Your dirty mouth…

A dirty mouth is a dirty mind. A dirty mind is a clogged mind. A clogged mind is an inefficient mind. An inefficient mind is a degraded human nature. Willfully degrading one's own nature is a sin. Hence, a dirty mouth is a sin.

Thinking about thinking about physics, part 2...

In my introductory post of this series, I noted how Roger G. Newton is what I call a "chaste realist" (C.R.) and that, as such, his instinctive realism is at odds with his crypto-Kantian idealism. As I noted in the introductory post, Newton's thinking about physics is largely deflationary, in the sense that, at the end of the day, even the strangest scientific discoveries and theories can and should be reconciled as closely as possible with common sense (i.e. realism about the world and our knowledge of it). The following are informal characterizations, but I think they will make my basic point.

A C.R. is someone that, so to speak, wants realism to be true, but who is also aware of how far from reality scientific theories can be and are. Secretly, a C.R. knows science is on the right path and that normal science tells us important, lasting things about the real, mind-independent world. A C.R. cannot bring himself to subscribe to scientism, since he admits the ontological limitations of scientific claims are tied up with their origin in human cognition. C.R.s recognize that idealization, pragmatic selectivity, aesthetic bias, and so on, effect scientific paradigms, but they insist the general thrust of scientific inquiry tracks reality better than most, if not all other, methods of reasoning. On the other hand, a C.R. rejects constructivism and most of the non-progressive, anti-realist theory of science (as espoused by Duhem, Carnap. Hempel, Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Van Fraassen, Giere, et al.). Scientific standards and conceptions may be relative to human "users" of science, but that does not entail the former are relativistic and fictional. In effect, C.R.s say to the regnant anti-realist regime in the philosophy of science, "If we promise not to claim too much for science as a 'truth engine', can we be allowed to accept scientific findings as 'true enough'?"

So, I'm calling Newton a chaste realist. I'll begin by noting his realism. First of all, Newton has i) ambitious aims for scientific explanation (Se). Se must not be mere description. For instance, Newton argues, even if we discovered that physical constants changed, as Paul Dirac and others have suggested based on the expansion of the universe, "we would still have to search for an underlying time-independent law that would account for the specific way in which these constants vary with time. Physics never regards history itself as a sufficient explanation of any fundamental change" (Thinking About Physics [TP], p. 10).

Likewise, ii) Se is about more than the pragmatic success of science. "What justifies our confidence in the basis soundness of the entire [scientific] structure," Newton writes, "is its coherence, an intellectual coherence that includes consistency with all the experiences and expectations founded on it, the fulfillment of precise, far-reaching predictions implied by it, and the functioning of all the technology built on its basis" (p. 19, my italics). Newton's claim contains a number of overly realist quantificational implications, which ultimately are at odds with the chastity of his realism, about which more later.

In any case, Newton continues with a point which strikes, wittingly or unwittingly, against a main pillar of the crude scientism prevalent in much of Western society, namely, the 'argument' that "Science Works, Bitch!" As Newton says, however, "[t]o point out that science works, in the sense that we readily watch television..., is, of course, the most banal of the answers we can give to those who question the truth of science... [though] it is an important component of the coherence of physics" (p. 19). These claims indicate how, for Newton, scientific truth is not merely a matter of technical success or "better living through science," but rather derives from the ambition of making sense of the world by way of science itself. Coherence, as Newton describes it in "the broad sense above... is the basis for claiming truth as the goal of physics-- not as an attainment, but as an aim" (p. 20). Lawrence Sklar, in Theory and Truth, makes almost exactly the same claim, so I hope to discuss both authors in tandem at some point.

Lest the above seem too theoretical, I should note that "the philosophy of science" is not Newton's focus. Rather, his focus is largely on how to reconcile the oddity of quantum theory (QT) with the mainstream of historical scientific claims. For instance, he denies that QT undermines good ole fashioned Newtonian determinism in the popular "spooky" way many people think, since "[q]uantum mechanics is as deterministic as classical mechanics" and that the truly weird things about QT--namely, entanglement--"originates in the wave-particle duality" (pp. 22-23). Indeed, "while part of what is meant by entanglement would obtain for any probabilistic theory... other parts [of QT] go further and are caused by phase correlations" (p. 23). Such entanglement, free of the wave-particle duality, does not strike us as odd for wave dynamics proper, so, as I mentioned in the introductory post, it is Newton's implicit aim to demystify the weirdness of QT by situating it in the larger context of physical statistics as such. A crucial premise in Newton's deflationary QT, is that "reality at the everyday level has to be distinguished from reality at the submicroscopic level" (p. 26).

