Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[Silicon Waffle]

Something is occurring to Mr.Om . He is silently watching or following something. I just guess!

 

[OmCheeto]

Something is occurring to Mr.Om . He is silently watching or following something. I just guess!

Someone has absconded with my moniker? Who is this "Mr.Om"?

hmmmm...
I don't know about him, but I've been silently watching "somethings" occurring my whole life.

My current watchings list includes:

1. The Dawn space mission
2. Dr. Who (After watching 450+ episodes, over the last several months, I decided that I'd never ever watched a single episode.)
3. Somethings. (As always)​

ps. My Armenian friend's birthday was yesterday. He's very wise. He received his PhD from some University in Moscow. He once told me that his final paper was about "Humour in Language". I thought that was very funny, given that he was working as a molecular biologist.

 

[OmCheeto]

Hehe, when I googled for philosoraptor I also found this comic:

Another fun fact:

Both Dr. Who, and Star Trek, had episodes of highly evolved dinosaurs, who had escaped the devastation.

But, beings that this is PF, I'm sure I was the last to find out about this fact...

 

[collinsmark]

"Oil is dinosaurs," lacks any proverbial quality; there is no lesson or rule of thumb implied. Therefore it is more on the lines of mere misinformation than anything else.

I meant "burning dinosaur bones" being a way of saying "running the vehicle's internal combustion engine." The proverbial nature involves fossil fuels being of limited resource.

[Edit: and yes, there is a bit of misinformation involved with it. But I still think it loosely qualifies as an adage, in a similar way as "Man bites dog" is an adage.]

[Another edit: On a completely different note, it was once reported by a DJ on a certain San Diego radio station that the song "Rusty Cage" was actually written for Johnny Cash's pet hamster, "Paco." Of course, that shouldn't be taken with any seriousness whatsoever. (If I'm not mistaken, the song is actually about getting an old, beat up, rusty, gas-guzzling hulk of a car, or more likely a pickup truck, working again, written from the perspective of the vehicle itself -- getting it "running" again, so to speak. That's the way I interpret the song anyway.)]

 

[zoobyshoe]

I meant "burning dinosaur bones" being a way of saying "running the vehicle's internal combustion engine."

[Edit: and yes, there is a bit of misinformation involved with it. But I still think it loosely qualifies as an adage, in a similar way as "Man bites dog" is an adage.]

Here's the first definition of "adage" that comes up when I google "adage definition:"

ad·age/ˈadij/
noun

1. a proverb or short statement expressing a general truth.

"Man bites dog" is an interesting comic reversal of the situation we'd expect, but it is not an adage. Likewise, to say "burning dinosaur bones" to mean "operate an internal combustion engine on fossil fuel" is a colorful poetic device, but it is not an adage. You're missing the "proverbial" aspect of the meaning, the element whereby an alleged insight or truth is encapsulated. Consider, "a stitch in time saves nine." It is not literally true that a torn piece of cloth will require nine stitches if you don't put one stitch in when the tear starts. The truth expressed is more general: a problem left untreated will get worse and require more effort later than it does when it first starts. "Burning dinosaur bones" has no lesson, insight, or advice to it. It is merely a metaphor, without also being an adage.

 

[collinsmark]

"Man bites dog" is an interesting comic reversal of the situation we'd expect, but it is not an adage.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adage

Scroll down to the first example.

 

[Ibix]

Hehe, when I googled for philosoraptor I also found this comic:

I am unable to find it, even with the might of Google, but I recall a cartoon of two dinosaurs, one in a lab coat and one in a military uniform standing in front of a bomb and announcing "This is it gentlemen. Our ultimate weapon - the iridium bomb."

 

[collinsmark]

"Burning dinosaur bones" has no lesson, insight, or advice to it. It is merely a metaphor, without also being an adage.

The lesson, or proverbial insight, is the non-renewable nature of fossil fuel. It involves the comparison to dinosaurs insofar that dinosaurs are extinct. Although fossil fuels didn't actually come from dinosaurs themselves, the phrase "burning dinosaur bones" implies that once we run out of fossil fuels, that's it. The original source of the fuel is gone. Petroleum is a non-renewable resource.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adage

Scroll down to the first example.

