Here's my experience with Godel, Escher, Bach:

Reading, reading, clever, funny, reading, clever, complex, reading, more complex, almost not getting it but I'm sure I'm getting it on some level, still complex, reading, reading, lock and load BOOM! epiphany.

This book is so good.

Hofstadter starts you off simple, takes you from one conclusion to another, very logical, starts layering, you sorta gotta keep track of things but the layers still make fundamental sense, and just when you think you're about to get lost, He'll grab you, swing you around a couple times, and land you into a perfect dip.
Your head is spinning, but you know you nailed it, and wow that feels good. Now what was that new step he put you through...?

For those of you not familiar with GEB, the key word of this book is isomorphism. That's when one thing resembles and communicates something about another seemingly unrelated thing. Isomorphism is my favorite thing about this entire universe; it's all over the place. Hofs gets you thinking isomorphically by showing you how it works using the music of J.S. Bach, the artwork of M.C. Escher, the mathematics and systems of Kurt Godel, Zen, and number theory. OH my GOD! A veritable ORGY of evidence! SO BEAUTIFUL!

Pant, pant, whew. Yeah, this book gets me going.

But I really came here to rephrase a certain concept. It's a good one, and I want to make sure I get it. And the ultimate test to see if you get a concept is if you can put it in your own words and think of your own example. So:

If you are using two code systems that are mutually compatible, you can translate a statement, A, about system 1 into the language of system 2. You can then plug statement A into system 2 creating statement B. Now, statement B works as a simple statement in system 2, but translated, it also says something about the rules of system 1.
Thus when you layer code upon code, you can create a statement that is true in one respect, but is also true in an entirely different sense on another level.
Okay, so it's saying something, but what it's saying also says something about how it says things.

So for a REALLY simple example, excuse my amateurism:

Code 1 checks my spelling. A statement in code 1 indicates whether my name is or is not correctly spelled. Philadelphia is correctly spelled. Filladelfia is not correctly spelled.

Say that in our code 1, the word "happy" means "correctly spelled", in regards to the name presented. So a true statement would be "Philadelphia is happy": the name "Philadelphia" is correctly spelled. "Sad" means "incorrectly spelled".

Code 2 makes statements about my state of being, variables being happy, or sad, carrying their traditional meanings.

Now let's look at the statement "Philadelphia is happy." Let's say it's in code 2. So yeah, I'm happy. But you can also look at its correlates in code 1: "Philadelphia is correctly spelled." Yup, my name is indeed correctly spelled. This statement is true on both levels, about entirely different things.

In the current codes, "Philadelphia is sad" is not a true statement. You see, my name is not incorrectly spelled. And I am not sad.

Uhhh, great Delphi. Sooo, what's the big deal? It's just awesome cool, that's what! Using compatibly-coded systems of meaning to create simultaneously true multi-layered statements is what is so interesting about communication! About the world! Things can be true, almost contradictorily so, on many many levels because our world is so complex yet has isomorphism built into every aspect of it! One thing is like another thing is like another thing is like another thing, and so one thing can say something about a million different things! Thing thing thing! Loaded words! Godel, Escher, Bach! ROCKS!

12:50 p.m. 2003-10-01