Re: Intensionality (...)

From: John M <>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)


Mostly agreed, but you misquoted me big time:

My word "EXPRESS" is very different from "DESCRIBE".
I express my music in playing the piano, or singing
tunes. It is involved with some sense of (dis?)liking.
Mathematicians find 'art' and 'beauty' in ingenious
mathematically formulated ideas - sometimes I do, too
- but this 'art' is not mixable with dance, shapes of
sculpturesque foming, visual joy of painting, or
auditive pleasures of music - all of them at two ends:
performing and passively enjoying (including math -
whatever we recently identify it by). Expressing art
means the 'artful' expression of sentiments, some
emotions involved. At least in my feeble formulation.

On the other side (your word): to "describe" it means
making (artless) science(?) out of it and explain the
unexplainable reasonably - and that's what kills it.

Tom's person as "higher level system"? higher than
what? (Is it self-defeating for the numbers?)

It carries (at least in our personal mind) some
meaning (person?) and I second your question: HOW did
that 'hihgher leve' meaning jump out from the (???)
lower(???) level numbers? Your polite sophistication
(I almost wrote: French) added as 3rd step to it: the
'generation' of (again: even higher than itself) level
A person (=meaning) can add 'meaning' to anything, but
I expose your point: how does something without ANY
OTHER meaning than NUMBERS add the infinite variety of
Deus ex machina comes to mind, but both deus and the
machina have to be generated first from numbers.

Pleaswe forgive my artful nitpicking


--- Quentin Anciaux <>

> Hi,
> Le Mercredi 5 Avril 2006 22:07, John M a écrit :
> > Stephen:
> >
> > right on! (onwards, of course).
> > I did not mention the arts. Express "art" by
> numbers
> > and you killed the art.
> It is not a question to describe art by numbers...
> I'd say it is totally
> unrelated, in a materialistic view don't you think
> you would kill the art by
> describing it at molecular interaction level ?
> The only problem I have with this idea (numbers...)
> is like I said in the
> other mail I don't understand where *meaning* come
> from. We can
> encode "information" in numbers, but without an
> observer/person (as Tom said)
> the information is meaningless... yet Tom said a
> person is an higher level
> system. Hmmm so numbers are the primary things that
> generates person that
> generates meaning which generates numbers ? (I hope
> I'm not to unclear)
> Quentin

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Apr 06 2006 - 10:36:11 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST