To The Iconoclast

a reply to: PhotonEffect

No they do not have meaning. We give them meaning. The meaning of the word is not in the words; but in ourselves. My point is we are in complete control over how we react to them, and how we furnish them with meaning.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Words can and do describe things and situations.

Words try hard to define events. But words cannot capture reality as it is an ever changing scene.
The present is made of light ('radiant present) which is constantly appearing different.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Well it is rather humans who try hard to define things and events. No we cannot capture reality in words, for reality isn't really something worth defining, but we can define the things in reality.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's funny, had a similiar discussion with him in a different thread.
Just us, huh, on a saturday night, boring old philosophers drinking and spelling magical words

a reply to: Peeple

I enjoy my discussions with itsnowagain, and her perspective. I just don't find it valid.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...Why does your OP and primarily your reply's to the respondent's in your thread seem so........lifeless...?

This is just an observation...so bare with me...as I seek to uncover and reveal...

Your posts read like they were generated by an AI...one of those cutesy ones designed to kick it with Dylan Thomas...

Don't get me wrong...I really dig whatever program your using..............if.

Again...I was amused enough to comment........and...would it be nihilistic to author a thread purely about yourself, and wouldn't that make you..........voila...anti-misanthropic...?

Curiouser






YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

You wish for me to infer how you have come to your opinion?

Well if I must do so, I would guess it is likely because you haven't seen enough of life to know what it is.

A punch to the face,
Hurts regardless of race,
Yet we need not brace,
When reading this case.

An insult can be heard,
Where nothing is inferred,
Because meaning gets blurred,
Where emotions are stirred.

Mr. Stood asked "Should?"
"NO!" screamed could,
"YES!" yelled would,
Everyone felt no-one understood.

These thoughts of mine,
Use this medium of rhyme,
To reach you through time,
If we share clime of mind.

You know how to touch,
Soft spots that get rough,
Would you believe as such,
My eyes teared so much?

When it comes to words and definitions, many thoughts of mine have stretched beyond words, or, in another sense, they have expanded beyond the English language. I find that it is the "simple" concepts that are the hardest to challenge, because they require some serious "firepower" to put-down. Concepts that have been adopted by many people, simple concepts that serve to control ones perspective of reality as they imply something "fatalistic". It is anything that is tied to the belief in "fate" that really does get on my nerves, because, If I really have to divulge what I believe in, it is that we can direct ourselves independently, and any construct that serves to restrict us must be taken down for the benefit of man-kind.

Yes, to challenge an erroneous idea that forms part of a structure of religious control - I guess that does make me "iconoclast":

By trying to erode the cornerstones of "enlightenment" and "karma" I am really trying to ruin an entire religion.

That's why I'm here, to tell the power elite, those who pretend to be gods, who wish to control all aspects of the world and society that they aren't Gods, not even gods. I'm here to tell them that their power is limited, and their philosophies are contradictory and weak and to tell them their time is over.

The more they try to make us wear ties, suits, and tight 60s style pants the more I will wear jeans and t-shirts or polos, the more they try to make us the same, the more I will be different, the more they try to gangstalk the more I will develop techniques to defeat them. The more they want us to be appreciative, obedient, and passive, the more I will raise the middle finger to them.

So if you are one of the elite reading this, remember this, whether you like it or don't like it, I'm going to remain here, and that's the way it is.

The more they try to make us wear ties, suits, and tight 60s style pants the more I will wear jeans and t-shirts or polos, the more they try to make us the same, the more I will be different,

a reply to: deloprator20000

Jeans and a t or polo shirt are different? Seriously?
I grew up in the 60s and...seriously?

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

Logic is a glass wall
One delves and in all
Their inner thoughts are plain for all to tell,
And though shallow on the outside
Their reasoning is as deep as a well.

They put up a farce
They torment the lame
They are playing with treasured words -
A deadly game

Yet words themselves are plain and cold,
Meaning understood is warm to behold.
Some hold their tongues
Others chant and cry -

And still they put up a crystalline front,
Still blind to what their words imply.

a reply to: deloprator20000

"Elite" is really a superfluous designation, really only an admittance that one is not as elite. People who control others for personal gain are not elite in the slightest, and only show that they are subservient to base desires.

a reply to: Phage

He sounded serious enough. I do not remember the last time someone tried to make me wear a suit and tie, however.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...A question you have asked...an answer I shall give.....................NO.

I have no desire for opinion inference which surely moot's your second line...

Rather...I would point out a certain contrivance in your reply...an assumed effort to deflect, a calculated obfuscation.

The only relevant aspect of my previous post was a rather simplistic observation...

Still...I'm sure you'll forgive, that distrust for others really does plead denial...in the face of commonality...that is.

Or is that...in the face of...community?

Yet...here we find you...a nihilistic misanthrope...in the midst of community.

Such a tangled web...as the spinnerets...spin.

I feel a sudden urge to address your point that words are powerless, in and of themselves...Obviously this is a directed reference..."In the beginning was the Word"..."God spake...and it was so"...Heisenberg's uncertainty entangled...
You are partially correct you know...Language, esp., the written word are merely conveyances...or rather...conductors.
Like copper, they are vehicular...transporting either information or raw energy. (whether electrical or emotive)
Power not unlike the politician who "spake.............and it was so".






YouSir

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

After reading what others get out of your OP:
It's about art, isn't it? That's how I took it, because of Iconoclast, I thought it's about everybody trying to shape cultural society?
Ars vivendi, and such?
I am confused, why there is such a tight discussion about words?! Am I wrong?

a reply to: YouSir

Ummm...A question you have asked...an answer I shall give.....................NO.

I have no desire for opinion inference which surely moot's your second line...

Rather...I would point out a certain contrivance in your reply...an assumed effort to deflect, a calculated obfuscation.

The only relevant aspect of my previous post was a rather simplistic observation...

Still...I'm sure you'll forgive, that distrust for others really does plead denial...in the face of commonality...that is.

Or is that...in the face of...community?

Yet...here we find you...a nihilistic misanthrope...in the midst of community.

Such a tangled web...as the spinnerets...spin.

I feel a sudden urge to address your point that words are powerless, in and of themselves...Obviously this is a directed reference..."In the beginning was the Word"..."God spake...and it was so"...Heisenberg's uncertainty entangled...
You are partially correct you know...Language, esp., the written word are merely conveyances...or rather...conductors.
Like copper, they are vehicular...transporting either information or raw energy. (whether electrical or emotive)
Power not unlike the politician who "spake.............and it was so".

Then why is my writing so "lifeless" to you? I wouldn't mind a reason to your opinion, so that I may work on it and make it more lively.

I am not a misanthrope nor a nihilist, unfortunately. I only have an aversion to group think and mob mentality. On the whole, I enjoy people, which I've stated many times already.

Words are not conductors of meaning nor conveyances of information. I'm curious as to what physics or linguistics you are referring to here.

a reply to: Peeple

After reading what others get out of your OP:
It's about art, isn't it? That's how I took it, because of Iconoclast, I thought it's about everybody trying to shape cultural society?
Ars vivendi, and such?
I am confused, why there is such a tight discussion about words?! Am I wrong?

It is always about art. Culture is the greatest human artifact.

When I mentioned language, I spoke of the superstition of it, the idea that words are magically endowed with meaning, that meaning exists outside of the human being, and we should be slaves to them. I wish to dispel that superstition.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

the idea that words are magically endowed with meaning, that meaning exists outside of the human being, and we should be slaves to them. I wish to dispel that superstition.

You do not believe that meaning exists outside of the human being? (I realize this is a tricky topic, but discussion can elucidate what exactly you mean by this, and what I may mean by a knee jerk urge to argue, with reason, such that statement).

Forget the term magic, but words are endowed with meaning. Now, people may have different associations with objects, and therefore when speaking about the object, using the word designated to that object, may change their tone and excitement and emotion, wouldnt you agree that in such instances, a person may not believe a word has magic endowment of meaning, but the object the word refers to is what their ecstaticness is due to? But then considering that, are you pointing to all the cases in which a person may forget this fact, if it may be one, which I just attempted to present, and do worship the mere letters, and drift from the object all letters represent, that in all cases to you, is void of meaning and matter, silly, petty, foolish, wrong, unnecessary etc. To summarize, "what is in a name?".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...the lifeless aspect I referred to was primarily the way you chose to respond to other poster's in the first pages of your thread...

It rang wooden....contrived. To my eyes it sounded like an AI program attempting to be cryptic...

I suppose one contribution to thinking you were a misanthrope was...wait for it..."LesMisanthrope" in which you are informing and defining...self...as per handle/tag...or not...whereas "YouSir" is more a reflection of those who chose to respond....perhaps a vain attempt to shine a little light on the mirror of the respondent...or not...

I beg to differ...The written word does convey meaning...which is not the same as stating that the word "is" the meaning conveyed. Any writer of skill can evoke emotive response and while that response is experienced within the human psyche...the conveyor of that evocation is indeed the word grouping that was read and not some quantum entangled state experienced between the writer and reader.

I fully understand that as such the experience is fully human yet...other species respond to and understand the meaning and intent of words spoken...even if unable to express that understanding in a like manner....As described here... So yes, words are conveyors of meaning, intent and understanding even to other species...















YouSir