Mark de LA says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 14:20:30 [item 20874#51744]
Ming or Chinese as a language has a picture and a sound for a name (designation) & a feeling about something. ‘Tis a bit different from english which has spelling, no picture & sound. I guess context is controlled by the sound component. 
Seth 2016-05-01 05:42:37 [item 20874#51745]
i see what you mean … with Chinese you get a picture to call up (provoke) the context to associate with every word … with English you just get the spelling of the word which pails in its ability to pictorially provoke a context.  With English we have to rely more on how we say the sound of the word in our mind. 
… even less that that with the written word. Old TR claimed in F2F – communication that meaning is 7% words, 35% tonality & the rest body language.  In China the the ancient emperors unified their provinces by changing the meanings of the characters a bit like political correctness & munging of the day . The Chicoms still do that. I have noticed in the various online dictionaries that the etymologies have become vague which existed even 10 years ago. Anyway this was a quick wallaby I put here for quick reference may relocate it later.

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-01 12:45:33 [item 20874#51748]
thing about 1-1 correspondence, it is not by single words … it better matches with phrases … and even better with whole sentences … and even better still with complete paragraphs.  you seem always to presume that you can go with a 1-1 on words, interperting perhaps that being necessary to get to GW’s “UNIFICATION” …

thing is context does not work that way … not on a 1-1 correstpondance of name to thing. 

A real short example is “white house” … but this really is far more important than that almost triveal example belies. 
Yep munge it all the way to the entire Cosmos & you will have a 1-1 correspondence to everything thumbs up Good Show! cool

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-01 13:01:58 [item 20874#51750]
well your meaning would have been received here more accurately had you used the word “combine” in your sentence rather than “munge” which, i presume, connotes a distaste subjective only to yourself.   try reading it that way and see if it rings truer even in your mind … it does in mine.    of course then transmitting representations from separate mind to separate mind would be quite impossible laughing
Munge (outside the urban dictionary) is just cobbling or jamming a bunch of stuff  together for some effect. Applied to psychology it produes neuroses & psychosis. It can be unjammed & un-munged by the Meta-model & Milton-models of NLP. Like “what specifically” are you talking about?  “How specifically is your theory of any use to anyone?”  etc … etc.

Seth says
ok and all with all that … moving right along with GW’s document here ...

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-01 14:29:26 [item 20874#51754]
Combining things is how we make new ones !!!!
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-01 14:33:17 [item 20874#51755]
Combining things is how we make mixtures !!!!! New thing – maybe not.
Seth 2016-05-02 05:56:11 [item 20874#51759]
and the difference between a mixture and a new thing is ?????
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:05:13 [item 20874#51762]
Mixture is like a soup. Keep adding more leftovers & it is still soup. A new thing might be making a biscuit.
i don’t see the difference … a soup is a thing in and of itself … so is a biscuit.   combining a lever with something heavy gives us a hammer  … because it is a combination of different things are we to judge its utility negatively ? … NO WE ARE NOT! …  that is just a very personal judgement on your part … it does not obtain outside of your subjective mind. 

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-02 06:10:19 [item 20874#51763]
if one stays within a model of binary logic,  “not (not true) = true”,  and so multiplying “(-x  * -x)” yields “x^ 2”.  There is no way we can multiply two negative numbers and arrive at a positive number withing the number line the way we have conceived the sequence.  So then if we can, we are not “within a binary logic model” … no we are in an entirely different plane. 
so how is that related, in GW’s mind to a 1-1 correspondence between the metaworld and the world of possibilities ?
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:13:35 [item 20874#51764]
The laws of arithmetic say that multiplying 2 negative numbers is a positive number. Go back to school. BTW multiplying 2 negative numbers on a line doesn’t make geometric sense – multiply seems to add a 2nd dimension. 
please read more carefully … i also implied that multiplying 2 negative numbers is a positive number … why is is necessary for you to think i made a mistake? 

… and yes, absolutely! … i think that multiplying makes a new dimension smug.    In fact whenever we can identify a duality, a spectrum … we can then combine it (mung if you must  aug) with another duality to create new dimension.    try this one …
  happens not happens

Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:02:52 [item 20874#51761]
Folks on your side of the aisle must not watch the Science Channel – all those things about physicists looking for the unified theory of everything .. maybe need to watch the movie .. read some Einstein etc. not that they will ever get there the way they are pursuing it, but ….
well it seems to be quite a human thing to grok a “unified theory” … or in the case here with GW’s usage of it, a perfect match between thought and actuality (or words and “being” depending on your ontology).   everybody does it … your side … my side … your mind … my mind.   i see no profit in trowing insulting  transaction between us  about that.