An exception to every rule

One well-known rule is that there is an exception to every rule. Is this true? Now it could be that a rule, strictly speaking, is something which can never allow any exception (else it would not be a rule in the strict sense). Certain mathematical or logical rules could be of this type, or certain laws of nature. There can be rules that, by definition, allow no exceptions, in which case the statement that there is an exception to every rule must be false, with respect to rules defined strictly. Furthermore, if we find a rule that seems to have an exception, this rule is not a rule in the strict sense.

But perhaps our rule that every rule has an exception is true, in which case there can be no rules of the strict sort. Certain rules which can have no exceptions by definition must not be rules, but something else, call them laws, laws which the very structure of reality enforce, making them impossible, even conceptually, to break. Everything else is a rule, which while it might hold fast generally, can always admit of an exception. Thus, if our statement is true, there is no contradiction in the idea of it itself allowing no exceptions because it itself is a law, not a rule. If you say that every unbreakable law can always be broken, you are simply misusing language. If you say that despite the fact that rules generally hold true and laws (in the social sense) are generally enforced, there can always be exceptions to the rules or breaking of the law, you are only saying what is generally known. Rules don’t mean anything if they are always broken. They might be interesting ideas or conceptual curiosities, these always-excepted rules, if they are not completely nonsensical, but we know what rules and laws amount to in their various contexts. If we say that “there is always an exception” holds universally, and so there must be an exception to this rule, then that exception would be a rule in the strict sense, one that cannot be broken. If we say “there is always a way to find an exception to a rule with no possible exceptions,” then I am at a loss to know what this means. Perhaps if it were the case that the universe had never existed, all unbreakable laws would be void, simply because they had never existed in the first place. Perhaps we can imagine that not only has the universe never existed, but it is impossible for it ever to have existed, existence itself being fundamentally impossible. I am also at a loss to know what this statement means. [However, these concepts might still be susceptible to fruitful analysis.]

Science

Some people might argue that science can, in principle, explain anything. We will not worry about the limitations of any one individual’s lifetime or understanding, because science is cumulative and shared. Of course, human beings are probably always going to be limited in some way, and it could be the case that in order to explain anything science needs to be able to explain everything completely, and even if we were on some path towards this accomplishment, we wouldn’t ever actually achieve it. But anyway, if things in general seem to be connected, and if science seems to be enlightening in any way, even if that keeps changing over time, and if complicated things or sets of things can be explained (or at least somewhat explained) using simpler ideas or language, then why not imagine that science can keep explaining new things and more things better and better, as it has done? Even if we can also imagine that perhaps science as such, or at least how we practice and understand science today, can gradually change into something else, or what we would at this point consider something else, even if we don’t later, or if science comes to include more things that we don’t even know about now, or to speak in a language we don’t understand at this particular juncture…

Internet blog

The internet has become an established media form. One wonderful thing about it is that in principle you can gain access to just about anything (although perhaps there are certain classes of things which remain elusive to the internet, so it would be interesting to see what those things might be). Although I prefer books whenever possible (possibly now something that we can consider an old-fashioned attachment, and possibly something that might be bad for the environment [notwithstanding the use of electricity to run the internet, compared to these other activities] if we insist on cutting down more paper trees, although we could stop printing new books and content ourselves with the current supply, which might suddenly take on a different value in this scenario); as I say, although I prefer books, I do still do a certain amount of reading on the internet, especially if there’s something that I need to find out about now or can’t access in another way, or is something relatively short, like an essay or a column. This form, the short essay, might be the best literary form with respect to the transition into a media world that includes the internet, the form which made the transition with the most ease. The blog post, a quintessential internet form, is like a short (sometimes the shortest) essay. Posts on social media, or tweets, or text messages, or comments, are the shortest of statements, and begin to blur the line between what needs to be said in print versus what can be spoken. If I’m texting someone or leaving a comment with them, I might as well be sending them a postcard or a telegram through the internet, or talking to them. 

Anyway, most of what can be said has probably already been said, or goes without saying. The point is that if someone is writing something on the internet, it’s probably a blog post or else a comment or an email. There are different levels of privacy involved with who you are trying to communicate with. With blog posts, one imagines that you have some kind of at least somewhat amorphous audience, one that might not necessarily be (but no doubt is) limited. These posts can be about anything, but there is some sense that the form is relatively ephemeral, and so should be about whatever is timely just at the moment. Everything that is recorded or kept becomes what we call “recorded history,” and so is valuable, like a diary entry, for reminding us of what was happening on a particular day.

Ten Years Later

In the ten years following my enthusiasm about the Lunar Networks blog, which is no longer being updated regularly (but is still recommended), I have continued my studies from the moon on through the rest of the worlds of our solar system. If I had to pick a single summarizing observation to report, it would be that I am more impressed by the diversity of worlds here than I had expected to be. Another salient point I’ve noted is the profound extent to which life has affected the surface of the Earth.

Lunar Networks

This blog is an excellent one for your studies of the Moon:
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/

Now I have to figure out how to do a blogroll on the sidebar to the right.

Yes. Now please refer to the sidebar at the right.

Files (a possible situation)

Someone in an office might be sorting through some files and suddenly come upon something unexpected, something odd. Something could be missing, or perhaps there are some photographs or a manuscript or a receipt that someone was trying to hide, or had forgotten about, or had been distracted from, or had lost. Or maybe it’s something that wasn’t so interesting at one point but is more interesting now. Possibly someone could have planted something that would be of interest later, if found. So many files are simply kept.

Have you heard of the moon?

Who hasn’t heard of the moon? Is there a single person on this planet who would return only a blank stare if asked about the moon? I mean, besides an infant or someone who’s demented. I can’t recall learning about the moon, or when it was first pointed out to me. It became interesting to me over the course of time. My initial knowledge of the moon seems to predate any specific memories of it. I’m not sure if the idea of the moon came from someone indicating the object in the sky, or if it first appeared to me in pictures. Whatever the case, is the moon universally known? Is there someone in a perpetually cloudy place who has never encountered any reference to the moon, or who doesn’t know anyone who might have spoken of it? Someone who never goes out at night, or who never looks up? Someone who has continually pressing concerns of an earthly nature, or who might be locked up or trapped? But in general it hardly seems to be a matter of knowledge or ignorance. The presence of the moon is just a fact of experience. Is there someone who doesn’t know about the sun? Sure, it’s obvious that there is light during the daytime, but is there someone who is fundamentally in the dark with respect to where this light comes from? Theories about the sun or the moon could be various, but who doesn’t know what’s being talked about when either is mentioned? I suppose there could be plenty of people who are indifferent with respect to the sun or the moon. Abstractly they might be concerned if something should happen to either, but this possibility might not seem likely or relevant to them. The sequence of day and night, or even perhaps the presence of the earth below us and the air which we breathe, someone might say, are basic facts of the world that needn’t be further questioned. Or else, there are so many other things to occupy us. We can worry about the air we breathe and simply take the sun for granted, if we have to. Anyway, there’s hardly any point to my question here. I’m sure everyone knows about the moon, or just about everyone. There is no reason why we should all be astronomers.

*ETA - Rather than "demented" I would now substitute the term "mentally discombobulated."