This is a striking claim, and one with profound philosophical implications. Since, as always, my time is running short before I must head to class, I will close this post without getting any deeper into Newton's own claims in TP. In the next post I will connect Newton's premise about the macro-/microscopic cleft in reality (or the MMC) with its larger philosophical implications from an Aristotelian perspective (mainly by citing Wolfgang Smith's The Quantum Enigma and David Oderberg's Real Essentialism).

Stay tuned.

A lil' convo…

I want to reproduce a discussion I recently had with a friend at That Other Place. You've read some of our interactions before, perhaps, so this might be a prized cameo for some readers.

Then again, I know how eye-meltingly vapid it can be to read online debates online, like eating reprocessed leftovers. But I think the discussion contains some interesting points and reveals some noteworthy dialectic haps and mishaps. Plus, I just want to keep it for my own reference.

I posted the following on my wall at That Other Place:

If language is utterance, what is Utterance attempting to do/convey? If language is use, what is Language using? Words, presumably. But then, why words and not something else? What do words possess--or access--that Language needs with them? What is language ABOUT?

Comments ensued:

C The question is not what language is using but how language is used. If every human being were dead, (silence)

E So there is no world apart from human language? I think even Wittgenstein knew there was a world outside Vienna.

C Is there? I think not.

E Thanks, Descartes. Amazing how little distance analytic philosophy has come, despite its trappings. Is there being apart from language? Any attempt at a reply assumes the affirmation of being. "Is" there? etc. At bottom, why use language?

C It's a question.

E‎ "'It' 'is' 'a' question." Alterity, existence, unity--these are all contained in your reply... because they preempt all replies.

C Any statement that an attempt at a reply assumes the affirmation of being is an assumption that any attempt at a reply assumes the affirmation of being.

E‎ "is"

C‎ ""'It' 'is' 'a' question." Alterity, existence, unity--these are all contained in your reply... because they preempt all replies." Dude, c'mon, really?

C I have no idea what you are saying? What's your point?

E As I've realized for years, Wittgensteinism (the mode of living, not the tenets of his doctrines) is the cure for people beleaguered and pestered by actual philosophizing. Ha, a fan of Witt complains about inscrutability in prose! ;) My point: the tactic of subsuming all reality to language because all expression of language involves language is as fallacious as the attempt to reduce all time to the present.

C And how is that?

E Repeat the cycle. Read my opening post.

C Ironically, the beleaguering, nonsensical and the ambiguous are actually considered by earlier philosophers as philosophizing. Misleading, that's all i can say of of the post.

E Ah, nothing so sweet as some anachronistic patronizing. Point to the moon and remember your fingertip is not that satellite. Call in some of your allies …, and they can have their way with this issue. Perhaps I'm suffering Anemia Jargonensis! Let's look at "ambiguous". Do you suggest there is possibly a one-to-one formulation of a perfect correlation between words and objects? If not, then ambiguity is ineluctable. Cue Gödel.

C Do you suggest otherwise?

E Of course. Reality is not reducible to language. That's my entire point!

E But if ambiguity is all you want, have fun in the monad with Leibniz.

C Has Wittgenstein ever said that reality is reducible to language?

C Hence the stance that metaphysics makes no sense.

E‎ "Die Grenzen meiner Welt sind auch die Grenzen meiner Sprache." On some readings, this was precisely Witt's goal: to leave a space for the mystical and real world, beyond our own 'mere' worlds.

C You don't just like pick a statement from his notes of a trillion words. One really has to finish the whole thing just to get an idea of what he was actually trying to say.

E Ahhh, yes. One must be a disciple before one can utter any kind of critique. Good to know! Why do you think Witt's Investigations is one of [D.'s] most intellectually significant books?

E Now you're sounding like an inerrantist about Holy Witt, when once you might have been zealous about Holy Writ. By what rule or canon or authority or inspiration can I cull Witt's essential dogmas? After all, 1,000,000,000 notes is a lot of notes to cull.

C Ha, yeah right, maybe the answers to your "challenge" are in these notes he wrote.

E Now you have a worthy goal. Refute my Wittgensteinian maxim with a greater Wittgensteinian maxim. Naskh away!

C Inerrantist? Holy Witt? Dude, you are smoking way too much religions, man. Look at your choice of words for sarcasm. In this case, you are like a creationist who screams at the biologists for their failure to understand biological science. I'm actually hoping that there is something I could learn outa this. But seriously the irony ensues with these attempts to write Wittgenstein off.

E I'm not writing him off. I love Witt, as far as I know him. But if it comes to a standoff between me and him about language and reality, you know where my feet are. And honestly, I think I know where Witt's instincts were, despite everything else.

C I guess, at the end of the day, the goal stills remains that a philosopher must find a way to make sense of all this, yeah?

