Entry 115 — The Knowleplex « POETICKS

Entry 115 — The Knowleplex

The knowleplex is simply a chain of related memories–A.B.C.D.E., say–or a knowledge-chain. It is what we remember whenever we are taught anything, either formally at school (when our teacher tells us Washington is the capital of the United States, for instance) or informally during day-to-day experience (when we see our friend Sam has a pet cat).

There are three kinds: rigiplexes, flexiplexes and feebliplexes, the name depending on the strength of the knowleplex. One is too strong, one too weak, and the other just right. If we let A.B.C.D.E. stand for “one plus two is three,” then a person with a rigiplex “inscribed” with that, asked what one plus two is, will quickly answer, “three.” But if asked what one plus four is, he will give the same answer, because his rigiplex will be so strong it will become wholly active due only to “one plus.”

On the other hand, a person with a feebliplex “inscribed” with “one plus two is three,” asked what one plus two is, will answer “I dunno,” because his feebliplex will be so weak, even “one plus two is” won’t be enough for his knowlplex to become active. Ditto when asked what one plus four is. But the person whose knowleplex is just right–whose knowleplex is a flexiplex, that is–will answer the first question, “three,” and the second, “I dunno.”

Needless to say, this overview is extremely simplified. Even “one plus two is three” will form a vastly more complicated knowleplex than A.B.C.D.E. The strength of a given knowleplex will vary, too, sometimes a lot, depending on the circumstances when it is activated. And each kind of knowleplex will vary in strength, some feebliplexes being almost as strong as a flexiplex, for example. In fact, a feebliplex can, in time, become a rigiplex. For the purposes of this introduction to knowleplexes, however, all this can be ignored.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Entry 1124 — Neologizania « POETICKS

Entry 1124 — Neologizania

Late Sunday.  I must be out of the null zone because I’ve been neologizing like mad lately.  One of my new terms is “ellipsistry” for ellipsis poetry.  No, this is not going into my Serious Taxonomy, but the way Marton is going, and the fact that others have made ellipsis poems has me close to thinking such poetry should have a special name.  Serious new Grummanisms are “triumphantry,” “moralitry,” “conspiraplex” . . .   Hmmm, not as many as I thought.  But there was “unseveraling,” too.  I don’t count my ad hoc poeticisms as full-scale coinages, though–just my Important Verosophical Terms.  “Neologizania” is an ad hoc joke, so doesn’t count, either.  “Triumphantry,” which is the feeling of success one experiences when achieving a victory, may be a term I’ve re-coined.  Ditto the other two, now that I think about it.  “Moralitry” is what I call telling other human beings how to live their lives.  I consider it one of the major human endeavers along with art, verosophy, survival, etc.  “Conspiraplex” represents “insane conspiracy theory” as opposed to a conspiracy theory that makes sense: the theory that Bush and Cheney master-minded the destruction of the twin towers, for instance.  I can’t think of a conspiracy theory, by my definition, that makes sense, but there must be some.

Monday.  Here’s another coinage: “ethicry.”  The attempt to live morally.  Opposed to ethics, which is the attempt to determine what living morally is.

Hmmm, not for the first time I find I’ve made up a word I already had another word for–at least in part.  Only six months ago I coined “dominantry” for “what politicans and warriors of various .rts do to achieve positions of power which allow them to tell others how to live theirs lives.  That would include what I mean by “moralitry.”  Still, the latter covers what politicians do, and . . . “subjugatry” would work for what warriors do.  I think “ethicry” a good addition to my list of final human activities, which gives me eight: Art, Verosophy, Utilitry, Recreation, Sustenation, Quotidiation, Ethicry and Dominantry (in order of their importance . . . to me, that is.

.

Leave a Reply