Making Light :: A bit of Borges :: comments

A bit of Borges

This morning brings a quotation Kevin Maroney has obligingly dug up for me. This is Jorge Luis Borges, from "The...

A bit of Borges -- comment #1 from Jim Macdonald

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:42:29 -0500

This is truly an excellent list. I cannot think of any animal that isn't described therein. From this list we can derive that mermaids do not look like flies from a distance, that the dogs belonging to the emperor are neither mad nor do they stray, and that the man who lives in the blue house smokes Camels and owns innumerable vases.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 8:42 AM by Jim Macdonald

A bit of Borges -- comment #2 from Ulrika O'Brien

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:50:57 -0500

Jim's inferences only work if we assume that the operator here is the exclusive, rather than the inclusive, "or". Which does not diminish his wit, of course, but leaving a bit of syllogistic pedantry dangling like that acts on my psyche as tapping out shave-and-a haircut acts on Toons.

Abjectly compulsive,

Ulrika

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 11:50 AM by Ulrika O'Brien

A bit of Borges -- comment #3 from Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:03:49 -0500

I thought about that; but decided that the inclusive/exclusive question was made irrelevant by the presence of (h), "those that are included in this classification". I love (h). It's the verbal equivalent of the loop of tubing that makes a klein bottle a klein bottle.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 12:03 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

A bit of Borges -- comment #4 from Avram

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:02:59 -0500

I'm very fond of the fact that (l) others isn't the last entry on the list.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 3:02 PM by Avram

A bit of Borges -- comment #5 from Ulrika O'Brien

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:31:47 -0500

I don't think (h) makes the inclusive/exclusive
question irrelevant; rather, I think it's strongly
suggestive that the question must be settled in
favor of inclusive 'or'. Unlike Russell's question about whether the set of all sets which are members of themselves is a member of itself, I don't think (h) actually generates a paradox. It's self-referential, and redundant, but doesn't introduce an impossible claim, I think, since animals are not sets. With Avram, I am however charmed that (l) is not the last entry on the list. Stainless steel whimsey.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 7:31 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

A bit of Borges -- comment #6 from Ulrika O'Brien

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:35:42 -0500

Bother. That's the set of all sets which *aren't* members of themselves. I think. God I'm tired.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 7:35 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

A bit of Borges -- comment #7 from Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:36:08 -0500

Ulrika, that list was no more meant to be parsed under the normal rules than Escher's castle was meant to be an architect's blueprint. That's the joy of it.

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 8:36 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

A bit of Borges -- comment #8 from Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:36:41 -0500

And yes, (l).

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 8:36 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

A bit of Borges -- comment #9 from Avram

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:57:38 -0500

Wasn't that Groucho's Paradox -- "I wouldn't belong to any club that wouldn't have itself as a member"?

]]>

Posted June 12, 2002 10:57 PM by Avram

A bit of Borges -- comment #10 from Kate Yule

Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:22:56 -0500

Hoo boy.

I understand that Japanese has different ways to count different classes of object -- flat things (not to be confused with slices, or with floors of a building), long skinny things, boxes, bugs, people, "other small objects" and so on. This was unfathomable.

Now David and I are taking an ASL (American Sign Language) class, where the verb "to open" takes various quite distinct forms depending on the sort of thing being opened, and the Japanese approach takes on a faint glimmer of plausibility.

This list, however, just takes the cake.

(Speaking of which, have placed on hold at the library a book titled "Loose Cannons, Red Herrings, and Other Lost Metaphors". Should be fun.)

]]>

Posted June 15, 2002 1:22 AM by Kate Yule

A bit of Borges -- comment #11 from Barbara Nielsen

Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:56:24 -0500

Having tried to teach outlining and organization for 28 years, this may become my all time favorite classification list. It also should have come earlier in my life, so that I could have understood some of those teenage outlines. It makes everything fit perfectly! To hell with parallel constructs.

]]>

Posted June 16, 2002 11:56 AM by Barbara Nielsen

A bit of Borges -- comment #12 from Prentiss Riddle

Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:08:19 -0500

My small contribution to human knowledge: a classification of people who like Borges' classification system.

]]>

Posted August 2, 2002 2:08 PM by Prentiss Riddle

A bit of Borges -- comment #13 from Prentiss Riddle

Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:58:30 -0500

That URL has changed; here's the updated one for the classification of people who like Borges' classification system.

]]>

Posted June 3, 2003 8:58 PM by Prentiss Riddle