quick update...

[cybermule]

Had a really busy day yesterday. Managed a whole morning gardening before heavy rain (and a dead frog :() put me off, but I now have a tidy front garden, no collapsed tomato plants and a bunch of drying herbs. Moved my attention inside: neat freaks are coming to tea tomorrow!

*quick break to hyperventilate*

Cleared all my parent's rubbish into the cupbboard under the stairs, and took about 20 empty cardboard boxes to the tip. Other than a quick flick of hte hoover after work, that will have to do.

Finished my Iris Murdoch book. I really liked that - I think I'll go and check some more out of the library. It was fairly gloomy and intense, but kind of worked out all right in the end. Started a book on General Semantics. So far, pretty interesting. Lots of stuff on the nature of sanity and reality, and on the three levels of society. Maybe I'll make notes one day - right now I'm waiting to play UT with my friend from work *drums fingers impatiently*

Oh - went to see Finding Nemo in the evening. Very fun, very trippy. I love cartoons :)

EDIT: cthulu stuff that I want to read some time.

Comments

[quercus.livejournal.com]

I've got doznes of books here with "semantics" in the title. From Semantic Web stuff (which is what I'm really interested in) to "The Semantic Theory of Evolution". I think it's turning into the next "paradigm" - a general buzzword for all occasions. What does "Geneal Semantics" actually mean ? It's probably a good read, but it doesn't give away its content from the title.

And soon there'll be a book on "General Ontologies" to go with it.


Mind you, I've been reading Swedenborg of late. Now there's a chap who was properly barking. An Enlightenment philosopher who nailed himself firmly back into the Medieval world view of non-observational mental hypothesis as way to do cosmology.

[cybermule.livejournal.com]

*grins*

This book can probably be forgiven for the wishy-washy title - it was published in 1957 - but yeah, "semantics" does seem to be "word o' the week". Which is irksome, as I actually find the subject quite interesting.

Mind you, I've been reading Swedenborg of late. Now there's a chap who was properly barking. An Enlightenment philosopher who nailed himself firmly back into the Medieval world view of non-observational mental hypothesis as way to do cosmology.

I don't know much (anything?) about him to be honest. Plus my brain is reaching the end of the working week and is thinking through treacle - does that last part = was trying to understand cosmology by imagination rather than observation?

[quercus.livejournal.com]

[Swedenborg] It's a Greek idea originally, but the Medieval monasteries probably took it to its farthest conclusion. At its best, you create Dante's logically self-consistent Mount Purgatory. At the worst, it's psychosis.