What about forms embedded due to native human biological filtering mechanisms? That is, say, three cells in a line firing within 5ms registers as a line, etc.

What about forms embedded due to native human biological filtering mechanisms? That is, say, three cells in a line firing within 5ms registers as a line, etc.
  • Like
 I see the process (and even the notion of ‘process’, and notion of ‘notion’, etc) as standing upon firmer or softer sand that continually moves under the feet, never giving us full stability but hopefully enough to be useful now and again
I don’t know Descartes’ wax but it sounds like it might be similar
But that brings me to how our understanding of things relies on metaphor, which brings us to a notion of “can anything be the same” ness, to objectness, to forms again… it’s a common path I suppose
  • Like


Ok. I think I need to read that. I was exposed to Borges as a teenager by a wonderful Spanish teacher – we read a few short stories in Spanish and I later read some in English. But I don’t recall that one and I suspect, as he was my big introduction to proper post-modernism (rather than the thing that people derisively refer to as post-modernism but isn’t), the issue of categories has been an ongoing struggle of mine.
I’ll be thrilled if it’s been in Borges all along and I just hadn’t read it.
 He is identified in American classrooms as the very start and originator of literary post-modernism; inspired by the new knowledge of quantum mechanics but put into literary form, the divisions between categories now mutable, the distinctions between fiction and non-fiction less firm than previously thought
I never realized Borges was making a case for usefulness of categories outside of it being a lonely existence without them because of it rendering communication difficult/impossible without them.
… oh I did see the point.
I hadn’t realized how influential Borges was on my mind.
  • Like

I think after 30+ years I can finally look at a summary of Borges and be ok with it. I never wanted a summary to spoil my experiences and at this point, it doesn’t. But such a terse reductionism of Borges here in 3 minutes is surprising. “Copies, Interpretation and Infinities.”
Ficciones summarized in 3 generalizations. Doesn’t take it away but what a generalization/abstraction – and yeah, it’s not wrong as one of many possible ways – but I didn’t expect it.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTisZ5yV4o oh dear. Talk about abstraction. This is an arbitrary and also useful abstraction of Ficciones in 3 minutes.Or three categories;
InfinitiesVery terse indeed. Funes would have held this uniquely without placing the knowledge of the experiences of experiencing Ficciones and his own story had he experienced reading it during his own lifetime as contained within.

PERHAPS the “mechanisms” / placements of abstractions; what they are afforded are active regardless of the chosen abstractions; the arbitrariness is their power not a drawback. It gives us flexibility as well at the cost of some measure of a feeling of certainty.
I think once upon a time I had to concede to holding an ontological pluralism; I could not find any way out of that.
 YES I think Funes would mathematically be a self-avoiding walk.


Funes, a character in a short story by Borges, remembered everything from every angle and perspective in his whole life including the present moment and could not abstract/generalize, experiencing everything in its own uniqueness. Also suffered from terrible insomnia; I always saw it as a blessing and not a curse; although being a repository for one’s own knowledge as it was presented precisely with no way of simplifying or shortening it would certainly mean things take exactly as long as they take.
Usually regarded as somewhat of a sad figure, I found a paper written in 1985 that saw Funes as almost a god compared to us mere mortals; our ability to generalize is a crutch based on our limited capabilities.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine × = 54

Leave a Reply