Beuroware

I might as well coin the term "beuroware" for software that replaces a beurocracy.

"For English press (1)"

Pausing before taking off the second shoe

I notice that as I take of my shoes, there is a moment, when I have taken off one shoe, when I am at rest for a moment. I resume taking off my other shoe without a definite schedule. This is reflected in a "," in diagramming the expression "I took off one shoe and then the other:

I took off one shoe, I took off the other

Compare with the expression "I untied my shoe and then took it off". Which diagrams as

I untied my shoe :: I took the shoe off

The "," conveys a sequence that can proceed at an unconstrained rate, so I can relax for a moment before taking off the other shoe. When I untie a shoe, though, I do not rest until the shoe is off. 

I find other moments of rest, during the day. For example, getting out of my car there is a related set of actions: pull in, take car out of gear, brake, stop, pull parking brake, undo seat belt, open car door. THEN there is a pause before I exit the car, where I feel like I can rest a moment.  

These moments of pause are represented by the "," of narrative structure describing the action. I understand why it is natural to occur between shoes, but I am less clear why it works that way with stepping out of the car. In fact, I sometimes put one foot out of the car and on the ground, then pause. I guess moving a leg from inside to outside the car is a complete action and that "," is natural between complete actions. These thoughts reinforce the comparison between actions and narratives that can be called "planning". An action is not necessarily described in words but when it is the narrative should reflect underlying structure for the action. By this view, the structure of language simply represents the structure of planning and of action. Which allows language to be a window into our mental processes.

The Boy and the Dragon

Act 1

Scene: The boy named Tom Solomon, is fishing along the river, only a few feet from the nose of an old female French Swimming Dragon (the ones that lay eggs that are elongated. These dragons are green and reflective and well camouflaged when they hold still). Female dragon is peacefully occupied looking for large prime numbers in her head and spearing an occasional passing fish with her tongue. Nearby a young female dragon, daughter of the older female, plays in a field. Her name is “Esque”- as in ‘statuesque’, ‘arabesque’, and ‘picturesque’ but not as in ‘grotesque’ or ‘Kafkaesque’.  The boy is glad it is Sunday and he can play outside.

Scene: the King’s advisors talk of how the King’s authority is being eroded by a strong middle class and powerful merchants. Originally the King’s family was famous for slaying dragons. “Too bad there aren’t any dragons left, or we could have the King defeat one… What, that old fart? We’d have to fake the fight…..hey why not fake the dragon….can we do that? Let’s ask the magicians and special effects department….” Eventually they come up with a fake dragon and launch it: a Red Fire Dragon, swooping back and forth over the town and countryside breathing fire and terrorizing everyone. Among all the advisors, one (The Naysayer) says: “No, you should not fool around with dragons…”

Scene: everyone cowers under the swooping presence of the Fire Dragon. The boy scrambles out of his boat and runs to hide under a nearby bridge. The old dragon shows no signs of even noticing the disturbance overhead. The young female, Esque, cowers for a moment in the field. She is too young to realize how well hidden she is in the grass, and she runs to hide under the same bridge – back to back with the boy. They meet and converse.

Scene: The mother dragon is called “Llel” as in ‘parallel’ and ‘Low Level Energy Laser’*. Esque talks to her mother about the scarey dragon overhead and the Lell says: “Oh! That? You can tell it is fake – see how it keeps repeating the same pattern – three flaps, a swoop and a turn to the left; then three flaps, a fireball, two flaps and a turn to the right…what a piece of junk….it’s a wonder the thing hasn’t crashed.” “But mother, it is frightening, can you make it stop?”

Reluctantly the mother agrees, shakes herself off, and jumps into the air. These French Swimming Dragons are graceful and delicate. Once airborne the mother becomes quite hard to see, reflecting the color of the sky and clouds. Occasionally a metallic glint is visible but never an outline. She flies alongside of the fake dragon – matching it flap for flap, swoop for swoop, and then shreds it with her claws and extinguishes the fire with a well-placed spout of water. She shakes herself off and glides to a landing on a distant lake a few miles away.