E I agree, but I still think THAT conclusion itself contains pointers to something beyond what a lot of people make of philosophy, not to mention of Witt.

C Are you that philosopher? Do you have the same goal in mind? Or are you just interested in attacking non-religious, demoralized and metaphysics-rejecting philosophers who jeopardize the path for scholastic philosophy to go on?

E Yeah. That's me all over. Have a look at my blog. I sure hope I make the cut, sir.

C P[hilosophical] I[investigations] is good even without Witt. He himself realized that. That's why he considered philosophy "dead".

E Which is why you are really more a historian than a philosopher.

C I understand why you say such a thing, and again, ironically that historically philosophers who stick to that age-old tradition have always enjoyed emasculating Russell and Witt.

E As if they were one and the same!!?? For shame.

C They have often done a good job at discrediting them as non-philosophers but never really good at solving any problems.

E I mean: AS IF Russell and Wittgenstein were one package to "discredit", and that the facile implication of their unity is for shame.

C You think there are no challenges to the kinda philosophy you cling onto? You ever thought about why back in the US there are more analytic schools than scholastic ones or whatever?

C Do you believe it is possible for non-believers to universally accept that kinda philosophy?

E Tell me more about this /fallacia ad populum/.

C Do you honestly and genuinely believe that people can just all stop questioning things and start to accept eveything once they have entered the realm of scholastic philosophy?

E The Faith is not a philosophy. No one is asked to accept a philosophy. There are oodles of non-Thomist, non-Scotistic, non-Etc., Catholics.

E If you think scholastic philosophy is about dogma, I owe you a hot poker up the bum.

C No, I don't think it's just about dogma. However, you and I both know clearly that it is derived from it.

E Caricature after caricature. But that stands to reason, since Medieval though, and St Thomas, if no one else, is enormous, and can only be painted over by innumerable such caricatures.

C Without it, it cannot survive.

E I'll leave you to your artistry.

C How come in other parts of the world there were no other Aquinas?

C Look into Indian philosophy, perhaps you should be surprised by it.

C I'm not doubting your ability to understand Witt as much as the hidden purpose behind all this challenging. As I've noticed over the years, it has always been driven by an absolutist's attempt to show that nothing else is right except for his own version of philosophical absolutism.

E Thus Spake Wisdom Absolute.

C School me more on this when we meet again, yeah? Let me know if you are free tomorrow.

E I'm a professional educator, so I never intend to "school" people unless I'm being paid. ;)

C Exactly, conveying ideas, namely, communication. And again ironically [you are] the person who has do all the pointing to this "God" and how logic, language, science and ethics can only make sense with the God reasoning while attempting to remind others that it is the fingertip which does the all pointing. Let's see how metaphysics is going to survive after all with all this "you-can't-understand-my-nonsense-because-this-is-genuine-philosophizing". :)

E Make yourself more egregious, please. I thought you were all done.

C I thought you were all done with attacking Witt until last night...

E Thin skin, dude. So now engaging equals attacking? Hmmm... maybe I hould throw in lots of curse words and sexual innuendoes to make it more intellectual in your eyes?

C And that is how you see me? It's a shame. What? 'Cause I don't cling onto tradition like you do?

E I don't "see" you any how.

C And perhaps to you philosophy is all about the tenebrous, the mysterious and problematic linguistic confusion. In this case, I'm not that "philosopher" at whom most scientists laugh at resulting from the stereotype that philosophy is nothing but a bunch of horsecrap.

C Same problems for almost a thousand year. Tell me that Thomas Aquinas has the solution.

E Dude, I don't want this to be about "you" and "me". That's why I joked about the word "schooling" you. That's a completely improper way of loading the discussion. Why does everything have to be adversarial? I posted a thought about what I think is a fundamentally weak argument for linguistic determinism (and Quinean constructivism altogether): Now the Middle Ages is being smeared. Stick to the topic or just drop, please?

C I am not smearing but probing all possibilities to find solutions.

E‎ 'Kay.

Important...

Is important itself an important concept?

I suppose the title of this post triggered a reflex that that to which the word "important" refers, is important, demanding attention.

But this post is not about mere psychology. That would be insufficiently codgitative.

Again: is importance itself important?

It seems not, since every indication or assignment of importance in the world--to money, to blood, to water, to fire--is itself contingent, and therefore not intrinsically important, but merely important.

If, then, important is not an important category of being--if, that is, importance is a fable stitched upon the austerity of natural existence--, then we must suppose the absence, or perhaps opposite, of importance is itself important.

So, then, let us consider if non-important is important. Manifestly, it is not, since every actus indicationis is as anthropomorphic and statutory as the importance we stitch upon nature. Even when the actus indicationis points at "non-importance".

