The Nitty Gritty of Language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Londoner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:32 pm

ken wrote:
Me: When you write 'agreed on by every thing' is that a typo for 'everyone'?

No.

Me: Because if you are saying that inanimate objects can 'accept and agree' things' that would require a lot of explanation!


That is if that is what I was saying that. And that is a huge "if'.

Just trying to get you to understand what Truth is from my perspective requires way to much explaining, and we are not even there yet. To explain the rest of your sentence while you maintain the beliefs you have would require the lifetime of an infinite Universe. While a human being maintains their beliefs the Truth will NEVER be discovered by those ones.


None of the above makes any sense. You do not even attempt to explain how inanimate objects, with no sensory organs or brains can 'accept and agree' things.
If you want to look at and delve into this, what you presume is some sort of problem or puzzle that can not be rectified, statement. Then I will do that but only if you promise to answer the clarifying questions that I ask you, and answer in a straight-forward way, without assuming anything nor jumping to any conclusions. If you promise that, then we will look into this further
.

There is really no point. You write things, then you write contradictory things, then deny them both!

The way you respond to my posts, taking each line in isolation, suggest you may have problems with concentration, so you may be unaware that you are doing this.
Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.

Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.


My wrong doing. The second sentence should have read, "Only by being and remaining open IS, the Truth, of how the Truth is discovered.
It doesn't help. It is still either meaningless or circular.
If it is the truth of how to discover the Truth, and it is accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then it is the Truth.
And so is that.

What you are doing is create variations on the old favourite 'This sentence is false'. In your case, the circularity is of the form: 'it is true that this is true, therefore this is true, if it is agreed to be true, that this is the way to find what is true, is true....' ad infinitum.
Me: Try expressing it in symbolic logic.

Try refuting it in symbolic logic.

I do not recall ever trying symbolic logic before.
My point is not that it is invalid in symbolic logic, but that it cannot be expressed in symbolic logic, because it is meaningless. You seem to think it is meaningful, but that is because you seem to be unable to grasp that you are using the word 'truth' in a confused way. In logic, you have to express yourself clearly.

At various points I have considered whether you are expressing a sincere belief, or just creating a puzzle for your own (and my) amusement. I honestly hope it is the second.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Terrapin Station » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:51 pm

Londoner wrote:
Sam I. Elle wrote:Language is a tool made by reason to understand things in reality. As new words are invented, things in reality can be articulated more clearly and profound. How language is separated from mere babble is the use of Reason that unlocks deeper meanings to that word, which can carry different yet interconnected meanings. That's language in a nutshell.
So what is the meaning of a word? You start off by suggesting the word refers to 'reality', but then you say its meaning is unlocked by 'reason' (and that there is more than one layer of meaning). 'Reality' is usually thought off as something 'out there', independent of us, but 'reason' is something that happens in my head.
There's no conflict in any of that as expressed (by him or you).
If words are about my understanding of reality,
Here, for no reason, you jump to a claim that words are "about your understanding." He didn't say that. He said that they're about reality. That meanings are mental and that reason is a tool for meanings and understanding doesn't imply that language is about one's understanding only. You're conflating the tool with what the tool is working on basically. It's like misunderstanding polisher/buffers so that you believe that they're polishing polishers (or tools per se in general) rather than cars, just because polisher/buffers are tools and you can use other tools to adjust and fix them.
then there is no guarantee that my understanding of reality is necessarily a correct understanding;
That much is true, but so what? What are there guarantees of, and why are you focused on guarantees?
the words I invent and the meanings I unlock may simply be wrong.
There aren't right/wrong words and meanings.

ken
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:17 pm

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote:
Me: When you write 'agreed on by every thing' is that a typo for 'everyone'?

No.

Me: Because if you are saying that inanimate objects can 'accept and agree' things' that would require a lot of explanation!


That is if that is what I was saying that. And that is a huge "if'.

