  He is language.

 

The facts are indeed still present, though like language, far too rich to retain its fullness, which is language in its entirety. However, to the idiot savant, for whom retrieval may be more likely, he stands with language as a sort of infinite arsenal of expression - perhaps - yet may very well be incapable of expression through his all-encompassing modality so as to make his complete access accessible to they who stand within earshot to hear and understand. If they cannot understand his full sense, then it is as though he has said absolutely nothing, or everything all at once. His memories are far too vivid to share with others who lack the language that they need to process every bit of data at his immediate disposal. With such a capacity, through his facility he cannot dispose of instances that others may or may not find necessary to extrapolate a general sense of his pure sense in the very least. For instance: the texture of the sand in his shoes, the exact temperature of the day, how tall he was at the time, his exact weight, every second thus accounted for, every gust of wind, its direction, the sound it made as it passed over his ears, the words being spoken in that instance, a plane flying overhead, a certain bird's song, its pitch, the distance it was from him when singing so cheerfully at 5:37 pm and so on - ad infinitum - contained in the genetic makeup of his idiot savant status, transfixed as a singular tone in his everflexing synapses whose voiced expression is an indiscernable scream. Not so much as leaving out that he was ill, feverish and vomiting what he had eaten, and precisely what he had eaten ---- who prepared it, and why they did so.

 

Language for him, knows no end, yet, nor does he know an end to his experience for having the full facility to avoid forgoing any bit of data, or meta-data, referencing himself fully through the language he has complete access to. Language, is he not language, THIS idiot savant? To the other man, who could be described as above or beyond "average", is no less the language used by the idiot savant than the idiot savant is, but with less of it (highly ordered and stored at 100%) to retrieve the fullness of his moment by moment sensory data imbedded in the archives of memory (the annuls of time according to his perception thereof). To the above average man, it is language that both defines him, and in HIS "NOW" defies him. As for the idiot savant, it is language that makes him so. For what is this idiot savant in particular but the expressed definition of the self-same word, for whom self-referential expression is easier, taking the appearance to listeners as one for whom language fails to defy? It would seem so, until the the extreme distances of meta-data are followed to no end but the end to begin with, and that by metalanguage.  How can all language refer to or describe all language?

 

CIRCLE TWO:  To See Seeing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABOVE IMAGE (by Brandon Heath Tart) The heavens being

stretched like a garment (says the Bible) implying that space

itself is substance...Pabulum?

 

Languages are many, yet they still serve the same goal. Genres of literature influence both its content, and its style to subsequently alter the voice of the author. Experience itself is a multifaceted genre beginning with seeing. Events transpire, innumerable components of events or even one event define the experience while including every event that preceded the moment. The genre of experience, or the kind of experience being undergone by the viewer is recorded imagery that can only later be described. In the instance of seeing, the mind (recording device) is not caught up in a conscious effort of detailing every jot and tittle of experience, which for the finite mind would be impossible to be conscious of. For in the case of a hypothetical "infinite viewer", all is one, and is perhaps language itself all the more. The experience of the aforementioned idiot savant is  merely "accounted for" stages of retrievable experiences that to truthfully express, would and must be presented in mere sound alone. Perhaps there is no sure way of knowing what that sound would be, whether or not it is or could be audible is unknowable, but due to the nature of the minds present at the instant of his oration to be fed experiences through the grand idiot savant-orator, their own limited language makes the language spoken by the idiot savant just as unknowable as a purely tonal (tonal here in the auditory sense, but not limited thereto; tonal here must also account for a purely visual experience that would be monotonous [a transfigured instant that is solid white] to our current minds' dimensional status) portrayal of reality - the characteristic 'oneness of mind' of Asperger's Syndrome - the instant of all the world's parents who cannot interpret the screams of their autistic son or daughter. God, as a concept, understood as infinite, seems to be similarly unheard, or, impossible to "hear", although the universe as the hall of experience is as much language in its materiality as it is "stuff" in and of itself. For as vast as the universe is, its own edge is as unretrievable as the language necessary to fully convey its scale characteristics. It is as large as it is small, either of which could be so polarized in that scale characteristic that it is impossible to rightly say that the universe is at all despite the sense we share of it.

 

As real as the cosmos is, it is by virtue of our epistemological distance from both its center and its edge, unreal in spite of having experienced both its presence, and our own presence as individual deposits of consciousness in its midst. Neither all at once, nor in any imaginable capacity can all that is be experienced so as to convey it accurately, knowing of it, but not knowing it in any real sense. The game now comes to an end, as the idiot savant's grand experience takes the form of a suspended note that is his complete retrieval's suddenness. It would matter not to the listeners whether he spoke the whole of the English language perfectly, or any other language depending on where he is on earth. His complete access is to him, all at once, and separate events that are for his mind, too many recorded instances to tell of through divisions of syntax. Separate from him, and all that is separate from him are instances that lie beyond his vision's reach, where neither words, nor syntax matter in his case. On the other side of the earth, a multitude of additional instances are occurring, as is the case with the universe itself. Consciousness of this matter begs a new question, which is why existence beyond (a meta-existance) our seeing eyes reach exists at all. This is what Edgar Allen Poe referred to as "pabulum" in his short story titled - The Mesmeric Revelation.

 

"P. You speak of rudimental "beings." Are there other rudimental thinking beings than man ?

 

V. The multitudinous conglomeration of rare matter into nebulæ, planets, suns, and other bodies which are neither nebulæ, suns, nor planets, is for the sole purpose of supplying pabulum for the idiosyncrasy of the organs of an infinity of rudimental beings."

