The beast of the revelation and the fundamental theorem of linguistics

John Bjarne Grover

My fundamental theorem of linguistics tells that there are different realities and that there exist realities which humans cannot understand or even perceive - even with the most sophisticated technology. The standard example is the bird, a gull or whatever, who reportedly can fly thousands of kilometres without landing. Where does it get the energy from? Lots of flies in the air? The body of the bird cannot carry enough fuel for such a long journey. It means that birds live in a different sort of reality - and they are special in the sense of revealing this to humans. That is why angels have wings in human mythology - they are like birds who in a rare act of generosity reveals the otherness to the humans.

But if there are such 'other realities', it means for humans that there are authorities which they cannot cope with. This is probably standard theology - and religion is an attempt to understand some of it. It means that there is a larger authority (as humans call it) or reality which is metaphysically constituting for the history of human reality. A concept of divinity is naturally affiliated with this.

The philosopher's white stone occurs in fields of mystery associated with these things, and it is natural to guess that some would take it as coming from a different reality. Others (materialists?) say that consciousness can disintegrate into matter ex nihilo, often accompanied by the emission of light - as if consciousness disintegrate into 1) light and 2) matter. That is because consciousness in this conceptualization is a redundancy in matter.

Matter or body can be explained as that which occupies a place (and place can be defined likewise) in such a way that there can be one and only one body on one place. (Some say that the matrimonial conjunction is the only exception - then there are two bodies on one place - and therefrom a new body can develop).

When a body is associated with a soul which can carry a consciousness, that is ONE FACT. It can be called a BEAST.

The fundamental theorem of linguistics tells of two and only two: If the consciousness experiences a phenomenon which tells of the higher reality, this experience can be defined as a ONE FACT - a touchpoint between a higher (different) reality and the human reality. Since it cannot be conceived in human description, but is important for navigating history, it can be conceived by the body-soul conjunction of ONE FACT as just ONE FACT. It is this which is transformed into human language when it records via its innate linguistic competence two and only two occurrences (in historic time distribution) in the sense of the meetingpoint between soul (one fact) and spirit (one fact). There is a spiritual experience in one and only one which meets the single soul in the material body which is one and only one. This is transformed into two and only two which are the same via the linguistic competence - and humans use this for navigating through history without shipwrecking onto the shores of eternity. It is not to fully understand the eternity or bigger reality, but it is a navigational tool which is not so bad. 'Navigare necesse est, vivere non'.

The two and only two are also about the two dirty beasts in the revelation of John: When the one beast sees the other beast, it counts as seeing the higher spiritual reality via the linguistic competence. The problem with the beasts of the revelation is, though, that beasts normally are defined as 'animals without language' - but the two beasts nevertheless take themselves to be 'two and only two': Therefore one of them pronounces blasphemies - assuming that the other of the two is the same as the divine authority in the higher reality. The other beast of the revelation likewise mistakes itself as the symbolic capacity of the linguistic competence - needed for the economic symbolic value of trade - for selling and buying beyond the mere exchange of sheepskins against sacks of potatoes.

When Hitler's cabinet imitated the linguistic redundancy in the english conception of hungarian, they saw themselves in the mirror or revelation of that and attacked what they believed was the higher british authority in the revelation. It can be called narcizismus. Their banner of belief was - via Hitler's government - the same as the english language, which was the reason why it was the deutsche Sprache which suffered from the headon attack of the nazi beast - not the english.

The german language and culture should not do the same error over again - unless the whole story was for bringing an end to plurilingualism on earth.

The postwar form of this 'narcizismus' is called the problems of secret intelligence services: A young talent is discovered and the services direct their surveillance towards the talent and send out bogeymen to weaken the optimism and enthusiasm of the young person, or echo the surveyed works of the talent in media of various sorts for being 'the same' - the higher reality or authority: In this way the talent does not develop as it could (if it does not find the services equal to the higher reality) and the 'services' can present headon 'power' to the government instead - the cultural blossoming is turned into a blossoming of the governmental power instead and the newspapers are flooded with reports on the latest initiatives from the administration. It is the own culture which is weakened and suffer from this postwar narcizismus.

Some take atheistic materialism to be a variant of this - since it facilitates government and frees it from the burdens of obligations towards eternity. There is the danger of abuse of talent in materialism, say those who oppose this philosophical stance.

