003 Between iota and void
Wednesday, 2 Oct 2019
This note deals primarily with the first two propositions of standard discourse in Logos.
Everything is either
void — the infinitely large (infinity at its finest, you can think of it
as absence of distinction), some thing which is precisely not void —
iota, the infinitely small (the notion of
distinction), or anything that lies in-between the two.
Although that’s all that has to be said on the subject, I will attempt to explain why it’s first and foremost the logos way of dealing with complicated matters. And no, it’s not going to be some perverted quantum types of an idea, like it’s a superposition of types until it’s computed, then it’s all realised, which would instantly make perfectly ugly jerking material for /r/pcj, and while I would want that… By the way, let me tell you this. I was once or twice accused on that subreddit, and it’s pretty much an ironic mirror of /r/programming with its own folklore, etc. I was accused of what’s called “self-jerking” there, and it’s not even a rule. First of all, and this will be highly dialectical of me to say, the circlejerk subreddit is much more compos mentis, right in the head if you will, than the one it mocks. Of course, in the modern day it’s hardly a surprise, considering how common this signature dialectical change of wind, whence the subject is substituted by its opposite. In this case a community on Reddit was meant to deconstruct the values of the original subreddit, but for me, and I believe many, it actually ended up substituting the very function /r/programming claims to provide. So I do post my own blogs to /r/pcj sometimes. And this will be highly metamodern of me to say, but I do believe that whilst irony is the most sincere device that there is, this also makes self-jerking the most honest form of self-promotion. Whereas in regular spaces, promoting would require to carefully tailor message to the agenda, /r/pcj allows to go straight for the critique, and I like to keep that in mind when writing.
In the recent essays I often utter the magical words:
// 1. Void manifests itself. void.
This is the first proposition in the specification of logos. As there has to be a way of saying something,
there also has to be a way of saying nothing.
void is defined by every possibility of every possible definition.
If Wittgenstein was given what he asked for
(in TLP 4.51), it would have been a
but it wouldn’t be given to him per se, but rather naturally manifest itself from the use of language.
Void-proposition is not very interesting in itself. You can’t go very far with it at defining significant propositions,
or I guess you should say you can only go too far with it at defining things, to the point there’s no definition
at all. Something useful for a definition would be some notion of distinction, which would have to be derived from
the totality of all propositions that make up
void. Then, I ask: what is the meaning of
not void? One could make an
argument such as “if
void is the totality of definitions, then
not void is the absence of definition”, but
ultimately if this was true, it would have to make
not void the same as
void, constituting an obvious contradiction.
The opposite of the infinitely large is the infinitely small, and as all elementary propositions do, it does not
contradict anything, e.g.
void and not void yields
true, as void-proposition (everything) kind of already
includes nothing. The notion of distinction shows itself in the grammar of
not void: something is the case
that is not something else. Herein lays the second proposition:
// 2. Iota is an intangible particle, a form distinguished from void. // // Whilst void is the infinitely large, which is the totality of all // possible propositions, iota is the infinitely small. And that is // a single definition, correspondingly. // // Iota signifies a meaning, void a lack thereof. // iota := not void.
The proposition above is a saying, which is read as ‘what can be said about <iota> is that it’s <not void>.’
void does indeed manifests itself, it’s the only proposition with such superability; others must obey the
syntax of definition, and a saying is a kind of definition. In this case, the very first proposition of all,
is being defined. All the possible definitions that there are can be traced to it. Philosophically, iota itself
formulates how symbols can be different, thereby introducing the semantics of both saying
:= and showing
Perhaps I could be guilty of misappropriating Wittgenstein’s concepts here, but as long as I’m concerned, this use
is perfectly valid.
If you were familiar with the specification, you would by now see the logical form of
not p is
generally recognised by syntax. For example, you can look in section
8. where the definition of else-proposition
not p to the left of the consequence sign. On the left to it, booleans and the basic logical
propositions are allowed only, along with the propositions such as
iota. This is not a coincidence:
iota are special in that despite defining sense of propositions, they also can signify to whether a
certain proposition has meaning (
is iota) or lacks it (
Symbol := int. if Symbol is void, then Symbol = 2! if Symbol is iota, then Symbol = Symbol + 2! if Symbol = 4, then panic! // will panic!
This is important to understand why
panic! is the way it is:
// 7. Panic is a proposition that renders discourse meaningless. // // It's defined via an assertion, which form is logically correct, // yet completely nonsensical, therefore contradictory. // // When contradiction arise during a reading, they instantly // compromise the discourse, rendering it completely meaningless. // panic! := iota = void!
First thing to notice is that
panic! is an imperative proposition, you can tell this by the look of an
exclamation sign in its proposition–form. It’s an imperative because it intends to transform: mutate the meaning of
discourse. This is usually achieved with the
<symbol> = <value>! (assertion) grammar, where the possibility
<symbol> is asserted to be the case. Although the assertion in
panic! does indeed have a legitimate
logical form, it attempts to do nonsense. While in logos you can say nonsense sometimes, you certainly can’t
After any panic occurs, the text is discarded on the spot and read no more.
Void only exists to define the syntaxic structure of iota, which is the foundation of all distinction in logos, starting with the indication of proposition having meaning (also known as value), or lack thereof, achieved by either saying, or showing: two possible ways of stating sense of propositions in logos.