| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
moshkito 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17748
|
 Posted: June 03 2010 at 20:01 |
 Evolutionary Sleeper wrote:
Just because it's good doesn't mean it's prog. |
Or vice versa! ... don't forget that!
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
 |
Falx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2010
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 859
|
Posted: June 04 2010 at 06:52 |
|
|
|
"You must go beyond the limit of the limit of your limits!" - Mr. Doctor
"It is our duty as men and women to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not exist." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 05:12 |
Vompatti wrote:
Is it so hard to imagine that there could be entities not identical with themselves? < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">Consider infinite (boundless) entities. |
When linguistically coded the same way, as is the case with prog and prog (the exact same string of phonemes) - yes - it would be hard to imagine. Also, it's difficult to talk of prog as an 'entity' - it's rather a category.
Vompatti wrote:
Unless we can give a rigid definition for prog, there is no reason to assume that the first "prog" in "prog is prog" is exactly the same as the second "prog" - in fact there's no way it could be.
|
There is every reason to assume it's the same. What (besides far-fetch speculation and out of place sense-making) would make you assume otherwise? It's obvious that the referential range for prog is rather big, and that it can refer to many (more or less distinct) styles of music.
But. Within the scope of traditional philosophy of language - I'd say that the sentence 'prog is prog' is analytically true. It's a tautology and always true by virtue of word meaning and without having to refer to the facts of the world. In contrast, a sentence like 'Ian Anderson plays the flute' is synthetic and true because it accords with the facts of the world.
So, prog IS prog.
Edited by Paravion - June 07 2010 at 05:48
|
|
refugee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:02 |
|
Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.
I hope this clears things up. Cheers!
Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)
Edited by refugee - June 07 2010 at 06:03
|
|
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
|
|
refugee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 06:39 |
|
Another highly relevant question: Is Garry a Pirrate? I have a friend whose last name is Parrott. That doesn’t make him a parrot, though he looks like a pirate. What is a Pirrate anyway? Maybe it means someone using a hit-and-run tactic: Log on, write one post, then beat it. Yeah, I think I’ll go for that definition. A new word in my vocabulary!
|
|
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:07 |
refugee wrote:
Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.
I hope this clears things up. Cheers!
Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)
|
To account for the notion 'meaning' in terms of antonyms is an oversimplified structuralist account. A structuralist account of meaning has provided many theorists with considerable headaches. (suggested reading: Quine, Willard: The problem of meaning in linguistics in From a logical point of view (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961)). Today, a structuralist account of meaning is generally considered meaningless.
What's the opposite (antonym) of a rabbit?
I hope this helps to obscure things further.
Edited by Paravion - June 07 2010 at 07:14
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 07:10 |
|
Not really, however it is prog.
Edited by Slartibartfast - June 07 2010 at 07:11
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
refugee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 09:11 |
Paravion wrote:
refugee wrote:
Can we define a blotch by saying it’s identical with its own shape? That would be intellectual laziness since we can’t understand the meaning of "blotch" without having a notion of its negation, the "non-blotch" (it’s the same with "rabbit", of course), or, to use a more accurate term, the "hctolb" ("tibbar" etc.). Thus the negation of the meaning is a crucial part of the meaning itself. Talking about prog, gorp is both in the core and the margins of our understanding of the phenonema. In other words: Prog is and is not prog, because it is also gorp, the very opposite of prog.
I hope this clears things up. Cheers!
Jaques Derrida (I’m dead, but I won’t lie down)
|
To account for the notion 'meaning' in terms of antonyms is an oversimplified structuralist account. A structuralist account of meaning has provided many theorists with considerable headaches. (suggested reading: Quine, Willard: The problem of meaning in linguistics in From a logical point of view (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961)). Today, a structuralist account of meaning is generally considered meaningless.
What's the opposite (antonym) of a rabbit?
I hope this helps to obscure things further.
|
Sorry if I confused you. Like most posters here I wasn’t serious at all. Then again, if you actually understood that I was joking, sorry for "misunderrating" you.  
|
|
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 09:54 |
|
I was aware that you were joking... no offence taken for being misunderrated. But really - everything in this post modern world is serious - if you want it to be.
|
|
TwoOneOneTwo
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 02 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:32 |
The Progs... Didn't they do that song Wild Thing?
In that case, no the progs are not prog.
|
|
Rush - Time Machine Tour - August 7th in Seattle!
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:36 |
|
Seriusly im not serius, but prog is great music, great music is not boring, everyone here listen to prog music, everyone here seems to be bored, so prog is not prog.
Edited by tamijo - June 07 2010 at 10:37
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
garrry the pirrrate
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 02 2010
Location: in my head
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 22:18 |
it's Not a hit and run tactic at all, although I may just be making a 2nd post just to disprove your theory -such that it is.
In that case you may have to potentially make up a new defination for someone who signs up, logs on makes one post, then only makes another post when someone accuses them of signing up, logging on and only making one post.
|
|
garrry the pirrrate
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 02 2010
Location: in my head
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: June 07 2010 at 22:20 |
|
No that was the Troggs, world famous for creating "Trogg rock"
|
|
refugee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: November 20 2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 7026
|
Posted: June 08 2010 at 05:09 |
Sorry, Garry, I didn’t expect you to return. Welcome to the forums! EDIT: I just realised that I’ve said sorry three times in this thread already. Apparently it’s not the hardest word after all.
Edited by refugee - June 08 2010 at 05:36
|
|
He say nothing is quite what it seems;
I say nothing is nothing
(Peter Hammill)
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
is prog prog ?
