[ExI] Optical illusion tricks you into seeing different colors
msd001 at gmail.com
Fri May 21 06:00:07 UTC 2021
On Thu, May 20, 2021, 11:30 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> As I indicating "eff" the ineffable, in reality, is still, barely, a minority
> camp <https://canonizer.com/topic/102-Communicating-Ineffable/2-eff>.with a
> score of 2.25, while the leading camp for 'grok
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/102-Communicating-Ineffable/4-grok>' has 2.5.
> I'm still not convinced that 'grok' is better the 'eff', but I will put
> more thought into this, especially if you actually formally support the
> 'grock' camp, along with that multiple other people, I will join this camp,
> and agree that that is a better word, for more people. So I will use that
I smiled at 'grok' - after three attempts to explain why, i realized
that's effectively ineffable. Similarly, any attempt to grok the
ineffable is doomed to the same failure.
So maybe the verb is not the problem; perhaps it is the noun(adjective?).
Either the color problem is ineffable and we must abandon any attempt to
solve it, or the color problem is merely difficult and does not warrant the
moniker 'ineffable' - I believe the latter, fwiw.
I also wonder about using canonizer to try to drive word-camps to essential
Newspeak. Surely there are nuances in the suburb-camps around any
significant city-camp... I think language would lose some expressiveness if
we ignore those curvy nuances for a generally "best fit" line.
> So thanks for the help, and everyone else, please accept my apologies for
> these mistakes.
yw. I feel like a bully for causing you to use the term 'mistake' - i
trust that you grok my intent and it's all good.
ps: thanks spike for acknowledging civility in discourse. I don't see it
much outside this group either, so yeah... it's nice to have "gentlepeople"
to think among.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat