help gödel


True falls through False


you could work it backwards, but what if Gödel also starts wandering from the other end? And if he’d meet you in the middle, how could he recognize you, since you are not where … ? This is so very incomplete even for Gödel. OK there will be no proof, but he still wants to have the truth.

Backwards approach would not yield “the truth” lest “the whole truth”, but it could maybe yield “nothing but the truth”.

It reads like this in two time steps:
“Nothing, but the truth?”

I was referring to “nothing but the truth” in my previous message.

To refer to your message: “Nothing!” is at “But inconsistencies are what point to truths”, “Nothing, but the truth?” is at “Maybe this will be my chance”.

I really cannot get in the labyrinth. I think I might actually be afraid of Kurt Gödel in the time being.

Riddle-in-a-riddle is my escape route. Because labryrinth is rigged by names and words in every direction, I have to repeat them imperceptibly or rely on their existing (imperceptible or partially perceptible) repetitions to be able to jump elsewhere. A counter-rigging, if you will. But it is very difficult to stabilize a counter-rigging, because it is made up of pure relativity.

The difficult thing is to see Kurt Gödel himself in his own relativity, as a counter-rigging strategist. This would relieve the fear by making him indistinguishable from the relative “I”.

But this would be too difficult. One cannot read everyone and try to understand everyone. Well OK, Gödel is not everyone. But still.

The relative “I” needs to be physically organized somehow.

I don’t know draddle, we had “topaç” to spin. it just spins.

I’m looking it up. Interesting. “A great miracle happened-here”: “A” gets nothing, “great” gets all, “miracle” gets half, “happened-here” gives one (or three).

“A” and “happened” are form. “great” and “miracle” are content.

I found great vs. miracle especially interesting.

“Miracle” gets a fraction of what “great” gets. They are like relative vs. absolute, but in a quantitative relationship.

Or maybe it’s the reverse? “Great” can only be great with respect to the miracle. Qualitative ambiguity is immanent in quantitative vacillation. And maybe this is what makes the game fun.

It reminded me that Zizek tells about Church and Army near the end of Less Than Nothing. But these are really too abstract… Anyways.

I would say we could find a game in which to practice rigging and counter-rigging, but I doubt an appropriate game can be found. I know there are people who work on games with “themes” ( but they are in a different abstract: an abstract looser in words, stricter in coordination.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s