Link to other articles

中文 (Chinese language/culture) - 事实胜于雄辩



It has been way too long since I've written any articles. I now intend to write far more frequently than before, for various reasons...

I intend this website and collection of articles to be a resource for learning, a sharing of my ideas, so that it may help others. It is also a catalog of my own thoughts, so that my own ideas may be timestamped. Of course, this website lags way behind the ever-accelerating mountain of my actual ideas.

I have been learning the Chinese language for quite a while now, however, my learning has been extremely sparse and I tend to forget what I have learned. (Side note: I am far too chaotic, I need harness my chaos to create discipline). I shall write articles detailing some of my progress, especially when the concepts arising from the Chinese sentences and the words have a lot of meaning. At some point I will perhaps write the entire article in Chinese.

This article is about the saying 事实胜于雄辩 - which, roughly translated means: "matters of reality win over masculine arguments".

The Chinese language - a very incomplete conceptual observation

The Chinese language is a beautiful language. I say this because of its mathematical properties.

Forewarning: when I say mathematical, I'm not lying.

I believe the grammar of languages tends to converge to a patternistic graph, with similar (though not the same for all languages) degrees of freedom. By degrees of freedom I mean axioms, roots, operators, base concepts. Examples of this include tense, masculine/feminine, basic objects which are considered a philosophical essence (language links with philosophy and religion far more than people would expect), objects in the environment which are considered focal points or of high utility, noun versus action (interestingly enough, verbs have a noun associated with them. For verb v there is a noun which is "the performing of v". This has many implications.) Grammar can ideally be reduced to a list of base concepts and ways to transform them. (Note for later: explain why there are similar base axioms for most languages. It relates to humanity and the way they see the world, what they would communicate about. And why there are differences - this relates to the differences of cultural environment or state when they started consolidating the language).

A lot of language is "generated smoothly" by these axioms. For example: consider the action of walking. In the past: I walked. In the present: I am walking. In the future: I am going to walk. These base transformations of abstract object and action can generate very many words and sentences on their own. (Note for later: I should talk in a future article about when a language can generate infinite amounts of different words and sentences, versus when the language is bounded and needs to add more degrees of freedom to be infinitely generating. Also there are many types of "infinite generation". Consider regular expressions and (sentence)* which is mere repetition, versus many words in the language (w_i) and random positions of them, which satisfy some structure. This can be modelled as constrained generation. We can go even further by generating new words and constantly extending the field according to certain rules)

Of course, every language also has exceptions to the rule. Humans often come into contact with things which cannot be described easily with the current set of words or grammar. This hapens when humans come into contact with unknown beings or experiences. Or humans are merely too lazy to use the proper grammar and little by litle the grammar adapts in an evolutionary fashion according to the populace and the ways of life they settle upon. Or the populace becomes divided into different groups, who distinguish themselves by different ways of speaking - trendsetters (for better or for worse). Often such trendsetters change the course of the grammar, often complicating matters and coming into friction with the "old ways" (though sometimes such amendment can be good. Yes I can be a very literal person. Though, don't worry ladies, I am also a man of subtlety here and there (todo: add winky face emoji))

I have an idea of an interesting language metric to understand the "compression" and generative proportion of a language. How many degrees of freedom are there, and how do the words/composite objects of the language get gerneated by them? For example, if there is (df1) and (df2), how many objects of the language get generated, versus those that COULD get generated by them? If df1 and df2 could create n items in the language but they only create m items (m < n), or if there is a way to create an item with those degrees of freedom but they are instead created by another set of degrees of freedom, and whether this set is larger or less than the first. This could create an interesting analysis of the language. One could also simulate or mathematically show how generating language from ground up axioms (roots, radicals, grammar) differs from the commonly accepted phrases in the language.