Summary: There is a higher reality beyond the grasp of human reason - a sort of eternity - and there is the limited human empirical reality subjected to human authority. The existence of the higher is captured in the fundamental theorem of linguistics which is incorporated into the limited human empirical reality via the linguistic competence. It is when there are redundancies in the english conception of hungarian that the german language could mistake this as an intermediate level of administrative authority - higher than human but lower than the divine - and attack that.

My blue metre shows that this intermediate level is a level of formal thought in a collective historic consciousness - that which preserves some fragments of Heraclitus and not other fragments - in such a way that the resulting collection of fragments makes for one poetic form. There is of course a philosophical problemshift there - some say that this 'higher consciousness' is the same as the divine, others say that it is mere history and refuse to accept a higher divinity endowed with intention, attention etc.

What is important to understand is that the fundamental theorem of linguistics is purely formal and counts only 1 and 2 - it does not say that the higher spiritual FACT beyond the grasp of human reason is 'the same' as the second occurrence of a linguistic item - all it says is that there are two and only two in the assessment of sameness and that there are different realities. Sameness exists, difference exists. That is the symbolic phenomenon which makes of language a tool for navigation in the ocean and along the shores of eternity.

It is possible that the german and english languages are different in that specific blue-metre aspect. My PEB has shown that it is possible to use the first lines for putting up a semantic or semiotic identity between a foreign-language item X which is explained in terms of an english-language item Y out of the rest of the line - and then apply the equation which tells that X = Y. That makes for two and only two occurrences and these are considered 'the same'. But clearly that is a distribution in a historic collective etymological space and not in a synchronic distribution - and it is in this 'higher historic consciousness' that one can recognize the same principles of identity as normally obtains for synchronic linguistic competence. If the german and english languages are different in this blue-metre aspect of it, that could explain some of the history. My blue PEB can perhaps count as a proof that this obtains for english, but to prove that it cannot be done in german is probably difficult.

The visual and auditory impressions of mine in the summer 2015 could be telling: I saw the bore or drill (some 20 metres high or so) that swirled around and went up and down like features are distributed in line 1 of the blue metre when they are changed in the beginning and changed correspondingly in the end of the line - and this occurred along with the strange and loud sobs from some neighbourhood: These sobs were difficult to understand (like a machine mechanically shouting 'help' or 'thankyou') and were not articulated more than in a beast's language. It is possible that this is the SOB-i-BOR of Himmler's death camp 'Sobibor' (along with Treblinka and Belcez) - but it is also probable that the 'Sobibor' simply meant the 'sob' when the 'hymen' was penetrated in the first matrimonial 'bore'. Are these two sobs-in-bores the same? That is when Hitler's government had dressed up in the power of the english language - like a beast in a revelation - and the only result of the whole story was a terrible blow for the german language and culture. It is possible that the postwar reality has developed a logic of power that is of a similar unfortunate kind.

The fundamental theorem of linguistics relates a human and a different reality to an occurrence twice and only twice - if three occurrences are considered 'the same' then it is a matter of categorization which is something else. It is when the two and only two are the same that one can understand how the fundamental theorem of linguistics explains the form of the human reality. It is limited, restricted - and the linguistic competence is relevant for understanding the form.

The one ex nihilo beast #28 is the same as the other ex nihilo beast #29 - notice the 'M' of the human palm in the 'frontal lobe' of the beast - there is only a small difference in the x-rays and that is probably due to a curvature in the matter possibly due to drying of the matter in the course of the six days between their occurrences:

       

This curve is the same as the curve of the (aluminium or so) threshold against which the first was only half way in and the second fully onto. If the two pieces really are the same piece, the difference between them is explained so. But it is also possible that the two are two pieces of matter which are identified as the same - in which case it could have been the same thought that materialized twice. But these are not symbolic linguistic items - they are pieces of matter. This tells of the difficulties of human reality and why the revelation of John tells of them in a book of religious quality.

It is because the fundamental theorem of linguistics tells of two formal items being the same that it tells of one reality different from another - but it does not tell anything of the quality or kind of these differences. As such, the theorem resembles certain aspects of the socalled world religions - such as the sacraments of christianity: The priest can grant the church's foregiveness to the sinner but cannot claim to be in possession of divine powers. The theorem tells why it is the innate linguistic competence which assigns to language its referential function - that is by the semiotic mystery - since it is the key to understanding the specific form of the restricted human reality.





John Bjarne Grover
On the web 23 january 2018