Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

moonlune wrote

Ie...labels, definitions, etc

I think gatekeeping words and concepts is important, otherwise they get diluted. Ancaps aren't anarchists, For example. Although words naturally loose their meaning sooner or later, maybe having them loose their meaning later is better.

4

naocat wrote (edited )

Love of the word is love of the source. It's about understanding the true structures of our world that the word describes. Its meaning is everywhere. Personally, I think the true nature of these structures is love and empathy. Love builds up; our belief that others have feelings just as valid as our own is how we decide what's 'real'. It is true that words are mere derivations, but they exist to illuminate the path back to the mystery and harmony.

Edit: word doesn't have to be grammar. can be any 'thing' as individuated from its surroundings. a unit of syntax: like a note in a song, a color in a painting, or a comma in a sentence. logos to gnosis.

For actually answering OP- perhaps the non-archical border would be the border that is self-conceived, but what that exactly is is not something I could describe. A border denotes difference, but I'm not sure any difference is self-conceived so much as derived from a broader whole. Maybe Taiji or Sophia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiji_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(Gnosticism)

2

moonlune wrote

Any simple idea is approximate; as an illustration, consider an object, … what is an object? Philosophers are always saying, “Well, just take a chair for example.” The moment they say that, you know that they do not know what they are talking about any more. What is a chair? Well, a chair is a certain thing over there … certain?, how certain? The atoms are evaporating from it from time to time—not many atoms, but a few—dirt falls on it and gets dissolved in the paint; so to define a chair precisely, to say exactly which atoms are chair, and which atoms are air, or which atoms are dirt, or which atoms are paint that belongs to the chair is impossible. So the mass of a chair can be defined only approximately. In the same way, to define the mass of a single object is impossible, because there are not any single, left-alone objects in the world—every object is a mixture of a lot of things, so we can deal with it only as a series of approximations and idealizations.

The trick is the idealizations. To an excellent approximation of perhaps one part in 1010, the number of atoms in the chair does not change in a minute, and if we are not too precise we may idealize the chair as a definite thing; in the same way we shall learn about the characteristics of force, in an ideal fashion, if we are not too precise. One may be dissatisfied with the approximate view of nature that physics tries to obtain (the attempt is always to increase the accuracy of the approximation), and may prefer a mathematical definition; but mathematical definitions can never work in the real world. A mathematical definition will be good for mathematics, in which all the logic can be followed out completely, but the physical world is complex, as we have indicated in a number of examples, such as those of the ocean waves and a glass of wine. When we try to isolate pieces of it, to talk about one mass, the wine and the glass, how can we know which is which, when one dissolves in the other? The forces on a single thing already involve approximation, and if we have a system of discourse about the real world, then that system, at least for the present day, must involve approximations of some kind.

This system is quite unlike the case of mathematics, in which everything can be defined, and then we do not know what we are talking about. In fact, the glory of mathematics is that we do not have to say what we are talking about. The glory is that the laws, the arguments, and the logic are independent of what “it” is. If we have any other set of objects that obey the same system of axioms as Euclid’s geometry, then if we make new definitions and follow them out with correct logic, all the consequences will be correct, and it makes no difference what the subject was. In nature, however, when we draw a line or establish a line by using a light beam and a theodolite, as we do in surveying, are we measuring a line in the sense of Euclid? No, we are making an approximation; the cross hair has some width, but a geometrical line has no width, and so, whether Euclidean geometry can be used for surveying or not is a physical question, not a mathematical question. However, from an experimental standpoint, not a mathematical standpoint, we need to know whether the laws of Euclid apply to the kind of geometry that we use in measuring land; so we make a hypothesis that it does, and it works pretty well; but it is not precise, because our surveying lines are not really geometrical lines. Whether or not those lines of Euclid, which are really abstract, apply to the lines of experience is a question for experience; it is not a question that can be answered by sheer reason.

Quoted from the Feyman's Lectures I don't really have a point to make but your question made me think of this.

4

existential1 OP wrote

I think I've been getting at something very similar. Thanks for sharing.

4

brainrot wrote

that's an interesting question. when we agree on how space is divided between us is that archical? ("my" stuff and "your" stuff) Same with definitions do we willingly agree on meaning or is it constructed for us? are these really boarders or categories that can easily shift or be stepped over.

I would agree that these are boarders in a sense but not hierarchical unless there is some 3rd body dictating terms. It's a personal consensus between whoever. Language is trickier because when we learn a language we learn it's rules, we dont create new ones every time we start a sentence, the rules (boarders on what we can say) have been made without our consent.

4

Fool wrote

Some of these answer made me think of photo editing.

Wherein a foreground object ends and a background object begins, it is not an exact border point of object or background. If you alter it with a clear boundary, the picture becomes "uncanny", as such a certain diffusal of colours of the objects can be utilised to recreate the diffused borders our mind is familiar with.

4

Fool wrote

The idea "I think" is to both "understand" conceptually and "exist" non-conceptually.

To "live" purely without concepts is in many ways not "living" - especially since it doesn't acknowledge living as a concept.

As such, concepts are utilised to communicate, in order to "exist". "Understanding" that concepts are inherently just illusions provides the "freedom" to acknowledge a concept or not, and to create your own concepts of existence.

As such, I will communicate a concept and it's "borders", because the "border" is a useful tool for convenience of conveying information, but the key is in understanding that - it is only a tool, which can be consumed and forgotten - it is not something I need to defend or hold significantly.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think border(lands) can be connective/productive rather than exclusionary, like many precolonial borderlands have been.

3

potatoes wrote

You mean like a coast line? Or a mountain range? The grand canyon? Thermoclines?

2

existential1 OP wrote

If you'd like to use those examples, I'd say I'm talking about the borders of said "objects."

If you felt so inclined, I'd love to see someone attempt to physically draw with chalk where a mountain range, coast line, or the grand canyon starts or ends. You can extend this to whatever tool for a thermocline layer.

4

potatoes wrote

Mountain range is much more fuzzy, but you can literally see haloclines and thermoclines: https://www.dresseldivers.com/wp-content/uploads/Differences-Between-Halocline-And-Thermocline-main.jpg

I could try to draw a coastline with chalk, but I think either the tide will wash it away or there is already a sediment buildup there.

One important detail is that natural boundaries shift. Often gradually and peacefully. Political boundaries are more rigid and their changes often involve more violence.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

Going off Rothbards definition of borders I'm very pro individual borders. For example saying that rapists can come into your house functionally acts the same as a border on a small scale. And I would say such borders around private property are essential to anarchy to function.

0