What, then, can we say? Neither importance nor non-importance is fundamental (or, fundamentally significant) to nature.

Yet, even this bifurcation is one which we impose. Moreover, it is one that is inescapably important, since the dialectic between important and non-important keeps the mind in its only viable tension, and thus keeps the mind in an important, and imported, way. Perhaps someone will suggest we deactivate our minds, in a Zen way, but that itself is an injunction based on the importance of mental tranquility, or on the non-importance of dialectic, etc.

Nevertheless, the above conclusion is still too merely psychological. We must seek a point of metaphysical resolution. Or at least a momentary denouement.

We cannot go without assigning either (state of) value to the world. That is the psychological dialectic.

But, more importantly, we cannot even speak of a world of diversity apart from our perspective in it, and the world itself has produced "us" (qua valuators). There is no us (qua generative rational dimension) without the world, yet there is no "world" *qua discrete object) without "us" (qua delimited field of reference).

And so it seems inescapable to assert that the world not only bears within it the generative power of reason, but also bears within it the mark of a bifurcation between important and non-important. There is, by an ineluctable dialectic necessity, a field of being which transcends our linguistic ascriptions (e.g. important/non-important) to it. Thus, the world is both a field of rational order and a field of scaled valuation. If that is what physicalism wants, it may have it. But then were are speaking something so close to theism that the victory against theism is surely Pyrrhic.

CODA:

It may be your reflex to say that, like all my writing, the conclusion was "pre-laoded" or casuistically inevitable, but in point of fact, I began this codgitation with a simple question in mind."Is the word 'important' itself important?" If not, then there is an important reason for denying it an important status, and anything with the ability to confer importance on action, apart from the linguistic marker for importance, is something much more than naturalism affords.

But I must accept that Marcel is out, and Maddox is in. So woe unto me.

The non-linguistic...

"Tell me about the linguistic without using language. Show me something outside language without staying inside language."

Tell me about the past without incurring or implicating any element of the present. Indeed, explain to me the former without the latter. Show me something outside the present without being in the present.

If language is utterance, what is Utterance attempting to do/convey? If language is use, what is Language using? Words, presumably. But then, why words and not something else? What do words possess--or access--that Language needs with them? What is language ABOUT?

It's ON like TRON...

1. TRON is alluring because there are no straight lines in our world. It shows us the world we must believe in to know, and must know to understand our own world. Geometry as idealism, mathematics as utopia.

1. Google Translate: TRON是誘人的，因為沒有直線，在我們的世界。它向我們展示了世界，我們必須相信知道，必須知道，了解我們自己的世界。

2. TRON is alluring because in our world there are no straight lines. It shows us the world in which we must believe in order to know, and the world which we must know in order to understand our own world.

2. Google Translate: TRON是誘人的，因為在我們的世界裡，沒有直線。它表明我們的世界中，我們必須相信，以了解，世界，我們必須知道，以了解我們自己的世界。

Happy Mother's Day!

詩名: 遊 子 吟
作者: 孟 郊 　　 詩體: 樂 府
慈 母 手 中 線 ， 　遊 子 身 上 衣 。
臨 行 密 密 縫 ， 　意 恐 遲 遲 歸 。
誰 言 寸 草 心 ， 　報 得 三 春 暉 ？

Thread in the hand of a loving mother
Is worked into the jacket
of her wayward boy.
Firm and close she sets the stitches now
For she fears he will slow, slow
to return.
Who can say that the heart
of an inch-long grass [i.e., a son]
Will repay the sunlight
of full Spring [i.e., a mother's love]?

De modo studendi…

Thomas Aquinas to Brother John:

EPISTOLA DE MODO STUDENDI

A LETTER ON THE METHOD OF STUDY

Quia quaesisti a me, in Christo mihi carissime Ioannes, qualiter te studere oporteat in thesauro scientiae acquirendo, tale a me tibi traditur consilium: ut per rivulos, non statim in mare, eligas introire, quia per faciliora ad difficiliora oportet devenire. Haec est ergo monitio mea et instructio tua. Tardiloquum te esse iubeo et tarde ad locutorium accedentem; conscientiae puritatem amplectere. Orationi vacare non desinas; cellam frequenter diligas si vis in cellam vinariam introduci. Omnibus te amabilem exhibe; nihil quaere penitus de factis aliorum; nemini te multum familiarem ostendas, quia nimia familiaritas parit contemptum et subtractionis a studio materiam subministrat; de verbis et factis saecularium nullatenus te intromittas; discursus super omnia fugias; sanctorum et bonorum imitari vestigia non omittas; non respicias a quo audias, sed quidquid boni dicatur, memoriae recommenda; ea quae legis et audis, fac ut intelligas; de dubiis te certifica; et quidquid poteris in armariolo mentis reponere satage, sicut cupiens vas implere; altiora te ne quaesieris. Illa sequens vestigia, frondes et fructus in vinea Domini Sabaoth utiles, quandiu vitam habueris, proferes et produces. Haec si sectatus fueris, ad id attingere poteris, quod affectas.