Just trying to get you to understand what Truth is from my perspective requires way to much explaining, and we are not even there yet. To explain the rest of your sentence while you maintain the beliefs you have would require the lifetime of an infinite Universe. While a human being maintains their beliefs the Truth will NEVER be discovered by those ones.


None of the above makes any sense.


The reason it does not make ANY sense, to YOU, is because of those persistently strongly held and maintained beliefs that you will not free yourself of.
Londoner wrote: You do not even attempt to explain how inanimate objects, with no sensory organs or brains can 'accept and agree' things.


The reason I have not even attempted to do this IS because as I have already explained to you that you have again assumed some thing, which I suggested is not even true. You have not bothered to consider this, instead you once again just assumed that I was saying some thing, which came from what you believe I was meaning, which is absolutely so wrong and not true, once again.

Pretty much the only thing you have been right about throughout all of this is your statement about you having no idea of what I am talking about. After all this time you still appear to have absolutely no idea. As I explained earlier, you have not yet understood anything I have explained, so why would I now even attempt to try to explain one more thing to you? If you can not understand the first thing, then there is no use moving onto anything else.
Londoner wrote:
If you want to look at and delve into this, what you presume is some sort of problem or puzzle that can not be rectified, statement. Then I will do that but only if you promise to answer the clarifying questions that I ask you, and answer in a straight-forward way, without assuming anything nor jumping to any conclusions. If you promise that, then we will look into this further
.

There is really no point. You write things, then you write contradictory things, then deny them both!


I questioned you earlier about this allegation and asked you to provide some proof. Why do you not just point out whereabouts these alleged contradictory things are? Is it because there are NONE.

An accusation without evidence is really nothing at all.

Also, this attempt at side-stepping just answering some clarifying questions does not really work. Your obvious inability to answer these type of questions has been shown to often already, which just proves you are not able to actually explain what you talk about. Your attempt to by-pass the issue here and now is amusing in so many ways. The hilarity you are creating is being enjoyed by the so many who are observing.
Londoner wrote:The way you respond to my posts, taking each line in isolation, suggest you may have problems with concentration, so you may be unaware that you are doing this.


I may be unaware that I am doing what exactly:
taking each line in isolation, or
that I may have problems with concentration?

You know what else it may suggest? It may just suggest I very purposely take each line in isolation because you make so many wrong assumptions and come to so many wrong conclusions, that I spend a great deal of time just trying to point this out to you, which unfortunately has still completely escaped you. If you did not make so many errors, then I would not have to take each line in separation. Your ability to grasp new knowledge is extremely upsetting, and frustrating, but totally understandable. A human being with fixed beliefs is totally unable to learn and understand new things. I think you will find the concentration it takes to point out all the subliminal mistakes you are making, which are caused by your distorted beliefs, is far more than you realize. If the truth be known I am so aware I am doing this I have to, on so many occasions stop from breaking each line down further into more isolation. I want to do this to highlight ALL of the errors you are writing, but I do not do it because I can see you have no idea of what I am talking about. I KNOW you have no idea because this is evidenced by, your own acknowledgement that you have no idea. You are obviously unable to concentrate on what I write because if you did you would ask for clarification, instead of just following your own already held beliefs, and just making stupid assumptions and conclusions from those beliefs.

By the way, and for clarity, are you able to elaborate on what those problems with concentration actually are, which you think I have?

And while you are at it, are you even able to elaborate on what you mean by 'problem'?

Your lack of answering clarifying questions so far suggests that you are unable to concentrate much at all. So show us all just how much concentration you have by answering my clarifying questions. If you could concentrate, then you would notice each and every question I ask of you, just how many I do ask of you, and just how many you do NOT answer. Does your total lack of response to my questioning mean you are unable to answer them or because of an inability to concentrate you do not even notice them, or is it some thing else?
Londoner wrote:
Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.

Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.


My wrong doing. The second sentence should have read, "Only by being and remaining open IS, the Truth, of how the Truth is discovered.
It doesn't help. It is still either meaningless or circular.


