Defining the core of language

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:07 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:In one respect, through a logistic ancestry yes. The problem occurs, that through a "strict adaptation" approach (strict relativism) the continual relations cause a "loss of identity". While language systems may originate in a specific language, the process of individuation as particulation causes and ever fracturing nature to the language where a language system or system(s) may become more "complex" over time what is really happening is a "negation" of the original language. Is it entirely negated? No, that would be impossible. However considering a perpetual nature inherent within language, perpetual negation does lead to perpetual complexity. This complexity is rooted the myriad of language commonalites however their continual individuation causes a form of gradation which we observe as "differences"."
How do they cause a loss of identity? The fact that I am defining a car by its relative parts from the whole of the universal of 'car' doesn't mean that it would have a loss of identity unless it is found that there is a broader or thinner definition of 'car.'
The original manufactured car, if I remember, was the model T. All other cars after that have been indiviudations of it. Is the car still a car? Yes. Is it rooted in the model T? Yes. Is it the model T? No.

Individuation itself is simply something that doesn't occur with universal nouns or verbs
Yes it does Run in english is different than Run in x language. Does run mean the same thing in English as X? Approximately it does. A tribesman would think of "running" with his feet, a westerner may think of a motor.

unlike proper nouns, and yes, this would result in the negation of a universal... in fact, if we wanted we could negate until we reach Emptiness!
Negate what exactly to nothingness? Being? Emptiness is not a thing in itself but rather a limit of "being". Existence is the be all end all. Even if one "empties" their mind, all they are doing is getting rid of artificial constructs. One is still aware of being aware.

Emptiness itself, a product of a analytical deconstruction and negation, like Chandrakirti's Chariot scenario, shows that there cannot be universals or individual parts, but it reduces it to emptiness, and thereby renders all language absurd.
"Emptiness" is a universal if viewed as the origin and end of all creation.

Differences and similarities are similarly deconstructed by Chandrakirti.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:In one respect, through a logistic ancestry yes. The problem occurs, that through a "strict adaptation" approach (strict relativism) the continual relations cause a "loss of identity". While language systems may originate in a specific language, the process of individuation as particulation causes and ever fracturing nature to the language where a language system or system(s) may become more "complex" over time what is really happening is a "negation" of the original language. Is it entirely negated? No, that would be impossible. However considering a perpetual nature inherent within language, perpetual negation does lead to perpetual complexity. This complexity is rooted the myriad of language commonalites however their continual individuation causes a form of gradation which we observe as "differences"."
How do they cause a loss of identity? The fact that I am defining a car by its relative parts from the whole of the universal of 'car' doesn't mean that it would have a loss of identity unless it is found that there is a broader or thinner definition of 'car.'
The original manufactured car, if I remember, was the model T. All other cars after that have been indiviudations of it. Is the car still a car? Yes. Is it rooted in the model T? Yes. Is it the model T? No.

The Model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. You're playing with meaning here when you claim that all cars derive from the Model T just because it was the first car, while in reality it isn't the ideal of 'car.' It's like saying all cars are the Model T because it was the first.

Individuation itself is simply something that doesn't occur with universal nouns or verbs
Yes it does Run in english is different than Run in x language. Does run mean the same thing in English as X? Approximately it does. A tribesman would think of "running" with his feet, a westerner may think of a motor.

That's not individuation, because the universal of 'run' is comprehended totally by all languages in stock by a certain 'motion' or 'going.' In fact, we could narrow or broaden the universal to apply to all or fewer linguistic meaning total, much like 'run' could be 'motion'.

unlike proper nouns, and yes, this would result in the negation of a universal... in fact, if we wanted we could negate until we reach Emptiness!
Negate what exactly to nothingness? Being? Emptiness is not a thing in itself but rather a limit of "being". Existence is the be all end all. Even if one "empties" their mind, all they are doing is getting rid of artificial constructs. One is still aware of being aware.

Emptiness is NOT nothingness. That's a common misconception. Emptiness is only experienced. It's also not 'emptying' the mind.