Chinese is a language which is beautifully linked and generative from base concepts. There are roots and radicals, and every word is built up from these base components. A radical ends up having a shockingly similar behavior to "free radicals" in physics - it is a root/concept which is abstract, elemental, very ambiguous unless attached to a more stable element. A more stable element is the "root" - a concept which has an easily defined meaning and link to reality. A word is a composite buildup of roots and radicals. If you combine two roots or a radical and a root, you get a first degree of composition, which is itself a word. This composition can build upon itself in the same way to create new words. The word's meaning is, of course, a combination of the two concepts. Some of these combinations are quite abstract and difficult to see at first glance. However, I have noticed they tend to be consistent with each other. If one can see a similar thread of philosophy and buildup in these compositions, and that this philosophical combination is in agreement with Chinese philosophical concepts, then one could say it is very likely true that this combination's "reasoning" holds true. It is a scientific vindication. Order of characters seems to matter sometimes, though not always.

(Note: Can link language to linear independence, perhaps even prime numbers).

Another interesting point: Chinese is a contextual language. It is about following the existing thread, picking up where one left off, rather than regeneration from scratch. The exact meaning of a conversational phrase is known from the past context, as well as cues, rather than completely specifying everything. This is apparent when one considers that a lot of words sound the exact same. The map from sound to word becomes clearer when the possibilities are narrowed. Context, the past sentence, as well as common bigrams in the Chinese language (which, as any Chinese speaker knows, are drilled into the heads of young students as a matter of discipline). This is unlike English where there is almost a one-to-one map from sound to word.

The meaning of each word in 事实胜于雄辩, and explanations in terms of composition

I will write the meaning of each word individually and explain the compositions as I see fit.

The meaning of the phrase itself 事实胜于雄辩

"Matters of reality win over masculine arguments".

Masculinity is strong-armed, forceful, proud and powerful. Arguments between two men can be immediately destructive and leave chaos in their vicinity. Women are either more subtle in argument or more direct, interestingly enough. Perhaps there are reasons "masculine" is referred to here instead of "feminine". Perhaps feminine energy can in fact win over reality. Seduction, fantasy, lulling further into imagination than reality - the weakness of man is woman. A woman can lead a man to war, make a man forget.

On the other hand most men tend to take things at face value and protect their ego, reputation, and tend to pile onto direct aggression. Male argument is a chaotic, destructive force. To persuade a man it is quite difficult to do so with argumentative words, especially if the counterparty is considered to be on his level or below.

On the other hand, reality is a stronger teacher. What could be stronger than reality? Even imagination has its limits, and imagination links to something real. When one imagines concepts, those concepts arise from a real thing, and since the laws of physics are composable, imagination links to a potentially real scenario. When imagination is unbridled, reality hits - imagination which diverges too much from reality leads to absolutely disastrous results. Failure, pain, addiction and clinging on, the weight of unmet goals and desires, the sinking into a fake world which wraps around itself and is known to be inconsistent, both by the dreamer and those around them.

Reality can be a harsh teacher when one fails miserably. But what is the reality in quiestion? The reality is not that one is forever weak, or that one is weaker than the winner. To win once, to win at a certain set of tasks, does not mean the other is worse in general. Many men sadly go that second route, while others tend to ride the wave of victory after victory until they run into a force they cannot move.

Reality is a mixture. The reality acording to the observer are the observed results, interacting with the systems of belief. It is Bayesian, though often certain parameters are tuned too tightly to allow for the lid in 实 to come off, whereas in other cases one is too open - they were right to begin with but they are too influenced by others. There is a process of learning where to look and what knowledge to keep tightly.

A debate usually ends horribly. Both parties think they're right, and that the other person is not listening. If the other person listens too intently, the first person becomes convinced they are right. If the other person is too aggressive with their argument, the first person closes of and looks to abstractly "win" and dominate by any means necessary. If a person feels defeated, they slinker off with resentment. If a person feels victorious, they never bother to double check and are easily led to delusion. A debate involving "reality" would certainly be optimal but this is always hindered by the superego and ego of the parties. Most people are far more attuned to emotions than reality. A debate involving "reality" however is perhaps the most masculine debate of all, and would involve one where both parties feel accomplished, refreshed, respected, and trusting of each other in the end. This certainly involves a passion for the subject and a respect from man to man.