[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 400x400, 1441729132861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11081090 No.11081090 [Reply] [Original]

Is non-sense, objectively, the most subjective idea passable to another being, through word alone, put forth; Does non-sense propagate further non-sense, or does it instill deeper of what sense truly is?

>> No.11081294

All month cane words dispel a cantaloupe trapeze phone booth swiggitied swooogggiiidddyyyy your lips are now mom's spaghetti

>> No.11081320

>>11081294
Ah, good example.

All months, came words dispelling of what I can't elope from trapped thoughts, like a call from an empty phone booth, I swig back my head, and gulp down my 40'. My lips now numb, as they were from childhood, on moms spiced spaghetti.

>> No.11081328

>>11081320
No

All month cane words dispel a cantaloupe trapeze phone booth swiggitied swooogggiiidddyyyy your lips are now mom's spaghetti

>> No.11081345

>>11081328
oh.

In the final weak, smeared salt soldering primal taint mogging mollygodding smouooolllllioounnning boney fingers pizza cheeses

>> No.11081355

>>11081345
close

All month cane words dispel a cantaloupe trapeze phone booth swiggitied swooogggiiidddyyyy your lips are now mom's spaghetttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiii

>> No.11081371

>>11081355
eh?
spaghetti mom's now are lips your swooogggiiidddyyyy swiggitied booth phone trapeze cantaloupe a dispelwords cane month all

>> No.11081384

>>11081090
"No."

>> No.11081389

>>11081384
What do you mean?

>> No.11081390
File: 1006 KB, 1105x1080, 1525144890205.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11081390

I like where this thread is going.

>> No.11081394

And if you are, then you were.
Google this: google dont.

>> No.11081404

>>11081394
An eye isn't evil,
only the mover is :)

>> No.11081408

>>11081389
I mean at once that you are wrong and also that simple affirmation and denial are more simple subjective ideas than the relatively complex one of a nonsense proposition.

>> No.11081424

>>11081408
the proposition makes sense, actually. How else would one tell the difference between, complex stream lined theories with easy access (a) and (b) nodes and the difference between simple logical theories?

How does one know the simple logicies, are not but just reduced complexities?

How does one understand non-sense, is but to complex for basic sense?

>> No.11081432

>>11081371
YES! it got have you.

>> No.11081436

>>11081432
Yes.. Have you got, it?

>> No.11081449

>>11081424
No, I mean that the idea of a "nonsense proposition," since it includes the idea of logical validity, of fallacy, and of contradiction, at the minimum, is more complex than the idea communicated by the words "yes" and "no." They both each only contain one idea.

>> No.11081451

>>11081449
Okay, and then how do you suppose you answer the in op question?

>> No.11081468
File: 66 KB, 395x500, 1490750492361.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11081468

ill tell ya what, if you'll listen. ive got a yarn for ya, a real yeller if you will, when you hear it you'll be wailing god willing what a sight it will be; and it wanes like this, with a wonderful wash of wellow waves with the wun weaming and we were won wike wuddhist wonks.

>> No.11081469

>>11081451
Nonsense itself communicates nothing, otherwise it would have sense. The idea of nonsense is just the negation of the idea of sense, so in order to recognize nonsense you would already have to possess an idea of what is sensible. Nonsense only propagates further nonsense if the lack of content in the assertion(s) remains undetected.

>> No.11081477

>>11081469
nonsense also depends on the area of the sense the reader has, so a sensible anon, would say some non-sense has more than his sense.
But whose to say all non-sense isn't part of this same phenomena?

>> No.11081484

>>11081468
well, I'll chase this yarn, curiously, care tell me, and carry on, give feast, give fresh carrion, carefully caress coming caucus, confide calling cod.

>> No.11081485

>>11081477
>nonsense also depends on the area of the sense the reader has, so a sensible anon, would say some non-sense has more than his sense.
Care to rewrite this in English?

>> No.11081495

>>11081485
that is english

>> No.11081507

>>11081485
To define something as non-sense, to a high sense bearing man, would imply he understand that there are senses higher than his own, and anything high than his would be non-sensical.

>> No.11081540

>>11081477
An arrangement of words is either sensical or nonsensical. Doesn't matter if anyone deems something nonsensical. They just might not be able to understand it and cop out by attacking the person or idea ad hominem. If someone said, "let me wake up this chair," and it was meant literally, it would be nonsensical since a chair is neither asleep nor awake to even be subjected to either transitioning state. It would be sensical though if in the context of waking up an electric chair since it's another way of saying "turn on." Depends on the context. If someone says something false but makes logical sense in the flow from idea to idea, basically one of the premises was nonsensical, then the conclusion is sensical, because it proceeded logically from a untrue basis, non-illogically. For something to be nonsensical it needs to be false, unrealistic, and not decipherable.

>> No.11081556

>>11081507
If I don't understand something, I don't immediately condemn it as nonsense. Something can only be properly called nonsense if it entails something inconceivable, contradicts itself or provides no information (as in the case of tautology). An argument may be difficult to comprehend, but that doesn't mean it actually possesses no sense whatever.

>> No.11081578

>>11081540
>>11081556
Esoteric ideas are mostly non-sense until you understand the context, which is often not implied.
To a non-learned reader, the texts would be almost completely non sense

>> No.11081600

>>11081578
Did you even read these posts?
>>11081540
>>11081556

Just because someone doesn't understand a text doesn't mean that it's truly nonsensical. That's proven by finally understanding something you once thought to be nonsensical, therefore, it was never truly nonsensical, it just seemed nonsensical to you at the time, so you were previously wrong about it being truly nonsensical. Instead the text was only difficult to grasp for you at the time.

A 2 year old not grasping calculus doesn't make the entire branch of mathematics nonsensical.

>> No.11081608

>>11081600
Okay, so is string theory non-sense, or multi universe theory non-sense? How may both exist, if "mathematically" 'logically' they make sense?

>> No.11081636

>>11081608
String theory and multiverse theory aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

Personally, multiverse is nonsensical because if it were true then it wouldn't be 'multi' since the universe encompasses everything that exists, whether we experience it firsthand or not.

String theory is not nonsensical since it is built off of logical mathematical proofs though it can't be proven physically. Hence why it's a theory and not a natural law.

>> No.11081699

>>11081090
psychosis is contagious, yes

>> No.11081748

>>11081699
explain

>> No.11082552

i mean you can literally pass sounds and moods onto someone. you can touch or have sex or whatever.

nonsense that is also language is relatively restricted actually, because it’s still a finite set of objects and even if they don’t relate they ‘way they don’t relate’/‘the way they could relate’ is still sensible

>> No.11082556

>>11082552
*the way