Emptiness itself, a product of a analytical deconstruction and negation, like Chandrakirti's Chariot scenario, shows that there cannot be universals or individual parts, but it reduces it to emptiness, and thereby renders all language absurd.
"Emptiness" is a universal if viewed as the origin and end of all creation.

Emptiness has different definitions in different schools of thought when analyzed. Emptiness is like a lack of reification if I were to define it in laymen's terms that are conceptually graspable. Clarity is also Emptiness defined, and for good reason, too.

Differences and similarities are similarly deconstructed by Chandrakirti.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:59 pm


How do they cause a loss of identity? The fact that I am defining a car by its relative parts from the whole of the universal of 'car' doesn't mean that it would have a loss of identity unless it is found that there is a broader or thinner definition of 'car.'
The original manufactured car, if I remember, was the model T. All other cars after that have been indiviudations of it. Is the car still a car? Yes. Is it rooted in the model T? Yes. Is it the model T? No.

The Model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. You're playing with meaning here when you claim that all cars derive from the Model T just because it was the first car, while in reality it isn't the ideal of 'car.' It's like saying all cars are the Model T because it was the first.

True the model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. All cars are extensions of the Model T as the "original" car however, in this respect as cars maintain a degree of Model T as "car".


Individuation itself is simply something that doesn't occur with universal nouns or verbs
Yes it does Run in english is different than Run in x language. Does run mean the same thing in English as X? Approximately it does. A tribesman would think of "running" with his feet, a westerner may think of a motor.

That's not individuation, because the universal of 'run' is comprehended totally by all languages in stock by a certain 'motion' or 'going.' In fact, we could narrow or broaden the universal to apply to all or fewer linguistic meaning total, much like 'run' could be 'motion'.

Then why have the word "run"? It is merely an seperation of "motion" or "going". You have to understand that "individuation" is the process of "languages relating to language(s) in turn propogating further language". All language as a stable and moving element. The "moving" element is a "negation" in stability.

It is the same philosophical problem as "the one and the many".


unlike proper nouns, and yes, this would result in the negation of a universal... in fact, if we wanted we could negate until we reach Emptiness!
Negate what exactly to nothingness? Being? Emptiness is not a thing in itself but rather a limit of "being". Existence is the be all end all. Even if one "empties" their mind, all they are doing is getting rid of artificial constructs. One is still aware of being aware.

Emptiness is NOT nothingness. That's a common misconception. Emptiness is only experienced. It's also not 'emptying' the mind.

Fair enough with the nothingness point, I will agree to that. However if "Emptiness is only experienced", how come there is a word for it?

Emptiness itself, a product of a analytical deconstruction and negation, like Chandrakirti's Chariot scenario, shows that there cannot be universals or individual parts, but it reduces it to emptiness, and thereby renders all language absurd.
"Emptiness" is a universal if viewed as the origin and end of all creation.

Emptiness has different definitions in different schools of thought when analyzed. Emptiness is like a lack of reification if I were to define it in laymen's terms that are conceptually graspable. Clarity is also Emptiness defined, and for good reason, too.

Considering the premise all "being" coming to and moving from emptiness, emptiness would be equivalent to a dual of "existence" or "being" and in this respect have infinite definitions. If it has infinite definitions then by default it has one: An absence of being.

Differences and similarities are similarly deconstructed by Chandrakirti.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 pm

True the model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. All cars are extensions of the Model T as the "original" car however, in this respect as cars maintain a degree of Model T as "car".

Yes. Therefore there is no 'individuation' as you claim.


Then why have the word "run"? It is merely an seperation of "motion" or "going". You have to understand that "individuation" is the process of "languages relating to language(s) in turn propogating further language". All language as a stable and moving element. The "moving" element is a "negation" in stability.
It is the same philosophical problem as "the one and the many".

Yes, moving is a negation of stability as much as becoming is a relation to being in that being defines all becoming. The one and the many is not a problem for universals unless deconstructed into Emptiness. What you are describing is a universal in terms and definition.

Fair enough with the nothingness point, I will agree to that. However if "Emptiness is only experienced", how come there is a word for it?

Much like there is a word for 'red' while we are the only ones experiencing it. And, much like we define our shared experience through words like 'hot' and 'cold.'

Considering the premise all "being" coming to and moving from emptiness, emptiness would be equivalent to a dual of "existence" or "being" and in this respect have infinite definitions. If it has infinite definitions then by default it has one: An absence of being.

It doesn't have infinite definitions. If it didn't have the same experience for all, then it would have infinite definitions. Zen is an example of 'MU' in that it is there and yet indescribable, and has a singular is-ness as a viewless experience that has no true definition conceptually.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 pm
True the model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. All cars are extensions of the Model T as the "original" car however, in this respect as cars maintain a degree of Model T as "car".

Yes. Therefore there is no 'individuation' as you claim.

In one respect yes, in a seperate respect the cars as "grades" of the "original", through a evolution of movement (car x leads to car y) act as an individuation process.


Then why have the word "run"? It is merely an seperation of "motion" or "going". You have to understand that "individuation" is the process of "languages relating to language(s) in turn propogating further language". All language as a stable and moving element. The "moving" element is a "negation" in stability.
It is the same philosophical problem as "the one and the many".

Yes, moving is a negation of stability as much as becoming is a relation to being in that being defines all becoming. The one and the many is not a problem for universals unless deconstructed into Emptiness. What you are describing is a universal in terms and definition.

Emptiness is a universal considering it is the beginning and end of a reality, according to your philosophy. "One" is a universal.

Fair enough with the nothingness point, I will agree to that. However if "Emptiness is only experienced", how come there is a word for it?

Much like there is a word for 'red' while we are the only ones experiencing it. And, much like we define our shared experience through words like 'hot' and 'cold.'

Words act as median points of abstract and physical realities, as neutral points they still maintain the values of the realities they mediate.

Considering the premise all "being" coming to and moving from emptiness, emptiness would be equivalent to a dual of "existence" or "being" and in this respect have infinite definitions. If it has infinite definitions then by default it has one: An absence of being.

It doesn't have infinite definitions.
When reflective of "being" it does as a negative form of being (which can only be observed through being). Emptiness is not x,y,z...ad infinitum.

If it didn't have the same experience for all, then it would have infinite definitions.
Nothingness is an absence of experience, to experience it would mean something is there (such as oneself). Considering it is mediated through the self it can be experienced in subjective and objective terms through the self.

Zen is an example of 'MU' in that it is there and yet indescribable,
How can emptiness be "there". We can say "x" is empty, but we cannot point to emptiness without pointing to what is "empty".

and has a singular is-ness as a viewless experience that has no true definition conceptually.

An absence of definition is still a definition. We can argue about "nothing" all day, but all it does is prove "something".

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 pm
True the model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. All cars are extensions of the Model T as the "original" car however, in this respect as cars maintain a degree of Model T as "car".

Yes. Therefore there is no 'individuation' as you claim.

In one respect yes, in a seperate respect the cars as "grades" of the "original", through a evolution of movement (car x leads to car y) act as an individuation process.

Yes, but even 'car x' leads to 'car y' only broadens the definition, not individuates it.

Then why have the word "run"? It is merely an seperation of "motion" or "going". You have to understand that "individuation" is the process of "languages relating to language(s) in turn propogating further language". All language as a stable and moving element. The "moving" element is a "negation" in stability.
It is the same philosophical problem as "the one and the many".

Yes, moving is a negation of stability as much as becoming is a relation to being in that being defines all becoming. The one and the many is not a problem for universals unless deconstructed into Emptiness. What you are describing is a universal in terms and definition.

Emptiness is a universal considering it is the beginning and end of a reality, according to your philosophy. "One" is a universal.

Emptiness is not the beginning and end of reality. It is simply an is-ness.

Fair enough with the nothingness point, I will agree to that. However if "Emptiness is only experienced", how come there is a word for it?

Much like there is a word for 'red' while we are the only ones experiencing it. And, much like we define our shared experience through words like 'hot' and 'cold.'

Words act as median points of abstract and physical realities, as neutral points they still maintain the values of the realities they mediate.