Act 2

Scene: The Naysayer and Merchants sit discussing events. One argues that the military is loyal to the King, another argues that a few select generals control the army’s loyalty.

Scene: the King’s advisors are only confused briefly by the destruction of the fake red dragon; then they see their chance. They call up the generals to send out the troops looking for a “green dragon”. Most of the troops don’t believe there is any such thing.

Scene: mother dragon swims back up the river, past the town, back to her quiet spot by the river. The troops ride up and down.

The troops capture Esque. The boy Tom gets into the castle and gets her out of her cage. As a young dragon Esque does not have ability to fly or shoot water. Somehow the stresses of capture initiate the maturation process. In a desperate moment, Tom climbs on her back and she is able to fly out with Tom on her back.

Update: Esque's flying ability is minimal and, with Tom on her back, she can barely glide out of there. They end up landing in swift flowing water. "Can you swim?" Tom asks. "Well...duh...I am swimming Dragon". Before he can respond, Tom is swept away like an inflated goat bladder, and all that Esque can do, is help him not be drowned. They are only able to get out of the water later...leading to the forest where they might meet some white Dragons.

Act 3

Llel is worried and cannot find Esque. She gets angry, trashes some of the kings troops. Later she sees some red Dragons headed towards the town and thinks: "So there are still red Dragons around." 

Much confusion ensues, possible dethroning of the King. In the end the Naysayer says: “I told you so”.

---

*Senior Dragon’s occasionally are allowed to claim an acronym for their name. It is not common.

The sound of a footfall

Imagine cows at night, getting up to stretch. If a strange footstep was heard they would all be on alert but the sound of each other's footfalls is normal and well known. I do not doubt that animals use the sound of their own footfalls to alert others. I bet they "scuff" on purpose. I believe this is still present in the slouching and casual step of a person in loafers. So also the click of more official heels.
This is certainly not verbal but does it partake of the "discrete"? I mean can the notion of a footfall communication be isolated from a continuum of sounds? You could ask the same about facial expressions: can they be isolated? Ask a cartoonist. I am guessing they can.
Also, the earlier examples of non-verbal sounds like sniffs and yawns.
The point is that language concepts exist outside of language. Whether they retain the kind of discreteness characteristic that one would expect of words or whether  they exists in a continuum is unclear.
Update: it is not necessarily the discreteness that is important. Ask: "does it partake of communication?". Then if there is an interplay between discreteness and communication: let that be determined.

Launched boat returns

Rejected because "hermetic".

Liebnitz's indescernables and realism

I think Liebnitz is looking at it wrong when defining the ways things become descernable. I would rather imagine an innocent baby seeing nothing but diversity around itself and only slowly separating out constancy of things and, even later, similarity of things. How this works is what needs to proceed discussions of AI.
Suppose for vagueness that we are considering some phenomenon and that it is given to us by data and we propose to process the data "using AI" to recognize or handle it in some what. Now I believe that when humans are doing that sort of thing, as adults, we are operating with an underlying concept of what the data represents. It is all very well to be a realist and to suppose that the underlying concept exists in the data and can be discovered there using generic tools (as if!). But what if you are wrong and the data contains no concept? Then you will not discover it by applying any generic tools.

Putting yourself inside the narrative

I've written about this before: Part of understanding the 'story' noun type is it's special verbs and operators. If I did not already say this, there is a special relationship - not necessarily semantic - of putting yourself into the story. Call it what you want, it is necessary for the story to be understood, let alone believed. I suppose we should mull on and relish this: taking yourself into the story and back out where you only hear the words.
UPDATE:  This is completely wrong! I have to believe that the behavioral psychology of an event is more primitive to the human experience than capturing it as a narrative. We do not "sink into" the  event but, rather, circle back around after creating a narrative. The need for narratives comes after the behavior. Interestingly narratives are discrete but the actual underlying stories of experience must be  continuous (although they could still be abstract).