OK, I didn't realize "man bites dog" was commonly used to mean, "the media only reports the unusual". Used in that way, it is an adage.

The lesson, or proverbial insight, is that dinosaurs are extinct. And similarly, although fossil fuels didn't actually come from dinosaurs themselves, the phrase "burning dinosaur bones" implies that once we run out of fossil fuels, that's it. The original source of the fuel is gone. Petroleum is a non-renewable resource.

If it is in fact used that way, then it would be an adage, yes. I've never heard it used that way, and in fact, the only time I ever heard anything like it was that girls report that her mother told her oil was old dinosaurs, which she meant literally. I'll grant that Johnny cash might, possibly, be using it in the way you suggest, but it doesn't seem like it.

 

[collinsmark]

If it is in fact used that way, then it would be an adage, yes. I've never heard it used that way, and in fact, the only time I ever heard anything like it was that girls report that her mother told her oil was old dinosaurs, which she meant literally. I'll grant that Johnny cash might, possibly, be using it in the way you suggest, but it doesn't seem like it.

I agree in that I don't think Chris Cornell necessarily used it in that way when he wrote the song. Maybe he just thought it was a colorful expression suitable for a song lyric. Then again, maybe he did mean it to be used in that way. If my interpretation of the song is correct, being about getting an old, beat-up, rusty, gas-guzzling hulk of a pickup truck running again, then that extra meaning of "burning dinosaur bones" actually fits in pretty well.

 

[Ibix]

Relevant[1]: http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/203301.jpg .

I was not previously aware of philosoraptor. Possibly my favourite is the one where he points out that the long claw is on his back foot...

[1] I might be stretching the definition of "relevant" here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree in that I don't think Chris Cornell necessarily used it in that way when he wrote the song. Maybe he just thought it was a colorful expression suitable for a song lyric. Then again, maybe he did mean it to be used in that way. If my interpretation of the song being about getting an old, beat-up, rusty gas-guzzling hulk of a pickup truck running again, then that extra meaning of "burning dinosaur bones" actually fits in pretty well.

That song is about someone breaking free from someone whose kept them emotionally imprisoned for a long time. The "rusty cage" is obviously some sort of long term abusive relationship that has left the narrator quite scarred. Re-read it in that light and see if it doesn't make much more sense than simply getting an old car running again.

 

[collinsmark]

That song is about someone breaking free from someone whose kept them emotionally imprisoned for a long time. The "rusty cage" is obviously some sort of long term abusive relationship that has left the narrator quite scarred. Re-read it in that light and see if it doesn't make much more sense than simply getting an old car running again.

It's likely a case of intentional double entendre, or double meaning. The literal interpretation being about the pickup truck, and the alternate meaning being about the relationship.

But for the literal meaning, read the parts about being "wired awake" (ignition systems are electrical), "ride a pack of dogs" (dogs like trucks! ), "burning diesel" (obvious), "Philips head" (typically the Idle screw on a carburetor is adjusted via a Philips head screwdriver, and the tip of an Idle screw comes to a sharp point which goes deep into the carburator), "hand of broken nails" (okay, this one is a bit more difficult, but some pickup trucks are outfitted with wooden banisters on the sides of the bed. And that also is consistent with the pickup truck in the original video: ), "tied my lead and pulled my chain" (towing the truck to the shop, which may involved pulling the truck by another truck linked together via a chain), "headlights" (obvious), and "cutting my teeth on bars" (referring to the transmission, which involves gears with teeth), etc.

 

[WWGD]

Trying to avoid the sugar rush. Too easy to find sweets , just-about anywhere.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, I don't buy it. By your interpretation, the truck is the narrator, but why would the truck be saying it's going to break free of the guy fixing it? :

"You wired me awake
And hit me with a hand of broken nails
You tied my lead and pulled my chain
To watch my blood begin t boil

But I'm going to break
I'm going to break my
I'm going to break my rusty cage and run"

 

[collinsmark]

No, I don't buy it. By your interpretation, the truck is the narrator, but why would the truck be saying it's going to break free of the guy fixing it? :

Not break free of the guy fixing it! Of course, not that!