It is only meaningless or circular to you because of those strongly held beliefs that are desperately trying to be held onto will not let any thing else but meaningless babble and circular arguments be seen. That brain is so blinded by its own already gained and held beliefs that any thing else besides its own preconceived ideas CAN NOT be anything else but false.
Londoner wrote:
If it is the truth of how to discover the Truth, and it is accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then it is the Truth.
And so is that.

What you are doing is create variations on the old favourite 'This sentence is false'.


No I am not. That brain is just trying some other thing to not see the Truth or what is actually written in front of it. Is that the best attempt that that brain has got to try to defend those distorted beliefs tied up within it?
Londoner wrote:In your case, the circularity is of the form: 'it is true that this is true, therefore this is true, if it is agreed to be true, that this is the way to find what is true, is true....' ad infinitum.


That is about one of the most humorist attempts at repeating what I have actually been saying. Although it does fit alongside most of your other ones also, in its inaccuracy and wrongness.

From about the onset you asked the question,
Can you give an example of some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?

I answered that question with,
What I know as 'what it actually is' and understand completely objectively is that if all human beings are believing (in) some thing, then they are not open to any new or any more knowledge regarding that thing.

Since then you have just gone on and on and on assuming and jumping to conclusions, which are inevitably wrong, which I say is caused by those already gained and strongly held beliefs stuck inside that head.

We are at a point now where I have written,
Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.

The Only by being and remaining open part IS the 'what it actually is' in reference to what I understand completely objectively in One's ability to learn, understand and reason anything. Therefore, to Me, that IS the Truth. Now, to find out if it is the actually Truth or not is if it can be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. If it can, then there is no thing to object to It being True. The Truth is thus found, or discovered. When this Truth is found, then what is obviously know is that even if a Truth is found, then the only way to keep finding more universally accepted and agreed upon True things is to remain completely open. Therefore, even if Truth is found, then the best thing to do is to NEVER believe it is the Truth, because once you start believing (in) any thing, then you are not open anymore.

If, and when, human beings are looking from the perspective of every thing, then they are looking from a completely objective viewpoint, instead of just a subjective viewpoint. If, and when, they do this they can obtain a view relative to Everything as One. From this advantage point a completely objective view IS formed. This Truth is only discovered and known, when you become and remain open.

When YOU are completely open, the Truth of any thing can be very quickly and easily seen. For example you wrote,
"In your case, the circularity is of the form: 'it is true that this is true, therefore this is true, if it is agreed to be true, that this is the way to find what is true, is true....' ad infinitum." AND this is so totally wrong, besides the "ad infinitum" part. Those beliefs have distorted what was actually written by Me, to what you wrote, by so much that this is again so laughable and amusing.

What was actually written by I was,
"Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself." And,
"Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered."

Can you see two different sentences written in two ways to show that they both mean the same thing. They end up being circular on purpose because this is the final in human beings search for Truth. They are NOT circular because it is circular in arguing and not getting US anywhere. It is circular in that when we come to finding the final answer - or the end - then this is just the start - or the beginning. That is when adult human beings stop living this life by creating wars, pollution, and greed, and instead start living a better and proper life by creating peace and harmony for every One. The end of this war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy life is just the beginning of the true and proper life that we all want and will create for ourselves, as the One Self.

The actual form 'I' wrote, in a similar fashion to how you wrote it, IS, If this is true, then this is true. Therefore, (and obviously), this is true. (Nothing wrong with this so far. In fact its obviousness speaks for Its own Self.) If this [Truth] is agreed to be true, then that is the way to find what is true, Is true.... or [the Truth] ad infinitum. The only part you got right I will use and keep it in as it adds more Truth to what I have actually been saying. Thanks for the adding on. This could not have been down without your persistence, so again thank 'you'. Now because of you you have helped to create a valid, sound argument, which as any knowledgeable philosopher knows, a 'sound, valid argument' is a unambiguous fact that could not be disputed. If an argument could (there is that word again) not be disagreed with by any human being, then it must also be accepted by every human being, and, if an argument is accepted and agreed with by every human being as being true, then there is no human being saying it is not true.

