but couldn't you have more simply described 4th order meaning as "metaphor"? metaphor has shared meaning only insofar as context can be manufactured within a group by a narrator (aka propagandist). language without 4th order abstraction is boorish, it's collecting facts for facts sake. all the more interesting ideas appear to emerge from 4th order language abstractions? no?
awesome subject. i've been contemplating the levels of abstraction as an intelligence test for the last several years. i could never figure out abstraction beyond level 4 as i think i'm limited to an easy 3. i was initially inspired by a comment from chris langan (whose iq i don't believe is 200) who said that intelligence is the ability to think about thinking. higher order thinking can think about thinking about thinking.
I'm unsure what you mean by being limited to three. People of all intelligence levels use abstractions from every level. What separates the intelligent from the unintelligent is the level of deftness they can handle abstractions.
An example could just be math. People of almost every intelligence level in our society understand 1+3=4, which is a 3rd-level statement. But it's almost exclusively people of high intelligence that understand a Taylor series, even though that's also a 3rd-level statement.
i got excited by the title and wrote a comment before working through the actual content. but instead of referring to purely linguistic abstractions, i'm referring to abstractions of ideas. first order thoughts (or zero in your terms): the thing is. 2nd order: the thing is because or does because. 3rd order: the thing is and does because some additional effect. 4th order: indescribable as it becomes (apparently) recursive in its complexity. i think a more intelligent person than myself could put words to 4th order concepts. much like conceptualizing 4d+ figures in 3d space.
for that matter, a more simplistic way to say the same thing: 1st order describe a line. 2nd order describe a plain. 3rd order: describe a 3 dimensional figure 4th order: highly complex. requires niche language and optical illusion to depict.
an easy way to play with the concept is to think about thinking. easy. now think about thinking about thinking. a little bit difficult. now think about thinking about thinking about thinking. almost impossible without sustained effort and probably graphs. going beyond this level is probably possible but seems implausibly complex (if not recursive or outright absurd) with normal linguistic constructs and common data visualization techniques.
You can point to a ball and call it a shape, call a cereal box a shape, then because they are both shapes they are equal. So why not call a cereal box a ball?
If you organize the levels of abstraction as a logical hierarchy, than yes it does not logically imply that a box is a ball, but we live in a post modernist world of equality. How can you make a logical argument to a pigeon and expect anything rational in return.
I think a great deal of what I write tries to synthesize the modernist and postmodernist views into one that transcends, yet includes, them both. The opening statements which address the "What is a woman?" debate acknowledge both sides for where they're right and where they're wrong.
Semantics are great when you couple them with abstractions, sophistry is much more convenient. This way you can tend to your solipsism and reap the rewards of feelings. And who says women cannot think abstractly, how else do they ignore reality, because they never suffer consequence? Must be nice to be young and attractive. Oh shit here comes entropy and hedonics, womp womp.
i like your "final thoughts".
but couldn't you have more simply described 4th order meaning as "metaphor"? metaphor has shared meaning only insofar as context can be manufactured within a group by a narrator (aka propagandist). language without 4th order abstraction is boorish, it's collecting facts for facts sake. all the more interesting ideas appear to emerge from 4th order language abstractions? no?
awesome subject. i've been contemplating the levels of abstraction as an intelligence test for the last several years. i could never figure out abstraction beyond level 4 as i think i'm limited to an easy 3. i was initially inspired by a comment from chris langan (whose iq i don't believe is 200) who said that intelligence is the ability to think about thinking. higher order thinking can think about thinking about thinking.
I'm unsure what you mean by being limited to three. People of all intelligence levels use abstractions from every level. What separates the intelligent from the unintelligent is the level of deftness they can handle abstractions.
An example could just be math. People of almost every intelligence level in our society understand 1+3=4, which is a 3rd-level statement. But it's almost exclusively people of high intelligence that understand a Taylor series, even though that's also a 3rd-level statement.
i got excited by the title and wrote a comment before working through the actual content. but instead of referring to purely linguistic abstractions, i'm referring to abstractions of ideas. first order thoughts (or zero in your terms): the thing is. 2nd order: the thing is because or does because. 3rd order: the thing is and does because some additional effect. 4th order: indescribable as it becomes (apparently) recursive in its complexity. i think a more intelligent person than myself could put words to 4th order concepts. much like conceptualizing 4d+ figures in 3d space.
for that matter, a more simplistic way to say the same thing: 1st order describe a line. 2nd order describe a plain. 3rd order: describe a 3 dimensional figure 4th order: highly complex. requires niche language and optical illusion to depict.
an easy way to play with the concept is to think about thinking. easy. now think about thinking about thinking. a little bit difficult. now think about thinking about thinking about thinking. almost impossible without sustained effort and probably graphs. going beyond this level is probably possible but seems implausibly complex (if not recursive or outright absurd) with normal linguistic constructs and common data visualization techniques.
You can point to a ball and call it a shape, call a cereal box a shape, then because they are both shapes they are equal. So why not call a cereal box a ball?
This just isn't logical.
1. B -> S (If it's a ball, then it has a shape)
2. C -> S (If it's a cereal box, then it has a shape)
3. Therefore, C -> B. (If it's a cereal box then it is a ball)
1 and 2 don't imply 3.
If you organize the levels of abstraction as a logical hierarchy, than yes it does not logically imply that a box is a ball, but we live in a post modernist world of equality. How can you make a logical argument to a pigeon and expect anything rational in return.
I think a great deal of what I write tries to synthesize the modernist and postmodernist views into one that transcends, yet includes, them both. The opening statements which address the "What is a woman?" debate acknowledge both sides for where they're right and where they're wrong.
Semantics are great when you couple them with abstractions, sophistry is much more convenient. This way you can tend to your solipsism and reap the rewards of feelings. And who says women cannot think abstractly, how else do they ignore reality, because they never suffer consequence? Must be nice to be young and attractive. Oh shit here comes entropy and hedonics, womp womp.