..::Previous entry: "A Clockwork Pink"::.. ..::Main Index::.. ..::Next entry: "And Speaking of Weird Father Dreams..."::..

07:14:2006 Entry: "Stan : Biological Father Dream"

Biological Father Dream

I was at a house where my bio dad was living in an empty bedroom and I saw a man who looked like my father but was more like a double - dopleganger... This man was a muslem (as being different than my bio dad who is a christian) and was sitting in a bedroom near my fathers empty bedroom. He told me that R. my father - had passed away a few days ago and was burried according to the rites of his religion.



You know, when you told me you had a dream about your dad and wouldn't divulge any info, I was thinking that there is a strange parallel between Syd and your dad the way they both reclused themselves away, Syd doing it much earlier, of course, and both being painters and putting on weight, and...

well, you see the parallels?

Posted by Ann @ 07:14:2006:09:04 PM CST

Yes I see the parallels?

I don't expect to be told by anyone in my father's family if and when he passes away...so it is actually possible that he could have died the same day that Syd did and that would be very strange.

It is also interesting how dramatic the difference in from young adult to middle age for these 2. My bio father was a very good looker and I understand charasmatic (sp) in his prime.

Posted by stanley @ 07:14:2006:09:09 PM CST

Another odd thing about your dream:

Your dad is a Christian and in the dream his doppelganger was a Muslim. What is missing from this picture? The third man, who is a Jew. What does this mean. Damned if I know.

Posted by Ann @ 07:14:2006:09:13 PM CST

Weird...the Google ad at the top of the page is in Norwegian or something.

Posted by Ann @ 07:14:2006:09:15 PM CST

This sort of sounds like 'The Third Man' arguement, but not quite.... Very interesting.

OK, now I'm just getting sleepy and silly.

Posted by stanley @ 07:14:2006:09:16 PM CST

OK, this is just too plate of shrimp, I can't believe the synch in this one: I was simultaneously writing on this post as well as the Clockwork Pink and Stan and I were cracking up about "large" while at the same time i wanted him to explain to me what the third man argument was. So I google TMA and come to Wikipedia's explanation, and I quote:

"We take a group of things with a common characteristic such as largeness and group them together and place them under the characteristic (here largeness). Largeness itself can be said to contain the largeness characteristic, so it can be placed in the original set as well. Now the set must be grouped under another form, a second largeness (largeness2). Largeness2 also contains the characteristic of largeness, so it may be placed in the set as well. The process of creating new largenesses goes on ad infinitum. Any reliance on infinite categorization reduces the relevance of the theory of forms."

Largeness!!!!! WTF?! crazy LOL shocked shocked

Posted by Ann @ 07:14:2006:09:23 PM CST

It's a Cardinal logic issue, and it is very strange that they are using "largeness" in their example - which you find - as we are discussing a set of 'large men'.

Posted by stanley @ 07:14:2006:09:31 PM CST

Maybe I should explain a little of what I mean by Cardinal logic issue. The logic of the problem only functions in Cardinal set number theory kinds of thinking.

Most people think of numbers only in terms of Candinal number logical scheems, and it is a real problem to explain what I mean, because if I say there are also Ordinal numbers them most people might think.... well then we have 2 sets on numbers which include Cardinals and Ordinals. The problem with reaching this conclusion is that by placing Ordinals as a set on numbers by reasoning we are merely including Ordinals as a set of numbers in our Cardinal set theory number paradigm.

What I'm trying to say is that is a mistake and misguided understanding of the true nature of Ordinals to conclude that they are a set of numbers and thus Ordinals fit neatly into our understanding because they are after all merely another "set of numbers".

Ordinals have ways of working that truely don't line up right with Cardinal logic.

We can say that we have a set of 2 large things and thus there must be something to make these large things large. If there is a thing that makes these large things large then this 'large itself' thing must be included in the set of large thing - so now we have 3 large things in our set. Now we have 3 large things in our set of large things and there must be some large thing which causes these 3 things to be large. Thuse there must be yet another 'large itself' which causes these things to be large. Now with this 4th large thing we need to add it to our set of large things....And this goes on and on sort of the way that infinity + 1 is always greater than infinity...

Trying to apply this same logical 3rd man arguement to Ordinals fails to work in quite the same neet and tidy way that it does in Cardinals.

We have 4 seasons and thus there must be something that causes them to be seasons thus, there must be a 'seasonal itself' which causes these seasons to be seasonal. Now .... it is very difficult at this point to say that we now have a 5th season....and then somehow put it into the alegied "set" of 4 seasons and say that we have 5 seasonal things and move on from there to say that there must be a 6th seasonal thing and so on and so on. The reason it becomes difficult is because Ordinals are not operating like Cardinals do. It is a sell out and short sighted to conclude that 4 seasons is merely a set of 4 seasons, because it makes no sense to try and use the Third Man Arguement logic with 4 seasons. We can do this sort of thing very cleanly with "large" , but it becomes much stranger and nonsensical when trying to do the same kind of thing with Ordinal Numbers.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well... There is a Third Man Arguement and we can use this logic with a set of large things and keep adding a 'large itself' to the set to infinity. It makes far less sense to say that: There is a Third Man Arguement and we can use this logic with a set of 4 seasons and keep adding a 'seasonal itself' to the set to infinity.

Perhaps this is because Cardinals funciton in more linear ways and Ordinals are more cyclical and the Third Man Arguement is operating on a logic more linear than cyclical... I'm not sure.

Posted by stanley @ 07:15:2006:01:37 PM CST

By Stan @ 09:01 PM CST:07:14:06 ..::Link::..

read more entries→

July 2006



07.23.2006 - 07.29.2006
07.16.2006 - 07.22.2006
07.09.2006 - 07.15.2006
07.02.2006 - 07.08.2006
06.25.2006 - 07.01.2006
06.18.2006 - 06.24.2006
06.11.2006 - 06.17.2006
06.04.2006 - 06.10.2006
05.28.2006 - 06.03.2006
05.21.2006 - 05.27.2006
05.14.2006 - 05.20.2006
05.07.2006 - 05.13.2006
04.30.2006 - 05.06.2006
04.23.2006 - 04.29.2006
04.16.2006 - 04.22.2006
04.09.2006 - 04.15.2006

Latest Achives (April 2006–Present)

Four Years of old entries before this journal blew up the second time (April 2002–April 2006)

even older entries before this journal blew up the first time (December 2001–April 2002)

even moldier eyeblog archives (November 2000–December 2001)

←Back to the Main Menu

Dictionary of Frequently Used Words and Cast of Characters


Screen Dream
< ? # >
the 1% ring
<< ? # >>
< # ? >
blogs by women
<< ? # >>
:: # ? ::
Blog × Philes
<< × × >>
self expression
< ? # >
< ? wiscoblogs # >

Writings Copyright 2000-2006 Ornamentalillness. Artistic Contents Copyright 2000-2005 Ornamentalillness. All Rights Reserved. No part of this web log may be copied or reproduced without written permission first (except link-back buttons). Please check the links to Ann's Ann-S-Thesia site for web graphics if that is what you need.

Please note that any comments made that are irrelevant to or off-topic from the post, an attempt to spam or promote your own website, or just plain stupid, will be removed. The definition of "stupid" is made at my sole discretion.

Search Entries