Yes, I agree due to the fact that being refers back to becoming. And to have concrete and ideal/alien meanings only refers to hieroglyphs or symbols.

Considering the premise all "being" coming to and moving from emptiness, emptiness would be equivalent to a dual of "existence" or "being" and in this respect have infinite definitions. If it has infinite definitions then by default it has one: An absence of being.

It doesn't have infinite definitions.
When reflective of "being" it does as a negative form of being (which can only be observed through being). Emptiness is not x,y,z...ad infinitum.

One could do exactly the same for anything else. Redness can only be defined by redness and thus is defined by being not everything else.

If it didn't have the same experience for all, then it would have infinite definitions.
Nothingness is an absence of experience, to experience it would mean something is there (such as oneself). Considering it is mediated through the self it can be experienced in subjective and objective terms through the self.
It is NOT nothingness!!!!
Zen is an example of 'MU' in that it is there and yet indescribable,
How can emptiness be "there". We can say "x" is empty, but we cannot point to emptiness without pointing to what is "empty".
Thats because emptiness itself is indescribable as an experience, but we can point a finger at the moon. The finger pointing is not the moon, but it points towards the moon.


An absence of definition is still a definition. We can argue about "nothing" all day, but all it does is prove "something".


An absence of definition is not a definition unless we examined every single thing and found what it is not, which doesn't define what it is but rather 'points to it.' This is a method of realizing the Atman in Hinduism called 'Neti neti.'

[/quote]

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:35 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 pm
True the model T is a car, all cars are not the Model T. All cars are extensions of the Model T as the "original" car however, in this respect as cars maintain a degree of Model T as "car".

Yes. Therefore there is no 'individuation' as you claim.

In one respect yes, in a seperate respect the cars as "grades" of the "original", through a evolution of movement (car x leads to car y) act as an individuation process.

Yes, but even 'car x' leads to 'car y' only broadens the definition, not individuates it.

We are running out of space...From a Universal "Holism" approach you are correct. From a Relativist approach you are incorrect. Both are duall perspectives.

Then why have the word "run"? It is merely an seperation of "motion" or "going". You have to understand that "individuation" is the process of "languages relating to language(s) in turn propogating further language". All language as a stable and moving element. The "moving" element is a "negation" in stability.
It is the same philosophical problem as "the one and the many".

Yes, moving is a negation of stability as much as becoming is a relation to being in that being defines all becoming. The one and the many is not a problem for universals unless deconstructed into Emptiness. What you are describing is a universal in terms and definition.

Emptiness is a universal considering it is the beginning and end of a reality, according to your philosophy. "One" is a universal.

Emptiness is not the beginning and end of reality. It is simply an is-ness.

Is-ness requires "being". In that respect "emptiness" is strictly an absence of what is not needed.

Fair enough with the nothingness point, I will agree to that. However if "Emptiness is only experienced", how come there is a word for it?

Much like there is a word for 'red' while we are the only ones experiencing it. And, much like we define our shared experience through words like 'hot' and 'cold.'

Words act as median points of abstract and physical realities, as neutral points they still maintain the values of the realities they mediate.

Yes, I agree due to the fact that being refers back to becoming.

Considering the premise all "being" coming to and moving from emptiness, emptiness would be equivalent to a dual of "existence" or "being" and in this respect have infinite definitions. If it has infinite definitions then by default it has one: An absence of being.

It doesn't have infinite definitions.
When reflective of "being" it does as a negative form of being (which can only be observed through being). Emptiness is not x,y,z...ad infinitum.

One could do exactly the same for anything else. Redness can only be defined by redness and thus is defined by being not everything else.

Yes, because emptiness is define relative to "being"...which is "everything else".

If it didn't have the same experience for all, then it would have infinite definitions.
Nothingness is an absence of experience, to experience it would mean something is there (such as oneself). Considering it is mediated through the self it can be experienced in subjective and objective terms through the self.
It is NOT nothingness!!!!

That is a double negative. Look at the near death experiences, you (and I) believe in...people who enter the "void" are only aware of themselves.
Zen is an example of 'MU' in that it is there and yet indescribable,
How can emptiness be "there". We can say "x" is empty, but we cannot point to emptiness without pointing to what is "empty".
Thats because emptiness itself is indescribable as an experience, but we can point a finger at the moon. The finger pointing is not the moon, but it points towards the moon.


We may not "describe" it fully, but by calling "emptiness"..well.."emptiness" that is a degree of description by manifesting a median point.

An absence of definition is still a definition. We can argue about "nothing" all day, but all it does is prove "something".


An absence of definition is not a definition unless we examined every single thing and found what it is not, which doesn't define what it is but rather 'points to it.' This is a method of realizing the Atman in Hinduism called 'Neti neti.'
Here is an example: Thanks for defining it for me, I was getting confused over what "nothingness is not"..."or is"....


[/quote]

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:36 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:35 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 pm


We may not "describe" it fully, but by calling "emptiness"..well.."emptiness" that is a degree of description by manifesting a median point.

An absence of definition is still a definition. We can argue about "nothing" all day, but all it does is prove "something".
[/color]

An absence of definition is not a definition unless we examined every single thing and found what it is not, which doesn't define what it is but rather 'points to it.' This is a method of realizing the Atman in Hinduism called 'Neti neti.'
Here is an example: Thanks for defining it for me, I was getting confused over what "nothingness is not"..."or is"....
[/quote]

I think the above post is "used up" for further reference.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:36 am

EodnhoJ7 wrote:We are running out of space...From a Universal "Holism" approach you are correct. From a Relativist approach you are incorrect. Both are duall perspectives.
I don't know what you mean by those differing approaches.
EodnhoJ7 wrote:Is-ness requires "being". In that respect "emptiness" is strictly an absence of what is not needed.
Just because it is called 'emptiness' doesn't mean its a nothingness!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:36 am
EodnhoJ7 wrote:We are running out of space...From a Universal "Holism" approach you are correct. From a Relativist approach you are incorrect. Both are duall perspectives.
I don't know what you mean by those differing approaches.

What we understand of logic, and hence reality and language, is a dualism of stability and movement. This dualism further corresponds, respectively, to a further dualism of Holism/Universality and Multiplicity(Atomism)/gradation. Language has a binary function.
EodnhoJ7 wrote:Is-ness requires "being". In that respect "emptiness" is strictly an absence of what is not needed.
Just because it is called 'emptiness' doesn't mean its a nothingness!
I agree, both emptiness and nothingness can only be observed through "somethingness". But to address your point directly, what we understand of "nothingness" is strictly absence. The same applies to "emptiness". They are approximates.

When something is "empty" what is the difference in saying "there is nothing in it"?

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:18 am
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:36 am
EodnhoJ7 wrote:We are running out of space...From a Universal "Holism" approach you are correct. From a Relativist approach you are incorrect. Both are duall perspectives.
I don't know what you mean by those differing approaches.

What we understand of logic, and hence reality and language, is a dualism of stability and movement. This dualism further corresponds, respectively, to a further dualism of Holism/Universality and Multiplicity(Atomism)/gradation. Language has a binary function.
.
No, because Being encompasses Becoming, but not Becoming, Being
EodnhoJ7 wrote:
EodnhoJ7 wrote:Is-ness requires "being". In that respect "emptiness" is strictly an absence of what is not needed.
Just because it is called 'emptiness' doesn't mean its a nothingness!
I agree, both emptiness and nothingness can only be observed through "somethingness". But to address your point directly, what we understand of "nothingness" is strictly absence. The same applies to "emptiness". They are approximates.

When something is "empty" what is the difference in saying "there is nothing in it"?
[/quote]

Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness. Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:00 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:18 am
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:36 am


I don't know what you mean by those differing approaches.

What we understand of logic, and hence reality and language, is a dualism of stability and movement. This dualism further corresponds, respectively, to a further dualism of Holism/Universality and Multiplicity(Atomism)/gradation. Language has a binary function.
.
No, because Being encompasses Becoming, but not Becoming, Being

"Being encompasses Becoming" is still a dualism of "Being" (+) and "Becoming"(-) if viewed in terms of constants having a positive value. Even without the +/- values, Being and Becoming are still duals as one is completion and the other is incompletion.
EodnhoJ7 wrote:
EodnhoJ7 wrote:Is-ness requires "being". In that respect "emptiness" is strictly an absence of what is not needed.
Just because it is called 'emptiness' doesn't mean its a nothingness!
I agree, both emptiness and nothingness can only be observed through "somethingness". But to address your point directly, what we understand of "nothingness" is strictly absence. The same applies to "emptiness". They are approximates.

When something is "empty" what is the difference in saying "there is nothing in it"?
Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness.
That is an interesting "memory" of an experience, no time, no space...how were you aware their was no time-space?

Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.
But considering it is an "experience" equates it to "something" as "experience." I could understand if you claimed to "empty" yourself of something in order to observe clearer, but the logic your using only proves "somethingness"...unless I am missinterpretting something some where.

The point, getting back to "Defining the core of language", is that language has many characteristics most of which are rooted in the nature of "Being" and "non-being".

[/quote]

User avatar
lpdev
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by lpdev » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:18 pm

Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
Why can't the social situation provide the context? If every time something happens it is accompanied by the same words then the word will be associated with the event. For example if they hear 'walk' before every occasion they go out, they will associate the word and the activity. But they need not know exactly what 'walk' means. As we know, a dog can make such associations, but I do not think a dog can distinguish 'walk' from 'run', 'go out, 'get some exercise', 'go shopping'. Nor do I think the dog associates 'walk' with any specific perception.
I don't contradict the possibility of the social situation providing the context. When the context cannot be gained via spoken (or written) language, it has to come from a sensual experience of the situation. This includes any social situation. But i'm primarily interested in the first instances where a child learns it's first words (even before it can speak them), a moment in it's life where I have to assume it doesn't even understand the social situation. It might be that a child already understands some social situations when it learns to understand it's first words, but it might also not be. Perhaps research on child psychology can answer that, but my current focus lies elsewhere so this will have to wait.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
The correctness consists simply of using that word in the same way as everybody else, so that we are understood in the way we want to be, There is no 'correct definition' for a word like 'hot', only the way it is used, which is what a dictionary records.
That's how most people understand and use words, but if you have a community that uses words that are defined in an exact manner, like in mathematics or other sciences, you may still use those words in a manner that contradicts that definition, but the community will not accept it and may criticize, ignore or even expel you. You are always free to misappropriate words, but don't expect to be accepted for it.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
I think the only way we 'experience' words is when we use them to talk to one another.
Might be that we use the word experience differently, I understand experiencing a word as it being used, not obligatorily by myself. So a child hearing it's parents use a word would, in my sense, experience that word too.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
A person blind from birth can learn the circumstances when we use the word 'blue'. If you asked them; 'What is the colour of the sky?' they would answer 'Blue'. That they are not getting any visual sensation makes no difference; I am not blind and I can talk of 'chair' or 'dragon' or 'electron' without needing to be looking at any of those things or even having any distinct mental image of them. A word is not a sensation.
True, but for every non-blind person it is tied to a sensation and contrary to the blind man, you can teach that person the meaning of blue just by pointing to blue items and saying “this is blue”. The point is that the blind man can only know and understand how the word blue is used after he learned language, because the only way to explain it to him is via language. A non-blind person can learn it as soon it has understood the meaning behind pointing a finger. Thus in the case of the blind man, he needs to have understood some kind of core of language before he can be told about the color blue, in the other case that core is not needed and the sensation and it's corresponding word may be necessary to be included in the core (I don't think colors are part of the core, but things like difference, direction and position probably are, and you will have a hard time to explain these to someone who has never experienced them). I think you need some concepts intrinsically understood in anyone or anything that does the understanding, or you have nothing to build upon. I cannot exclude that these concepts are entirely “build in” for humans, but I think it likely that sensations also come into equation.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
Indeed, that is what I am saying; the words are not labels for our personal perceptions. (I'm not sure about the final sentence).
They kind of are because every time we perceive the same sensation we give them the same label. But at the same time they are not meaning that they cannot be compared to the personal sensations of another person.

Without wanting to open another huge thread of discussion, with objective versus subjective truth, the way to differentiate between the two is to see if two people always agree on an observation or not. A group of people agreeing that the color of a box is different as the color of another one will be able to agree that the difference is an objective fact. If instead they are asked if the first box is as beautiful as the second and they give different answers then we can say that the beauty is a subjective fact.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
I agree if we just said a word to ourselves it would not be an act - but then it would not be a word either. If I am just talking to myself, then any sound (or no sound at all) would do. But words are used to communicate, which is an act.

As Belinda has suggested, it would be a lot easier if you read some stuff on this. If you are interested in this subject, surely it makes sense to look at what philosophers have written?
The dictionary describes what an act is by using synonyms but I would define an act as the following: Any act is a change caused by an intelligent agent in order to achieve a set goal. That act has to be conscious. This is the closest I get right now to a definition of the meaning that is attributed to the word “act” as a verb. To think is an act, to talk to yourself consciously, even when not perceived by someone else, is an act, because both are conscious choices that change reality, be it a change in one's mind or the creation of waves in the surrounding air. But the own heartbeat is not the result of an act. We do that unconsciously, even if it is we who do it. This is, I think, the essence in the difference between doing and acting.

You say yourself that words are used to communicate. That means they are a tool for communication and are not the act itself. The keyboard is a tool you use in typing. The one is an object, the other a verb for an action.

I already informed myself a bit about Wittgenstein, but I have to see anything I didn't know yet. What he seems to say is that words get their meaning by being used by people. But this doesn't contradict the possibility of them getting their meaning by definition. I don't mean the same words, I mean that some get their meaning by usage and some by definition. All this in the context of a social agreement which is needed for any norm. Otherwise everybody would use words like he pleases and the main utility of language would go out the window. Being a mathematician, I doubt Wittgenstein would disagree, as many, if not all words in the mathematics are defined.

I have the impression that the main points of contention in our discussion are the following ones that I formulate here in the manner I currently see it.

1: Words get their meaning trough the usage by people. I agree as long as some and not all words are meant here, as explained above (If you include the creation of a definition as a usage by people I would have to agree that all words are created like that, but I differ between the creation of meaning through the day to day usage by many people and the definition of the meaning by one person, else the meaning of the first sentence becomes trivial).

2: Words can and often have a precise meaning.

3: Words can have multiple meanings that depend of the context, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of them having an exact meaning in some of these contexts.

The following is less about language and more about the meaning of words that i'll call concepts.
4: There is a core language of concepts that is the minimum amount of concepts necessary in order to be able to define other concepts through concepts alone.

4.1: There are multiple possible ways on how core concepts may come to be.
- Core concepts are intrinsic to the intelligent agent, have to be “build in” and have to be associated to the corresponding terms via social observation and interaction.
- Core concepts are learned by observation, either of physical events or social situations, and then associated to the corresponding terms by via social observation and interaction.
- A core in language may not exist.

4.2: There are multiple possible ways on how core concepts/terms may possibly be differentiated to non-core concepts/terms.
- Given a language, the core concepts are the remaining ones after repeatedly removing any term that is not used in the definition/description of any other term.
- The core concepts are the remaining ones after removing every concept where a more abstract one exists that encompasses it.

I' m probably forgetting some things.

What I read about Wittgenstein didn't contradict the points 2 and 3.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
And what would a clear definition look like? We are back with the problem that if the definition consisted of words, that list of properties, then we would also need clear definitions of all the words used in that list, and the words in those definitions would need definitions, ad infinitum.

Earlier you implied the meaning of a word was related not to words but to a 'perception'. That is the jump we would have to make, from the word to something that is not a word. For example, we might say the only word with a clear meaning was 'That!', accompanied by the act of pointing to an object. (This is discussed in Russell).

I absolutely agree that the idea that words are somehow attached to objects, or are labels for internal feelings, seems the common sense one, but we have been unable to come up with a coherent account of how they do this. As all my name dropping might suggest, it isn't for a want of trying!
A clear/precise definition would only use precisely defined words and sentences compositions. I experienced a lot of such definitions while studying math and therefore never questioned their existence. But these definitions always relied on terms which meaning are non-controversial, very fundamental and not defined themselves, thus my interest in that possible core.

I started the thread with the example of dictionary definitions needing other words etc… These definitions that need definitions are one of the interesting questions. Now, I see two possibilities: Either the definitions of these words rely on other words which definitions indirectly rely on the first word, what I called circular definitions, or for each definition of a word you need new words that in turn need new words ad infinitum. I strongly doubt the second case.

In the first case I have no problem, I can accept a core that relies on itself in order to define itself, as long as it is consistent.

When it comes to meaning, perception and words it gets complicated and i'm still trying to figure it out. But why would “that” be clearer than other words? It is exact in the sense that this is an exact way to reference an object in the real world without any confusion. But I would rather call that “distinct”, meaning the object being clearly distinguished from others. Exact has a different meaning. But i'm not sure if that is what you mean.

And thinking about a core of language is one way to try to explain how language works, isn't it ;)

Ok, now i have to read the rest of the thread, this is becoming quite a job!

User avatar
lpdev
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by lpdev » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:41 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:36 pm
Dogs do learn to associate trigger words with percepts*** and some of us would argue, with concepts. So 'walkies' triggers the perception of pleasant anticipation. Not only are words triggers for dogs' reactions but also other signs such as getting the lead off the hook, the dog on the sofa hearing the dog food being lifted off the kitchen shelf, or taking the hoover into the room where the dog is on her sofa.

Dogs cannot understand symbols such as the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Nazi swaztika, nor can they understand the generality of signals, but they do very well understand signs which include a great many words. This is why if you confuse a dog by not keeping your word signs simple and concise you cannot then undo the damage by explaining to the dog that you are sorry but you did not mean what you said.

Signs are events that predict that something is or will be the case.

PS *** percepts are not concepts. It's probably true that no animal human or otherwise can conceive of an idea without first experiencing percepts which basically make up the attributes of any given concept.
i would rather argue that animals have difficulties understanding the more complex concepts like religion and ideology, them being an agglomeration of many thoughts. Animals seem to have a more limited vocabulary that may be part of the problem. But i don't see any difference between flags, statues, symbols, words, sounds etc... Everything can be interpreted if need be.

Now, i think we use the word signal differently. When i mentioned signal, i meant the technical sense of the term, like a signal through space, water, air, a neuron, a cable etc... Of course there is also the meaning in the sense of signaling someone, but i'm not sure if you use the word like that here, and isn't a whistle for the dog to come back also a signal?

And i like your definition of signs, i'll add it to my list. :D

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:25 am

Let me explain to you why Emptiness is not nothingness in meditational terms. When one brings about nothingness through meditation, one literally ceases all consciousness and lacks existence and there is a break in time and space in that it is non-experienced as nothingness.
That is an interesting "memory" of an experience, no time, no space...how were you aware their was no time-space?
I don't remember or am aware of what I experienced since it was nothingness itself! I had a break in time and space, and the only way I could explain it was that I experienced nothingness as much as nothingness can be so-called 'experienced.'


Emptiness, again, IS NOT NOTHINGNESS! You are looking at the finger pointing at the moon and saying the finger is the moon. Emptiness is a designation of an experience that is ineffable.
But considering it is an "experience" equates it to "something" as "experience." I could understand if you claimed to "empty" yourself of something in order to observe clearer, but the logic your using only proves "somethingness"...unless I am missinterpretting something some where.
Yes, it is a 'somethingness' but it is ineffable.
The point, getting back to "Defining the core of language", is that language has many characteristics most of which are rooted in the nature of "Being" and "non-being".


Yes, but what is becoming or non-being is not necessarily equal to being. I can define becoming by being, but not becoming by becoming or being by becoming unless it broadens being to suppose becoming.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest