"How do you define...?"...Definition

[Eodnhoj7]

Look at any dialogue and you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?"

Dialogue thus is subject to a process of definition but also a static form or what definition "is".

Nothing deep here, nothing shallow either. As a matter of fact...just nothing, but this is not even a fact.

Definition thus is to be defined, but this is rarely done without making some assumption as the question of "definition" is rarely brought up...it is merely left empty and formless and all the forms which progress through this dialogue are inverted into new forms under this "empty" word.

This empty word, a hinge point of most dialogues (but there are other words as well), necessitates argument as merely a revolution of concepts around an empty concept or strictly the emptiness of assumption.

All dialogues as definitive are just loops hiding some formless assumption, loops within loops. This is definition. This is not definition. Definition is thus both right and wrong.

Science and philosophy are deemed successful if they are able to hide this loop within a number of different loops. We call this complexity "knowledge". We also call this a "circus".

Philosophy and science It is not even right except assumed as "right"...it is not even wrong except as assumed as wrong.

But this value placement of "right" and "wrong" is a value placement as well, a continuum of assumptions self referencing and fundamentally indefinite, thus placing value less on definition but rather of indefiniteness as an absence of seperation or distinction as a reflection of the loops that constitute the various perceptions that form it.

It is this self referencing of values, a perceivable hiding of assumptions under a variety of loops, that necessitates a hiding of subjectivity that equates science and philosophy to antiquated religions...belief systems driven by a prelogical anthropomorphic mythos that is the human condition itself.

This nature of "definition", that branching tree within the sky of the empty mind that distinguishes good from evil through the linear branching of assumptions as "distinct", is a mythological archetype embodied under basic forms...with "form" being the original archetype.

As such, it effectively is the reflection of an ancient religion called "story telling" meant to entertain the masses and distract them from the darkness outlying the fire of values that people circle around.


The shaking of this "tree of good and evil", as the tree is the nature of distinction through linear reasoning that manifests the same branching pattern, is the shaking of reason itself where reality is inverted to a primordial dark mass through the excessive extreme of atomization through analysis. For the tree to shake is the nature of definition to fall apart under the weight of it's own assumptions...its "fruits".

It is this good and evil that creates the polarity, the creative destruction which forms reality for what it is as the first act of branching of points of awareness is the tree archetype... the first tree rooted not in dirt but within the "sky"...the "sky" being the inherently emptiness of the mind and heart as it assumes.

So how does science and philosophy justify itself without resorting to "images"? How does it even justify it's own justification without "imagination"? Distraction through a circus of loops of course, we call this distraction "forgetting", "forgetting" divided focus, "divided focus" chaos, "chaos" we call modernity...and we justify it through a repetitive loop where if we just keep repeating it we will forget it is all imaginary...an "image".

[Impenitent]

a word's meaning is its use...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

a word's meaning is its use...

-Imp

And "use" is a word...

[Skepdick]

And "use" is a word...

And you are using it. And many others.

[surreptitious57]

Definition is the meaning ascribed to a thing or a concept in the format of language

[Skepdick]

Definition is the meaning ascribed to a thing or a concept in the format of language

Can you define 'meaning' or 'definition'?

Most dictionaries struggle with that.

[Dontaskme]

Definition is the meaning ascribed to a thing or a concept in the format of language

Can you define 'meaning' or 'definition'?

Most dictionaries struggle with that.

No word can define 'what a word means', or every word defines 'it's own meaning'

.

[Skepdick]

No word can define 'what a word means', or every word defines 'it's own meaning'

.

So you can't define 'define', even though you are using it?

[Dontaskme]

No word can define 'what a word means', or every word defines 'it's own meaning'

.

So you can't define 'define', even though you are using it?

Define the definer without using a word.

[Eodnhoj7]

And "use" is a word...

And you are using it. And many others.

Words are use.

[Impenitent]

nothing could be finer
than to be a word definer
in the moooorrrrrr-ning

it has been said before: "he who defines the terms wins the argument"

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

No word can define 'what a word means', or every word defines 'it's own meaning'

.

So you can't define 'define', even though you are using it?

Define the definer without using a word.

Define "word" without using "define" which is "undefined" except by form.

Words are symbols, thus existence is rhetorical.

[I Like Sushu]

Definitions are something to do with some project directed at ‘efficiency’. If not we would be here - SOME level efficiency is essential. Proof is my response to the OP here

Next question!

[Skepdick]

existence is rhetorical.

Q.E.D Existence is about metaphysics. Rhetoric/language/logic is metaphysics.

The strong influence of computer science in modern day is precisely because it is at the intersection of linguistics and formal logic. Studying languages. Inventing languages. Using languages.

[Eodnhoj7]

existence is rhetorical.

Q.E.D Existence is about metaphysics. Rhetoric/language/logic is metaphysics.

The strong influence of computer science in modern day is precisely because it is at the intersection of linguistics and formal logic. Studying languages. Inventing languages. Using languages.

No real disagreement on this point.

Language is the critical point society revolves around. That is why the mythos stories where created, and logic as a distillation of these anthropomorphic "deities" into subtler forms. We are still left contemplating our roots in these regards which is why I believe Jung has a solid point of exploring and mastering the internal nature and not just the exterior elements.