ruminating on 's distinction of punctated yet non-terminating "processes" vs "projects" which are defined by their completion. just got to the chapter in this (well, one of them) on infinity: amazon.com/Where-Mathemat
Conversation
(the chapter suggests a grounding for the concept of infinity in embodied processes like walking which break down into an indeterminate number of steps)
1
2
Replying to
Hah, this is weird serendipity. I was just about to tweet "dividing by zero is a bad way to get to infinity. Instead you should forget how to count, and try and walk to 'many'"
Didn't tweet it because it seemed too inside-my-own-head that I figured others wouldn't grok :D
1
3
Replying to
that book is actually pretty interesting—tldr is some processes have termination built into the concept while for others termination is outside the concept: they are simply aborted when their side effects have produced the desired result
1
2
err tldr for the (first of many) chapter on infinity
1
Replying to
i just picked it up used at random a couple weeks ago; have read lakoff's other two big ones, about 170 pages in
1
i had made a remark not long prior to obtaining the book along the lines of "information architecture is semiotics plus topology" and the book basically argues that topology is itself semiotics (but i haven't gotten to that part yet)
2