 

The boundless directions of consciousness in the universe are now made more accessible though technology - we can see more of the universe - but through seeing we only scratch a very deep surface of the totality of what could be discovered, none of which can ever be fully known for the very truth that there is not time for mankind to do so. In fact, there isn't space enough for this either, which is difficult to distinguish as being either a supreme irony, or twisted paradox, though either may apply, and that, simultaneously.  Therefore, let us ask, for whom is all of this space for - this pabulum: : 1. food; especially : a suspension or solution of nutrients in a state suitable for absorption 2: intellectual sustenance 3:something (as writing or speech) that is insipid, simplistic, or bland.

If it is for absorption, no human mind can see all or enough to define it, or through language describe it, as he cannot absorb all. If it is intellectual sustenance, we cannot by it grow wise so as to keep the universe from collapsing in the event known as The Big Crunch. As mentioned, there is not time enough to alter the universe's spatial collapse, which logically, leaves no space to do so either. To see seeing requires a unique vantage point unencumbered by time and space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Double Helix of Life and Death?

These three theoretical portrayals of the future of the

universe reveal interesting information. The Big Crunch,

though, would over time begin and end over and over,

forming a DNA double helix. Interesting Language the

universe is written in!

 

                        To See Seeing the Beginning and End from Within?  Seeing is Reading.

 

So for whom is the whole of existence? In Poe's writing, you find a conversation between a hypnotist and the hypnotized. The hypnotized is on the brink of certain death, and in the altered state of consciousness brought upon him by the hypnotist who is conducting an interview, he is detailing his experience of the proverbial "other side". The gates of perception are cleansed to the hypnotized, he who is so near to death, so much so that he speaks volumes about the unseen, the unknown and unknowable, for those who are living and will soon enter into the realm where all is known, as it were. To the interviewer, the words of the hypnotized are made available through his sense of the experience, but only accessible to the dying via the words that are available to him. His experience is too grand to feed to the mind of the interviewer, who is now at the whim of he for whom seeing is now seen; he describes to the interviewer what he sees, what he senses, but must often describe what he is describing to give a working sense to the interviewer, who is unable to follow the infinite purview of the dying man who is now/after and beyond made capable of conveying the unspeakable to the living. Why, for he shares the purview of those for whom the  Pabulum has its being, and the "visual-lingual" feast that the uncertain "WHO" feasts upon: intellectual sustenance for a mind capable of seeing both end and beginning.

 

The universe, according the Christian doctrine, was created by The Word - Logos. The logos, or "words", is also reason, which through words we actively do, and when we're reasonable, we say that the reasoning is sound, or - logical. The concept of an infinite God is, by John, referred to as reason. A God of logic, or words, infinite in his descriptive capacity, unlimited in his linguistic purview of time and space, Author of all as the scriptor of the cosmos. As John 1:1 reads, in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Conceptually, God takes the formless form of an infinite caldron of purely reasonable descriptions, who alone can see the unseen, know the unknowable, speak the unspeakable; and either did, or still does - who can know? We can only offer conjecture as to the nature of such a fullness of mind, its omnipotent capacity, either through its omniscient status, which must be contingent (if upon anything) upon its omnipresence. God is Apeiron

​

[(ἄπειρον) is a Greek word meaning "(that which is) unlimited," "boundless", "infinite", or "indefinite" from ἀ- a-, "without" and πεῖραρ peirar, "end, limit", "boundary" the Ionic Greek form of πέρας peras, "end, limit, boundary".]

 

​

within a universe that isn't, who is said to have spoken all things into existence: an existence that is too large to be known by humans, too great to deny openly, too far reaching in space and time to be described, and yet - it is. To whom, though, and for whom is all that can be perceived to be for, except for some Mind which can see all, and therefore, know all as it sees it all?

Is it reasonable to say that all which could be given a description of, provided enough time and space were granted, could only be a self referential "Meta" - an all knowing Other that is reason enough, being that it is Reason - The Word?

 

In what direction does information move, flow, begin and end? In every conceivable direction.

META 1: referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential. META 2: meaning "after" or "beyond".

The Word, both beginning and end according to Christian doctrine, referenced itself alone when speaking reality into existence, creating an awareness in individual deposits of its Self in humans. Beyond man, both before and after time, Meta Data was; it continues to describe and detail itself, of itself, and through its self - Language:  the very means of reason, logic, CREATIVE CAPACITY and the words than make it so.

 

Is Meta Data a WHO, in WHO's image we are made? It is beyond human capacity to reason in any way that is self-referential other than through experience, having experiences that others may not have shared?  But if it is true that there is an omniscient Author, a mind back of all things, front of all things, side to side above and beyond, then it is also true that it has experienced everything with you. As stated, language is not human property, though we make use of it and often claim ownership of it while it is beyond our hands, our minds' reach.. If information flows in any direction, then the universe (a single spoken sentence) navigates in every conceivable and inconceivable direction through the conceptual infinite reason that is both beginning and end. Where it begins, is where it will end, which as far as experience is concerned, has already always been where it will be. Not in where, but in whom. Information (in The Beginning) is the resting place of the universe. Beyond the universe is knowing, seeing all at once.

​

"The End"

 

-- Crunch!!! ---

 

The Beginning:  In what direction does information move, flow, begin and end? META 1: referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential. META 2: meaning "after" or "beyond". Is MetaData a WHO?

 

             

         Language Defines Me but Defies Me -- Not?

 

Imagine referencing yourself pertaining to your sense of the world. Beginning with language, which is the only imaginable means to endeavor the challenge, you are already self-negating the act of being self referential...

Language defies mankind as long as humans confuse it as being of human origin; whether it was given or not does not take away from the truth that it is a great gift. Moreover, It is mankind that seems to defy language, if God is the Word, "that is"...