Because you have asked me, John, my dearest friend in Christ, how you should study to amass the treasure of knowledge, such is the advice I give to you. You should choose to enter not immediately into the ocean depths, but rather through small streams, for one should reach more difficult matters by going through the easier ones first. This is, therefore, my admonition and your instruction. I bid you be slow to speak and slow to approach the chat-room1. Embrace purity of conscience. Do not fail to have time for prayer. You should frequently choose your own room if you wish to be led into the wine cellar. Present yourself as amiable to all. Do not look for deep, hidden meanings in the deeds of others. To no one should you show yourself to be too familiar, because too much familiarity gives birth to contempt and provides from its eagerness the raw material for backsliding. You should in no way involve yourself concerning the words and deeds of worldly people. Above all else you should flee from common conversation. You should not fail to imitate the steps of the saints and all good people. You should not consider the source from which you hear something, but whatever good is spoken, commit it to memory. Those things that you read and hear, make sure that you understand them. Make yourself certain about doubtful matters, and make it your business to shelve in the bookcase of your mind whatever you can, as if desiring to fill a vase. Do not seek the matters that are above you. Following those well-known paths you will bring forth and produce, as long as you have life, branches and fruits useful in the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts. If you eagerly follow these points, you will be able to attain that which you are striving after.

–––––––––––
1 I have for the most part kept this a fairly literal translation, attempting where reasonable to keep if not precise word order, at least the order of clause arrangement as close as possible to the original. My choice of “chat-room” for locutorium, however may seem a bit too colloquial, but there was a reason for this decision. Aquinas’ metaphors are quite vivid and, for the most part, come across well into modern expression without significant change. The word locutorium refers to a parlor, or place to gather for conversation, so “chat-room” is not altogether inappropriate. Of course, it also suggests the modern connotation of the Internet chat-room, and while Aquinas certainly could not have intended this, I think the modern reader who has this in mind will receive in a more personal way the admonition that Aquinas intended. -- Steve Perkins, 2004

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

abtun
Der Roman wurde von einigen Kritikern als Schund abgetan. (The novel was written off as trash by some critics.)
Für mich ist die Sache damit abgetan. (With that the matter is at end for me.)

abwarten und Tee trinken
Bis der Präsident erklärt was zu tun ist, können wir nur warten und Tee abtrinken. (Until the president explains what is tobe done, we can only wait and see.)

auf Abweg führen
Das Internet und das Alkohol haben zwischen den beiden vielleicht die ganze Welt auf Abwege geführt. (Between them the Internet and alcohol have perhaps led the whole world astray.)

Zaun ist Friedensstifter unter den Nachbarn. --> Good fences make for good neighbors.

Würde bringt Bürde. --> Fame is a burden. With great power comes great responsibility.

Wörter schneiden schärfer als Schwerter. --> Sticks and stones may, etc.

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

sich mit der Absicht tragen
Seit fast einem Jahrzehnte hat er sich mit der Absicht getragen, Pfaffer zu sein.

sich abspielen
Wo soll diese Geschichte sich abspielen?

auf Abstand gehen
Obwohl er das Buch schon bis zur Hälfte gelesen hat, ist er plötzlich auf Abstand gegangen, und es ins Müll ausgeworfen!

Zeit und Gezeiten warten auf niemand. --> Time and tide wait for no man.

Zeit ist Leben, und Leben ist Zeit. --> Ewiges Leben ist endlose Zeit.

Zeit ist die best Medizin. --> Time heals all wounds…

Zu früh alt, zu spät weise. --> Old too soon, wise too late.

半途而廢 bàn tú ér fèi : A job half-done is not done at all. （一知半覺。）

模棱兩可 mó léng liâng kê : To be of two minds, wishy-washy. （反無常的？）

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

abschnallen
Um wieviel Uhr ich gestern eingeschlafen bin, da schnallst du ab. (You'd be flabbergasted at what time I fell asleep last night.)

abschneiden
Bei der Olympiade schnitt ihr Land gut ab. (Her country did well at the Olympics.)

es abgesehen haben
Der Gefreiete glaubte, dass der Feldwebel es auf ihn abgesehen hatte. (The private thought the sergeant had it in for him.)

Zielen ist nicht genug, es gilt treffen. --> Man kann nicht nur einen Plan haben, sondern muss auch imstande sein, die Tat in Schwung zu bringen.

Zeugen sind besser als Urkunden. --> Menschen und Spuren können beide lügen, aber nur die Menschen können auch verleumdet werden, um ihre Wahrheit auszufinden.

Zeitvertreib ist der Anfang von Vergesslichkeit. --> Man muss sich sozusagen vom Anfang daran erinnern, was er machen möchte, bevor er kann sich nur daran erinnern, was er früher gern gemacht hätte. (So Faulkners "Memory speaks before knowing remembers", oder?)

Zeit verloren, Leben verloren. --> Carpe diem! Hic Rhodes, hic salta! Nunc vel nunquam (?).

百步穿楊 / 百發百中。 A sure hand. A masterful display.

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

die Abrede (stellen)
Wenn ein katholischer Priester Abtreibungen finanziell unterstützt, stellt er im Grunde dabei seinen Glauben und spirituelle Autorität in Abrede.

abreissen
Der Streit um die Erderwärmung reisst nicht ab!

auf dem Absatz kehrtmachen
Sofort als ich sie in der Kaffeestube bei dem Tisch, an dem ich sitze gern, gesehen hatte, kehrte ich auf dem Absatz und ging zurück nach Hause.

Zufriedenheit wohnt mehr in Hütten als in Palästen. --> So Sprüche 15.17 "Besser ein Gericht Kraut mit Liebe, als ein gemästeter Ochse mit Haß! " und 17.1 "Besser ein trockener Bissen mit Ruhe, als ein Haus voll Opferfleisch mit Zank!"

Zufriedenheit ist eine Tugend, Selbstzufriedenheit ein Fehler. --> Die Heuchler sind ihre eigenen grössten Unterstützer.

Zufriedenheit geht über Reichtum. --> Als oben, Sprüche, usw.

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

abhören
Es ist unbedingt unhöflich, die Unterhaltungen von anderen in einem Restaurant oder in der Bibliothek abzuhören. Trotzdem ist es sehr verführerisch, so abzuhören!

abmalen
Da möchte ich nicht abgemalt sein! (I wouldn't be caught dead there!)

abnehmen
Eine solche Geschichte nehm ich euch nicht ab. (I don't buy your story.)
Sie hat viel abgenommen. (She's lost a lot of weight.)
Bei abnehmendem Mond will die Isispriesterin nichts unternehmen.

Zu rechten Zeit Schweigen ist eine Kunst. --> Halt die Klappe, halt den Frieden.

Zur Besserung ist es nie spät. --> 改正永不言晚。 Where there's life, there's hope. You can't teach an old dog new tricks but new tricks might teach an old dog something.

Zum Streiten gehören zwei. --> Zum Tangotanzen gehören auch zwei.

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

abermals
Schon fünf Jahre sind abermals verstrichen, jeddoch habe ich noch nicht Latein beherrscht!

abessen
Nachdem ich zuviel Wodka getrunken hatte, hatte ich mich gleichzeitig bei ihrer Familie gegessen.

sich eine Abfuhr erholen
Ausgenommen dass Sie diesen Aufsatz gänzlich korrigieren, werden Sie beim Promovieren eine Abfuhr erholen.

Zwang hält nicht lang. --> Geduld ist die stärkste Strategie. [Die Lügen haben kurze Beine.]

Zuweilen ein Narr sein, ist auch eine Kunst. --> Als Bill Cosby gescherzt hat, Väter eigentlich Genien seien, weil sie alle andere in der Familie überzeugen können, dass sie Idioten seien.

Zuviel Weisheit ist Torheit. --> Als Francis Bacon (1561–1626) in "Über Atheismus" geschrieben hat, "Ein wenig Philosophie führt zu Atheismus, aber tiefe Philosophie bringt den Menschen wieder zur Religion [It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion]."

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

die Abbitte

Mit einer Pralinenschachtel wollter er die Abbitte seiner Frau leisten.

sich keinen abbrechen

Obwohl sie mir ein bisschen geholfen hat, hat sie sich dabei keinen abgebrochen.

Es ist noch nicht aller Tage Abend.

Bis jetzt bin ich nicht imstande gewesen, 100kg beim Bankdrücken abzuheben, aber es ist noch nicht aller Tage Abend!

Zweifel ist des Glaubens Feind. --> Folgt es daraus, dass die Unwissenheit der Feind des Wissens ist? Folgt es auch aus, dass Glauben Feind der Zweifel ist? Hmm...

Zwei Hunde an einem Beim kommen selten überein. --> Als man auf Englisch sagt, dieser Insel ist nicht genug groß für uns beide.

Zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe schlagen. --> Das heisst, zwei Vögeln mit einem Stein abzutöten. [Einfach mal die Klappe halten: Warum Schweigen besser als Reden ist]

Well, I never knew…

From the Wikipedia entry on the history of Xiamen:

Xiamen was the port of trade first used by Europeans (mainly the Portuguese) in 1541. It was China's main port in the nineteenth century for exporting tea. As a result, Hokkien (also known as the Amoy dialect) had a major influence on how Chinese terminology was translated into English and other European languages. For example, the words "Amoy", "tea" (茶; tê), "cumshaw" (感謝; kám-siā), and "Pekoe" (白毫; pe̍h-hô), kowtow (磕頭; khàu-thâu), and possibly Japan (Ji̍t-pún) and "ketchup" (茄汁; kiô-chap) originated from the Hokkien.

As for gung ho?

This unofficial motto of the US Marine Corps is an abbreviation for the Mandarin Gongye Hezhoushe (sic [工業合作社 Gongyè Hézuòshè]), or industrial cooperative. The term was used in China, starting in 1938, to refer to small, industrial operations that were being established in rural China to replace the industrial centers that had been captured by the Japanese. The phrase was clipped to the initial characters of the two words, gung ho (or gung he, as it would be transliterated today), which means "work together." …

Enter Lt. Col. Evans Carlson, US Marine Corps. Carlson was a military attache in the US embassy to China in the late-30s. In China, Carlson reported on both the operations of the Chinese army in the field as well as the country's industrial capacity and was favorably impressed by the industrial cooperatives. When he returned to the States and the US entered WWII, Carlson was appointed commander of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion. Recalling his time in China, Carlson chose gung ho as the motto for his elite battalion and by late 1942 was widely adopted throughout the Marine Corps as an expression of spirit and "can do" attitude.

Deutsch als Vatersprache…

[English is my mother tongue, but I began studying German when I was about 15, i.e. more than half my life, and majored in it in college. I have dreamt in German, been drunk in German, taught and learned in German, even made a girlfriend in German, oh those many years ago. I love the German language. And so I consider it my "father tongue."

As it stands, however, I have been in Taiwan so long now, and have spent so much cognitive energy on learning Chinese, that my German has fallen behind. So I decided I will work through a couple books I have –– German Idioms, Henry Strutz (ed.) and 德漢諺語詞典 (A Chinese Dictionary of German Sayings) 常和芳 編著 –– as a personal refresher. I will start from the front of Strutz's book and from the end of 常's, and may provide brief glosses on the sayings, so I can practice writing a little German on a hopefully daily basis.

Not a very reader-friendly series, I know. Then again, maybe you know Deutsch, or maybe you'll just like seeing it happen!]

das A und O
Das A und O beim Studium der Philosophie ist, erst die richtige Frage zu stellen.

aasen
Obwohl ich Bücher jeden Tag tagelang lesen möchte, dennoch kann ich mit meiner Gesundheit nicht so aasen!

ab nach Kassel
Mitschüler, ab nach Kassel––sonst erwischt uns der Lehrer!

Zwischen zwei Bergen liegt immer ein Tal. --> Doch haben die höchste Erlebnisse im Leben ihrer negativen und vielleicht gefährlichen Aspekte.

Zwischen Kummer and Freude liegt nur Haaresbreite. --> Im Menschenleben ist es immer möglich, dass der Angst sich plötzlich in die Freude und die Glücklichkeit sich in den Kummer verwandeln.

Zweite Ehe, aufgewährmtes Mahl. --> Nichts ist so süß als die erste Liebe und im allgemein kann kein Erlebnis mit dem ersten Mal vergleichen.

Put me through the ringer…

My gf recently grilled me on a grammar point in Chinese which has always given me trouble… and it was a kind of crucifixion.

I'm keeping these notes here for reference… and as proof that I do now understand the grammar point… after years of uncertainty.

God, Lord, Jesus, my Messiah––sometimes I HATE LEARNING CHINESE!

[7 March 2011 ADDENDUM: I was being overly pouty, so, in retrospect, the emphasis should be on "sometimes," not on "hate."]

(She is Y, I am X.)

[2011/3/5 上午 1:37:10] X: ....的→形容詞 ...得→verb.+得=adv.
[2011/3/5 上午 1:37:50] Y: →
[2011/3/5 上午 1:38:02] X: ....地→ adj.→adv.
[2011/3/5 上午 1:38:34] X: 可愛_____
[2011/3/5 上午 1:38:43] X: 走___到
[2011/3/5 上午 1:38:48] X: 上___去
[2011/3/5 上午 1:38:53] X: 漂亮___
[2011/3/5 上午 1:39:00] X: 肥胖____
[2011/3/5 上午 1:39:30] Y: 的， 得，得 ， 的，的
[2011/3/5 上午 1:40:34] Y: 可愛的小孩
[2011/3/5 上午 1:40:52] Y: 雖然走得到，可是路很陡
[2011/3/5 上午 1:40:58] X: 他沒有喝酒，所以看___非常清楚
[2011/3/5 上午 1:41:19] Y: 你腳怎麼痛你還上得去嗎
[2011/3/5 上午 1:41:34] Y: 漂亮的瀑布
[2011/3/5 上午 1:42:13] Y: 肥胖的小豬特別好吃
[2011/3/5 上午 1:42:50] Y: 他沒有喝酒，所以看得非常清楚
[2011/3/5 上午 1:43:32] X: 非常了___
[2011/3/5 上午 1:43:56] Y: 非常了得
[2011/3/5 上午 1:44:06] Y: 了不起
[2011/3/5 上午 1:44:07] Y: ？
[2011/3/5 上午 1:45:06] X: 排了半天的隊=排隊排了半天
[2011/3/5 上午 1:46:02] Y: (we) waited for half a day, if (we) wait (we'll) wait half a day
[2011/3/5 上午 1:47:45] X: 講話講了一整天
[2011/3/5 上午 1:48:38] Y: 講了整天的話
[2011/3/5 上午 1:48:40] Y: 吧
[2011/3/5 上午 1:49:34] Y: 講了一整天的話
[2011/3/5 上午 1:49:53] X: 跳了一整天的舞
[2011/3/5 上午 1:50:14] Y: 跳舞跳了一整天
[2011/3/5 上午 1:50:26] X: 抽了一整包菸
[2011/3/5 上午 1:51:20] Y: 抽菸抽了一整包
[2011/3/5 上午 1:51:20] X: 昨天我走路走了一整天，想要去買一瓶酒，結果問了五十個人，沒有人找___到正確___位置，真___氣死我了！
[2011/3/5 上午 1:56:45] Y: 昨天我走了一整天的路，想要去買一瓶酒，結果問了五十個人，沒有人找得到正確的位置，真的氣死我了！
[2011/3/5 上午 1:58:03] Y: 昨天我走了一整天的路，想要去買一瓶酒，結果問了五十個人，沒有人找到正確的位置了，真的氣死我了！
[2011/3/5 上午 2:00:55] X: 結果問人問了五十個 … 9.5

L∅γι⊂αl ∫ϒmβ∅l∫...

Finally found the kind of guide I was looking for!

http://www.danshort.com/HTMLentities/index.php?w=maths

{p : p it is raining}
{q : q the ground is wet}
p ⊃ q, p ∴ q

p ∴ p

"The ground is wet." =
{Wx : x is wet}
{Gx : x is the ground}
(∃x)(Wx ∧ Gx)

"The ground is not wet." =
{Wx : x is wet}
{Gx : x is the ground}
(∃x)(~Wx ∧ Gx)

And you may find yourself...

"…you will encounter words like 'encairned', 'decensive', 'quotha', 'perforce', 'wroth', 'guerdon', and 'aye '(used like pepper throughout the text), all of which may be summed up in Haines' funniest quote, 'Man, what art thou at?'"
-- from a review of Aurelius' Meditations at Amazom.com

It reminded me of this song, though I don't know why:



Which song reminded me of these fellows, though I have a slightly clearer reason why:

In other news, tonight as I ate my dinner I realized arguments/writings for free will before the advent of quantum indeterminacy and stochastic processes would be much more entertaining. The recent deluge of evidence for indeterminism has made things almost too easy, don't you think? Granted, elite indeterminists like Peter Van Inwagen and Robert Kane, et al.,––did Van Inwagen really coin "indeterminism"?––avoid relying on quantum indeterminacy for their accounts of freewill, which is why I respect them so much. Someone like Stanley Jaki, by contrast, entirely rejects the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and yet still defends freewill in a deterministic universe. That's my mentor, them's balls! (For the record, Jaki and I both did crew in high school.)

Determinism is held, despite the evidence, based only on the cognitive limits of our current understanding of science. "Even though a coin toss is spoken of as proabiistic, in fact, each specific coin toss has a deterministic outcome. If only we could know enough about its initial conditions, we could know its outcome exactly. We're just waiting for science to catch up with man's deepest, deterministic intuitions." The problem is that, even aside from the quantum indeterminacy we would face at the (…admittedly only currently…) lowest level of analysis, this Laplacian insight would still be subject to human finitude, since a skeptic could just as reasonably argue, "Even though a coin toss is spoken of as deterministic, in fact, each specific coin toss has a stochastic outcome. If only we could know enough about its initial conditions, we could know its outcome is probabilistic, like all of physical nature. We're just waiting for science to catch up with man's deepest, indeterministic intuitions."