The truck (which yes, is the narrator) wishes to break free of rust and disrepair which has for years caused it to be non-functional and stagnant. It wants to break free of its melancholy and run. It wants to take rides down to Stillwater and enjoy the company of dogs with their heads gleefully sticking out the window. It wants to relive the fire of freedom of the road like it once did many years ago before it became decrepit. 'Like it did before its engine rusted shut.

 

[collinsmark]

"You wired me awake
And hit me with a hand of broken nails
You tied my lead and pulled my chain
To watch my blood begin t boil

But I'm going to break
I'm going to break my
I'm going to break my rusty cage and run"

Involving the specifics, I read the literal interpretation of this as:

You successfully engaged the ignition and my engine finally started after all these years
And you repaired my systems with your own hands and rudimentary tools
You towed me to this location by hooking me up to another truck with a chain and pulled me here
To observe, with satisfaction, my oil, transmission fluid and radiator fluid cycling through their systems

I'm finally going to break out
I'm finally going to break out
I'm finally going to break out of my state of disrepair. My engine is running.

[Edit: and continuing on for the rest of the song:]

The weather is cold
But my engine is running; got a tank of gas
Let's take a trip down to Stillwater
And bring a dog or two

You used your screwdriver to adjust my Idle screw
In my carburetor
But I'm still old; this newfound freedom won't last forever
I'm too anxious to become stagnant again
So let's shift (transmission) gears
I'm finally going to break out
of my disrepair. My engine is running

And when we experience the beautiful, firey freedom
Along the road
Like God's eyes
In my headlights
And when the dogs are preoccupied, looking
For their bones
And even when the weather is really bad
You can be warm and comfortable in me, your steel shore

I'm going to break out
I'm going to break out
I'm going to break out of my state of disrepair. My engine is running.
​

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not break free of the guy fixing it! Of course, not that!

The truck (which yes, is the narrator) wishes to break free of rust and disrepair which has for years caused it to be non-functional and stagnant. It wants to break free of its melancholy and run. It wants to take rides down to Stillwater and enjoy the company of dogs with their heads gleefully sticking out the window. It wants to relive the fire of freedom of the road like it once did many years ago before it became decrepit. 'Like it did before its engine rusted shut.

Interesting interpretation, but you're ignoring the overwhelming fact the narrator casts the other in cruel, harsh terms and is vowing to run away from him/her.

 

[collinsmark]

Interesting interpretation, but you're ignoring the overwhelming fact the narrator casts the other in cruel, harsh terms and is vowing to run away from him/her.

I made an edit in my previous post such that it now includes my full interpretation of the song, line by line.

I think the author (Chris Cornell) intentionally utilizes double entendre* (or maybe even triple entendre), so there may be more than one interpretation.

I highly suspect though that the author is intentionally being a bit tricky here, making the first impression feel very negative, when in actuality, the song is of an extremely positive and uplifting nature.

*(Although not the "dirty" variety of the term, just the double meaning part.)

 

[Silicon Waffle]

[...]I'm sure I was the last to find out about this fact...

I always highly appreciate and enjoy every single moment that I can find myself alive on earth. Thanks Gosh I found you!

 

[WWGD]

I am one of the apparently very few people who are not bothered by nails scratching the surface of a blackboard.

 

[HomogenousCow]

In my opinion, many philosophical questions don't have definitive answers because they are bad questions. When you ask a ill-defined question you will not get a well defined answer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In my opinion, many philosophical questions don't have definitive answers because they are bad questions. When you ask a ill-defined question you will not get a well defined answer.

I don't think people who are into philosophy want definitive answers, hence the unanswerable questions.

 

[WWGD]

In my opinion, many philosophical questions don't have definitive answers because they are bad questions. When you ask a ill-defined question you will not get a well defined answer.

AFAIK, once a question has been settled, or even clearly-defined, it is out of the scope of Philosophy. Psychology was initially part of Philosophy, but once the objectives and scope of Psychology were defined, it became a stand-alone science. But you may have a valid point: if all those questions were answered, Philosophers would be out of work. And if many of these were settled quickly, it would make the enterprise of Philosophy seem kind of trivial.

EDIT:Still, it may be at least in part an issue of convergent vs divergent thinking: http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=002825717068136152164:qf0jmwd8jku&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=convergent+and+divergent+thinking&sa=Search

EDIT2: Maybe the issue/need for Philosophy is the fact that any knowledge area, knowledge in general, will always rest on some assumptions. Philosophy would then examine these assumptions, examine different assumptions one may make, etc., all of this done explicitly. Outside of Philosophy (the study of Phil) ,e.g. in Science, assumptions are also made/used, but mostly implicitly, more as a given.

 

[WWGD]

One of the waiters in a coffee shop I frequent looks almost exactly like the portrait I have seen of Nietschze. Strange, since the waiter is from Pakistan.

 

[WWGD]

Interesting: A company that measures emotional states and emotional reactions :https://labs.affectiva.com/superbowl/affdexweb.html

EDIT: What a waste, seems like it is mostly for marketing.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I don't think people who are into philosophy want definitive answers, hence the unanswerable questions.

I totally agree to this.

I don't like philosophical ideas like "I shoot an bullet and it flies forever and never reaches the target", which almost sounds pretty silly because if it never does, the speaker should try being my bullet's target and let's see if it hits him.

 

[DiracPool]

I'm randomly thinking what PF Member Awards I'm going to win this year for my valuable contributions to this forum..

 

[Ibix]

I don't think people who are into philosophy want definitive answers, hence the unanswerable questions.

I think, rather more cynically, that some of them do want definitive answers, and have a pretty good idea what they want those definitive answers to be.

Did you know that university administrators hate physicists? We ask them to pay for particle accelerators. They much prefer mathematicians, who are happy with pencil, paper and bin. But they really like philosophers, who can manage without the bin...

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think, rather more cynically, that some of them do want definitive answers, and have a pretty good idea what they want those definitive answers to be.

Possibly, depending on what you mean, but my impression is that it's a collection of people who want everything to be muddy and mushy so that they can cling to the hope that anything is possible.

 

[Ibix]

Possibly, depending on what you mean, but my impression is that it's a collection of people who want everything to be muddy and mushy so that they can cling to the hope that anything is possible.

I think the only difference between us is that I think some of them don't want "anything" to be possible, they want a specific something to be possible. They select the school of philosophy that best supports that something. It feels like quantum woo, with pedigree.

 

[collinsmark]

Questions, answers, 42, and philosophers.

 

[WWGD]

I think you are all missing the /a point. Answers with capital A , do not exist; they all rest on assumptions. If you want definitive answers, you start with clear assumptions. But your assumptions are not certain, they are just that, assumptions. But this is not Philosophy then. Philosophy is intended to examine this process , together with different sets of assumptions to be made, what answers result from these assumptions, which assumptions are justified under which terms, etc. Of course, there may be philosophers of all types, but this says nothing definitive about philosophy itself. Philosophy is at least one layer removed from knowledge itself; it is a stance outside of it used to examine it.

 

[HomogenousCow]

I think you are all missing the /a point. Answers with capital A , do not exist; they all rest on assumptions. If you want definitive answers, you start with clear assumptions. But your assumptions are not certain, they are just that, assumptions. But this is not Philosophy then. Philosophy is intended to examine this process , together with different sets of assumptions to be made, what answers result from these assumptions, which assumptions are justified under which terms, etc. Of course, there may be philosophers of all types, but this says nothing definitive about philosophy itself. Philosophy is at least one layer removed from knowledge itself; it is a stance outside of it used to examine it.

What I mean is many philosophical debates don't seem to have any solid definitions of the ideas involved.
Take free will for example. Rather than asking the question, "is there free will", I'd rather ask "what does free will even mean?"

 

[WWGD]

What I mean is many philosophical debates don't seem to have any solid definitions of the ideas involved.
Take free will for example. Rather than asking the question, "is there free will", I'd rather ask "what does free will even mean?"

But then there would be different schools starting with different sets of assumptions, here on the meaning of free will itself -- at some point you need to make an assumption in order to avoid an infinite regress of justification. Each school would provide its own answer.