The only way of obtaining a truth higher than that is for every thing to be in agreement and in acceptance of 'what it [some thing] actually is'. If 'it' [some thing] is accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then that would be obviously the most UNIVERSAL or most ultimate truth there is, that is truth with a capital T. This Truth IS agreed upon and accepted with absolutely every thing (no typo). As I have previously stated, Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. For the obvious fact that if there is no thing disagreeing, then 'It' (whatever 'It' is) must be True, or Thee Truth.

By the way this has only come about the way it has because I followed, in a similar fashion, to the way you formed what I wrote. Your persistance is really paying off in helping Me out here. I am not sure if you know this but every other human being has just given up by now, but not you. I am sure human beings in the near future will be very thankful to YOU. However, if we want to write a proper and totally accurate formula to what I actually did write, then we need to first write what I ACTUALLY DID WRITE, which is,
"Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself." And,
Only by being and remaining open IS, the Truth, of how the Truth is discovered.
Your attempt to use my original "wrong" (not well written) second sentence, instead of my corrected second version of that sentence, just to form a constructed and highlighted well conceived, but totally wrong misperceived and misinterpretation of my words has failed you once again. You still got it wrong because it did not work. You have only helped Me further my case."In your case, the circularity is of the form" goes back to you. If you are going to misinterpret my own words, and put it in some sort of form in your own words, then at at least try and use my correct words and form your own words correctly also.

If we want to put my words into some sort of form, then we would write the formula,
If doing this [being OPEN] IS how Truth is discovered, and, doing this is itself the Truth, [some thing, which is agreed and accepted by every thing, which is an objective or absolute Truth also] AND, if only by doing this {being OPEN] IS the Truth [or the objective and absolute only True way, that we know of, and which is accepted and agreed with by every thing], then only doing this IS how This and ALL Thee Truth is discovered... ad infinitum.



Londoner wrote:
Me: Try expressing it in symbolic logic.

Try refuting it in symbolic logic.

I do not recall ever trying symbolic logic before.
My point is not that it is invalid in symbolic logic, but that it cannot be expressed in symbolic logic, because it is meaningless.
Is that the truth? Is it an unambiguous fact, that could not be disputed?

Just maybe it could be expressed in symbolic logic.

I have not attempted to express it in symbolic logic and I am pretty sure you also have not even attempted to, and will not attempt to, going by your sentence here. Are you going to attempt to do that?

Just because either or us have not attempted to do this, that in itself does NOT mean it can not be expressed in symbolic logic. Either I will have to learn what symbolic logic is firstly, then learn how to write that type of logic, and then attempt to express this in symbolic logic, or, we can just wait to see if some one else can do it for us. But until then, I think you will NOT be able to prove your statement is true, right, or correct.
Londoner wrote: You seem to think it is meaningful, but that is because you seem to be unable to grasp that you are using the word 'truth' in a confused way.
I have expressed 'truth' the best way I can, for now. You, unfortunately, even after I asked you for your interpretation a couple of times have NOT eve attempted to express 'truth' in any way whatsoever. My way might be confusing for 'you', but MY WAY is certainly NOT confusing for 'Me'.

Also, you are right in that I think 'it' is meaningful, whereas, you believe 'it' is meaningless.

Did you spot the main difference between 'you' and 'I' here?

Your refusal to respond will be more proof of what I have been saying all along here. Your refusal to respond will be more evidence of what I have actually been saying is the Truth.

You now know how to prove 'Me' wrong and 'you' right.
Londoner wrote: In logic, you have to express yourself clearly.
We really do see things differently, am I right?

I see 'logic' helps us to express our self clearly. Whereas, ummm, I am not really sure what you see here.

You wrote,
"In logic, you have to express yourself clearly".

Can you express yourself clearly what you actually mean here?
Londoner wrote: At various points I have considered whether you are expressing a sincere belief, or just creating a puzzle for your own (and my) amusement. I honestly hope it is the second.
Why would you hope that?

By the way 'I', unlike 'you', do not have a belief.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests