Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4662
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:58 am

The nature of a noun is a classification, quality or concept of a percicevably stable object which exists as a boundary of change.

For example a cat is composed of a variety of movements ranging from cell replication to behavior patterns.

The noun is fundamentally a stable verb, however we do not use nouns as verbs due to grammatical context. We do not use the word "catting" to observe the movement patterns of an animal but rather use "cat like".

All verbs as actions exist as forms. We are more lenient relative to this as "the fall" or "t he rise" observe forms. An action cannot exist without A form.

In these respects all nouns exists as both nouns and forms and verbs exist as both forms and nouns where both respectively are directed movements as form and function.

The statement of (C -> F) observes the cat as a cause and fall as effect.

The form of falling exists as an effect of the cats movements.

Inverting the statement to (F -> C) observes the fall as a cause resulting in the cat as an effect. This is considering the cat exists if it moves and the falling is a movement which resulted in the form of the cat.

Both statements can be observed as "The cat falls", "The cat fell", etc. however what we can observe is that one form/function results in another form/function. One replicates to another.

The question occurs relative to "->" as a directed movement in itself. This observes the replication of one phenomena into another.

So the "cat" replicating "fall" observes a continual set of forms and functions resulting in the cat and falling.

The cat as directed towards falling observes the cat existing through another form and function and progressing towards it. The cat is directed towards the form/function of fall with an infinite progression of "cats" and "falls" where a fractal nature of one existing through the other occurs.

Cat exists as a cause for "fall" with the progression of one to another observing the cause and effect as separate in this respect (as one leads to another).

Cat and fall, while embodied in language and logic as separate are fundamentally structural extensions of a single axiom of both form and function.

Impenitent
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by Impenitent » Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:08 am

paint runs but so does the graffiti artist

-Imp

User avatar
PrfromTexas
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:19 am

Re: Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by PrfromTexas » Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:39 am

@experts
Eodnhoj7
The nature of a noun is a classification, quality or concept of a percicevably stable object which exists as a boundary of change.

For example a cat is composed of a variety of movements ranging from cell replication to behavior patterns.

The noun is fundamentally a stable verb, however we do not use nouns as verbs due to grammatical context. We do not use the word "catting" to observe the movement patterns of an animal but rather use "cat like".

All verbs as actions exist as forms. We are more lenient relative to this as "the fall" or "t he rise" observe forms. An action cannot exist without A form.

In these respects all nouns exists as both nouns and forms and verbs exist as both forms and nouns where both respectively are directed movements as form and function.

The statement of (C -> F) observes the cat as a cause and fall as effect.

The form of falling exists as an effect of the cats movements.

Inverting the statement to (F -> C) observes the fall as a cause resulting in the cat as an effect. This is considering the cat exists if it moves and the falling is a movement which resulted in the form of the cat.

Both statements can be observed as "The cat falls", "The cat fell", etc. however what we can observe is that one form/function results in another form/function. One replicates to another.

The question occurs relative to "->" as a directed movement in itself. This observes the replication of one phenomena into another.

So the "cat" replicating "fall" observes a continual set of forms and functions resulting in the cat and falling.

The cat as directed towards falling observes the cat existing through another form and function and progressing towards it. The cat is directed towards the form/function of fall with an infinite progression of "cats" and "falls" where a fractal nature of one existing through the other occurs.

Cat exists as a cause for "fall" with the progression of one to another observing the cause and effect as separate in this respect (as one leads to another).

Cat and fall, while embodied in language and logic as separate are fundamentally structural extensions of a single axiom of both form and function.
Quite an interesting case of the movement and noun concepts. What about the adjectives related to the example (cat)? Let's say catty (catty corner or catty-cornered, for instance).

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4662
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:23 pm

PrfromTexas wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:39 am
@experts
Eodnhoj7
The nature of a noun is a classification, quality or concept of a percicevably stable object which exists as a boundary of change.

For example a cat is composed of a variety of movements ranging from cell replication to behavior patterns.

The noun is fundamentally a stable verb, however we do not use nouns as verbs due to grammatical context. We do not use the word "catting" to observe the movement patterns of an animal but rather use "cat like".

All verbs as actions exist as forms. We are more lenient relative to this as "the fall" or "t he rise" observe forms. An action cannot exist without A form.

In these respects all nouns exists as both nouns and forms and verbs exist as both forms and nouns where both respectively are directed movements as form and function.

The statement of (C -> F) observes the cat as a cause and fall as effect.

The form of falling exists as an effect of the cats movements.

Inverting the statement to (F -> C) observes the fall as a cause resulting in the cat as an effect. This is considering the cat exists if it moves and the falling is a movement which resulted in the form of the cat.

Both statements can be observed as "The cat falls", "The cat fell", etc. however what we can observe is that one form/function results in another form/function. One replicates to another.

The question occurs relative to "->" as a directed movement in itself. This observes the replication of one phenomena into another.

So the "cat" replicating "fall" observes a continual set of forms and functions resulting in the cat and falling.

The cat as directed towards falling observes the cat existing through another form and function and progressing towards it. The cat is directed towards the form/function of fall with an infinite progression of "cats" and "falls" where a fractal nature of one existing through the other occurs.

Cat exists as a cause for "fall" with the progression of one to another observing the cause and effect as separate in this respect (as one leads to another).

Cat and fall, while embodied in language and logic as separate are fundamentally structural extensions of a single axiom of both form and function.
Quite an interesting case of the movement and noun concepts. What about the adjectives related to the example (cat)? Let's say catty (catty corner or catty-cornered, for instance).
Yeah, I have given some thought to this, as well as adverbs. My argument would be:

Using the following dictionary definitions of:

ad·jec·tive
[ˈajəktiv]
NOUN
grammar

a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.


https://www.bing.com/search?q=adjective ... 9C5DFD9068



Adverb

a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages, typically serving as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence, expressing some relation of manner or quality, place, time, degree, number, cause, opposition, affirmation, or denial, and in English also serving to connect and to express comment on clause content


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adverb


They would follow the same form and function as the noun/verb and verb/noun.

So for instance "catty" as a descriptive would be a relational term where what is being described (corner or cornered) is effectively existing through such qualities.

"Catty" as effectively the quality of a cat acting. However considering the cat as a quality requires it to exist in both form and function this dually applies to the word "catty" as well. So a "catty-corner", that which "is existing" through cat-like qualities and the adjective as a descriptive takes on an "function" like quality in these respects while it still exists as a form.

In these respects we understand language to have a synthetic quality between a form/function and a form/function where this synthesis observes a form of "joining" taking place between 2 or more form/functions resulting in a new form function.

So cycling back to the catty-corner example again we can observe:

Catty as a function of cat movements (such as movement in a singular self-sustained manner not reflective of other movements, ie "oblique" or "inclined" and not parallel or perpendicular) which are inseparable from the form itself (cat as existing through a lone form, not dependent upon on other forms, the form of the cat existing through the movements of the cat. For example a dog as a form, existing through certain movements, observes the form relative to that of another form such as a human being, pack of dogs etc.).

The form existing as a boundary of movement, with this movement as a relation of parts, observes each form as fundamentally connected or seperated to further forms due to the movements which exist in them. So while a dog may strictly be observed as a certain "form", this "form" connects it to other forms because of the inherent change within the form. This change is an observation of inversion, where one part inverts to multiple parts with these multiple parts inverting to one part.

So the inherent nature of the cat, or catty, as "changing" is a question of how it inverts from 1 form to many and from many forms to one. The cat as it moves through its enviroment fundamentally inverts its relations to itself alone. So while it may relate to many people, places and things, these multiple parts through which the cat exists are inverted towards the needs of the cat and its "singleness or aloofness". The many relations which compose the cat are unified through the cat. The cat joins the relations to itself and seperates itself from them by projecting away from them.

One the other hand, which the dog being a social animal and existing through the environment it is in by "bonding, protecting, playing, following" inverts itself from simple a dog to the relations through which the dogs exists through. The dog becomes a part of the master, or pack, or whatever it is following; hence it changes from "one" dog to "many dogs". The dog joins the relations to itself and maintains them by circulating through them.

The introverted nature of the cat as "absorbing" relations and condensing them into the cat, while the extroverted dog as expanding its relations, observe them as not just as two sides of the same coin but an inherent boundary of movements.

So the introverted nature of the cat as projecting away from its relations, maintains its self by cycling through itself.

The extroverted dog as circulating through its relations, projects away from itself.

Some forms have specific connective and seperative properities to other form/functions because of there inherenent degree of definition which occurs through relation to other forms/functions. Relation, as one part existing through, of or composed of other parts (much like a ratio), observes an inherently multiplicity.


This nature of form/function occurs within "corner" as well considering it is not just a form but a function of time. A corner exists as a boundary where certain limits of a phenomena converge to form a point through which the phenomena projects through time. For example the corner of a block of houses, or even a house, observes this corner as a means through which the house/block effectively projects itself through other phenomena and gains an indentity. In a simultaneous respect the point of the corn observes all phenomena around the house/block expanding into the house/block itself.

For example, because this may seem obscure, I have a cinder block. Elements such as rain, wind, fire, etc. are directed towards the cinderblock. The elements expand in accords to the "corner" of the cinder block. A water drop may drip down a side, of the flame of a torch may expand, but they expanding in accords to the corner they are projecting towards. Simultaneously we see the corner of the cinder block as projecting through time, with time being a relation of parts, moving through the rain drops or flame of the torch and effectively projecting itself in a manner through them where the cinder block as projecting through a corner condenses.

The corner is a form, the this form is bidirectional where it represents contraction or expansion.

It is relative to the perspective in which movement begins.



So when observing a "catty corner" we observe a synthesis of form/functions to produce a new form/function where we may observe something as an "obligue" or "lone" "corner" existing through itself and directed the movements of the public in a manner other corners do not considering these other corners are not synthesized with the form/function of "catty".



Hence what we deal with in language and the problem of wording is founded upon the inherent nature of how we not just classify words but the metaphysics behind how we view the nature of quality.



If any of this makes sense, I may have to elaborate further on some points.

User avatar
PrfromTexas
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:19 am

Re: Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by PrfromTexas » Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:14 pm

Hence what we deal with in language and the problem of wording is founded upon the inherent nature of how we not just classify words but the metaphysics behind how we view the nature of quality.


If any of this makes sense, I may have to elaborate further on some points.
That is why I'm specifically excited to explore the realms of cognitive linguistics and image schemas, in particular.
Image schemas - dynamic analog representations of spatial relations and movements in space.
Mark Johnson and George Lakoff together invented the term ‘image schema’ in their 1987 books. They did something much needed at the time, namely, to cast doubt on the common philosophical position they called the ‘objectivist paradigm’, in which concepts are considered to be symbols that constitute propositions pointing to a reality independent of the mind. In contrast to this view, they emphasized the non-propositional nature of concepts, stating that concepts are analog products of sensorimotor experience.
https://www.unav.edu/documents/2832169/ ... b55ec4eea1

The way we perceive reality and interpret it from the point that is meant by image schemas UP - DOWN, CENTER - PERIPHERY, etc. That is, the quality of objects is measured in relation to the position of a human body and eyes, for example, if we take a mushroom and a tree. The mushroom in this case will acquire the quality of a low object, whereas the tree will be a high object due to the position of eyes of a human being looking at both. And then comes the metaphysics behind the process of interpretation and meaning of the quality of a certain object or phenomenon. Not sure if I explained what I meant in the best possible manner.
I would appreciate if you could share some further observations on metaphysics and language.

Thank you,

Terry

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4662
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Metaphysics and language (verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:43 pm

PrfromTexas wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:14 pm
Hence what we deal with in language and the problem of wording is founded upon the inherent nature of how we not just classify words but the metaphysics behind how we view the nature of quality.


If any of this makes sense, I may have to elaborate further on some points.
That is why I'm specifically excited to explore the realms of cognitive linguistics and image schemas, in particular.
Image schemas - dynamic analog representations of spatial relations and movements in space.
Mark Johnson and George Lakoff together invented the term ‘image schema’ in their 1987 books. They did something much needed at the time, namely, to cast doubt on the common philosophical position they called the ‘objectivist paradigm’, in which concepts are considered to be symbols that constitute propositions pointing to a reality independent of the mind. In contrast to this view, they emphasized the non-propositional nature of concepts, stating that concepts are analog products of sensorimotor experience.
https://www.unav.edu/documents/2832169/ ... b55ec4eea1

The way we perceive reality and interpret it from the point that is meant by image schemas UP - DOWN, CENTER - PERIPHERY, etc. That is, the quality of objects is measured in relation to the position of a human body and eyes, for example, if we take a mushroom and a tree. The mushroom in this case will acquire the quality of a low object, whereas the tree will be a high object due to the position of eyes of a human being looking at both. And then comes the metaphysics behind the process of interpretation and meaning of the quality of a certain object or phenomenon. Not sure if I explained what I meant in the best possible manner.
I would appreciate if you could share some further observations on metaphysics and language.

Thank you,

Terry
It really is all exciting Terry because with these progressive advancements we are left seeing common grounds again and these common grounds go back to the ancients.

Hence we are left coming to a conclusion of a cycle where the cycle in all its infinite variations revealing not just the nature of any one thing (language in this case) but the nature of who are are, our origins and the nature of Truth and Divinity.

These are "revealing" times and can reflect the apocalyptic sense we see in society with the apocalypse being rooted in "revealing" rather than a strict negative connotation.

For your personal research, as well as my own as I don't really recommend anything I haven't tried (successfully or with deep failure), you may want to do research into the "Monad" and "Bindu" or "Circumpunct".

In regards to the subjects you mentioned above you may want to ask more questions or provide arguments of some form so I can understand, not just where you are coming from (and because I am synthesizing every conversation, argument, issue addressed, etc. for my master's ahead of time), but any commonalities you and I may have relative to your specific field.

But yes, relative to your source, we are on a similiar page. The question is one of foundation, and in these respects I am arguing the Prime Triad of the "Point, Line, Circle" as observed through three Laws of Constant Mirroring Axioms, Relativistic Localized Axioms and Synthetic Axioms as Limits.

In simpler terms everything breaks down to a question of measurement (even language) in regards to "Unity" and "Multiplicity" but the nature of "quality" and "quantity", causality and acausality, limit and no-limit, etc.

Or in even simpler terms we understand all things through Constant Truth, Relativistic Truth and Truth as "Joining".

From a simple premise of everything stems from one point and is united through that point, language is given new meaning and definition.


In dealing with the base laws of metaphysics (stemming from everything including consciousness itself) these 3 Laws apply universally. So if you have further questions (empirical examples, doubts, agreement) you can apply these laws to language and we can work from there.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25507

These laws can be observed relative to language in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=25521

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest