Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [GTh] Using L (was: Block Sizes)

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    ... It s interesting what one takes for granted! In my reading, I ve seen logion/logia abbreviated as L frequently enough to assume that it was a
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 6 12:58 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike says:

      > (BTW, 'L' stands for 'logion'.
      > Judy Redman used that short-hand, and I'd seen it elsewhere,
      > so I picked it up first to converse with her, and then
      > continued on with it.)

      It's interesting what one takes for granted! In my reading, I've seen
      logion/logia abbreviated as L frequently enough to assume that it was a
      commonly-accepted abbreviation in GThos discussions. My supervisor
      certainly hasn't questioned it when I've presented written work. Now that I
      come to think of it, though, I've also seen a reasonable number of people
      refer to sayings rather than logia and not abbreviate. How unusual is this
      use of L?

      Judy

      --
      "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
      tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
      Plato

      Rev Judy Redman
      Uniting Church Chaplain
      University of New England
      Armidale 2351
      ph: +61 2 6773 3739
      fax: +61 2 6773 3749
      web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
      email: jredman@...


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin
      > Sent: Monday, 6 March 2006 6:12 PM
      > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Block Sizes
      >
      >
      > [Andrew B]:
      > > Alright, I'm probably going to regret this, but go ahead and try to
      > > convince me from the relationship between L42 and L11.1 that your
      > > design theory is plausible (and clarify what "L" stands
      > for). I don't
      > > have time to go digging through archives so you'll have to restate
      > > your case. Please be succinct and clear.
      >
      > I'll do my best, but I'm very much afraid you'll find the
      > result unsatisfactory, Andrew. There are quite a few textual
      > features related to sayings 42 and 11.1, and I haven't yet
      > been able to figure the best way to organize them for
      > presentation. In addition, there are two items that need to
      > be clarified - one about probability and one about
      > "gematria-values". Hopefully, I can work those in without too
      > much loss of succinctness.
      >
      > Let's concentrate on the following three features involving
      > the number 70 (bearing in mind that saying 42 occupies line
      > 280 and saying 11.1 occupies all of line 70 and most of line 69):
      >
      > 1. The Greek word PARAGE occurs at the end of both lines 70
      > and 280. 2. Line 280 contains the 42nd occurrence of 'IS' and
      > 42 +280/10 = 70. 3. The total size of sayings 42 and 11.1 is
      > 70 letters (24 + 46).
      >
      > There are independent reasons for believing that the number
      > 42 might have meant something special to the authors of CGTh,
      > but I'll leave that aside for now. What I want to discuss
      > here is probability. I used the phrase "independent but
      > interrelated [features]" three times in my note to Dave
      > Hindley, because it's important. In assessing the probability
      > of more than one feature (or event) occurring randomly in the
      > same time and place, the general formula is to take the
      > product of the individual probabilities. But that's only the
      > case if the features/events are _independent_ of each other -
      > that is, that for each feature F in the list, no other
      > feature or combination of features either causes F or
      > otherwise significantly affects its individual probability.
      > So my first claim is that the features 1-3 above are
      > independent of each other. Any one or two of them could have
      > occurred without the third one occurring, and without
      > increasing its probability of occurring.
      >
      > This is leading up to something. I'm not sure that you and
      > other realize the kind of results one gets when calculating
      > the probability of a _group_ of independent features/events
      > occuring at the same time and place (in this case, the text
      > of CGTh). Admittedly, I'm not sure what the individual
      > probability of each of the features 1-3 occurring randomly
      > is, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they're
      > all 10%. Then the probability of 1-3 ALL occurring in CGTh
      > randomly is .1 x .1 x .1 = .001, i.e., one tenth of one
      > percent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't assent to a proposition
      > if you knew that its chances of being true were only one in
      > 1000, so the only out seems to be to show that the individual
      > probabilities of 1-3 are significantly greater than 10%.
      > Personally, from the investigations I've done, they don't
      > seem to be, but I would welcome further discussion on that
      > point, since it seems to me to be crucial.
      >
      > One other thing on probability: In my phrase "independent but
      > interrelated", the word 'interrelated' is imporant as well,
      > since it, too, affects the probability of intentionality. The
      > features 1-3 all involve the number 70. If they hadn't, then
      > the probability of randomness would be as above. But since
      > they do, the probability of intentionality increases
      > significantly, even beyond the hypothetical 99.9%. For what
      > are the chances that the same number 70 would be involved in
      > all three features if that hadn't been intentional?
      >
      > Realizing at this point that I've probably already failed the
      > succinctness test, I may at least be able to remove one
      > impediment to the persuasiveness of the case. On several
      > occasions, I've used the phrase 'gematria-value' (e.g., the
      > "gematria-value" of IS is 210, of KOSMOS 600), and I fear
      > that the word 'gematria' may be off-putting. There's nothing
      > mysterious about it, though - and maybe a better phrase would
      > be 'letter-value' - since I'm basically talking about the
      > value of a word based on the value of its letters within the
      > Greek letter-number system in wide use at the time. (A
      > picture being worth a thousand words, I'd suggest that folks
      > not acquainted with the system take a look at
      > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9068/x_fonts.htm ). (The
      > Hebraic letter-number system - the basis of gematria - was
      > similar in structure, but gave a different value to some
      > Hebraic letters than the Greek system assigned to their counterparts.)
      >
      > Frankly, I haven't undertaken the tedious task of calculating
      > the letter-values of all the words - or even all the Greek
      > words - in CGTh. Of the ones I have calculated, not many of
      > them have such nice values as IS and KOSMOS, so I don't
      > expect to find nice letter-values behind every key word in
      > CGTh, but I did get a surprise today when I calculated the
      > letter-value of PARAGE. Turns out that it's 190. Not very
      > suggestive in itself, but (1) IS + PARAGE = 400, and (2) the
      > IS numbers in the four line set 66-70 are 9 and 10 - the end
      > of the units level in the Greek number system, and the
      > beginning of the 10's level. That's going astray from what
      > you wanted, Andrew, but since it's a new item relevant to the
      > L42-L11.1 connection, I thought I'd mention it.
      >
      > Hopefully, all this - though more than you wanted - at least
      > passes the clarity test. The case isn't easy to state
      > succinctly, but more importantly, unless one understands the
      > ideas of probability behind it, and accepts that the authors
      > were very likely much more sensitive to the symbolism of
      > numbers - and of the numeric values of words - than we are, a
      > succint statement would certainly fail to persuade. Aren't
      > you glad you asked, though? (:-)
      >
      > Mike Grondin
      > Mt. Clemens, MI
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
      > To unsubscribe from this group,
      > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.