It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We have not invented the words to describe my ideas - what about you?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I think we all feel like this sometimes.

But I think that words can help us to achieve very close approximations of the emotions we wish to convey. It just takes a little time and patience. Of course we cannot deliver ideas in a telepathic sense; to directly transfer an emotional experience from one person to the next.

But take a look at the novel, in the literary sense. We've all read a book that we strongly connect with. Take authors like Mark Twain, Dickens, Hemingway, Joseph Conrad and Shakespeare for example. They manage to convey very complex emotional ideas in a way that seems to strike a universal chord. They manage to convey very accurately a set of emotions that are very difficult to convey. It takes lots of words, but that's the beauty of language. It works. If used correctly, and given the patience to let them run their course, an accurate approximation of ideas can be transferred between people.




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
When I wrote my book to describe the idea that I have about reality, I was forced to invent terminology that was only applicable to the examination I was engaged in. This is a list of some of the odd labels I found that I needed to create, along with short descriptions.

  • The Circumstantial - The event unit and/or trajectory as a whole and defineable stand-alone manifestation.
  • The Concrete - The information unit, burst, hybrid trajectory, or identified data cluster.
  • The Dynamic Concrete (DC) - The hybrid event/information trajectory that is launched into existence by the corporeal brain (a Circumstantial substructural event trajectory)
  • The Epitome Circumstantial (TEC) - The Crcumstantial matrix that features a Concrete generating substructural event trajectory (brain) to manage coordinated survival processes for the umbrella event trajectory (the corporeal body)
  • The Human version of The Epitome Circumstantial (HTEC) - The corporeal Circumstantial matrix that "generates" the Dynamic Concrete capable of rumination and self awareness (consciousness) = we call this manifestation of DC the human being
  • Dynamic Response (DR) - The eternal generated Concrete Existence that gathers as the result of the animal (TEC) brain's response to managing its holon matrix' survival effort. This mass remains logically united in common authorship, and is only capable of relatively mindless dynamic activity within the informational realm.
  • Dynamic Intellect (DI) - The eternal generated Concrete Existence that gathers as a result of the human (HTEC) brain's response to managing its holon matrix' survival effort. This ,mass remains logically united in co,mmon authorship, and is capable of human emotion, human rumination, human experience, human memory, and intentional human activity within the informational realm.
  • Isolated Dynamic Intellect (IDI) - The fully gestated human being once its corporeal HTEC placenta has been discarded. Fully human, with the only restriction being an inability to acquire new data units for use in configuration activities (it can't learn what will require informational units that its corporeal HTEC brain didn't acquire while it still existed as functional). This is what we think of as the human spirit or soul.
  • Symbiotic Dynamic Intellect (SDI) - The epitome of physical existence. This holon IDI community-as-one being is what we Earth humans believe to be God. It is a creation of the IDI that requires a very specific progressive development process, and can only be given to future IDIs as an epitome existential dynamic expression by an IDI (or SDI) that understands this process, and how to initiate it. There are many within the original contextual environment, but only within that environment. It takes an intentionally initiated "gestational sub-environment" (GSE) to bring one SDI into existence, with the entire process occurring as a natural result of the sub-environment's progressive development into a full-environment process - if properly initiated, of course.


These are only a handful of the terms I was forced to either invent or severely restrict. As you can probably imagine after reading these descriptions, this notion is not very easy to explain unless one restricts term definitions and configures new terminology to redefine what we've generally assumed to be fairly mundane and common items, like animals, people and information.

I guess I can totally relate to the issue of insufficient language when dealing with breakthrough concepts.
edit on 6/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Noreaster,

Thank you for the information you provided. This is exactly what I am talking about. How to express yourself, when you have an idea or concept so alien to the population. When thinking about how this is applicable throughout history, the story of Jesus in the bible explaining why he spoke in parables. It is like having an immense amount of knowledge and being unable to explain it with words which would get people to understand what I am saying.

I suppose inventing your own words is the only way to express the concepts. But, I have this feeling many who are in the know of what I am referring to in this thread, are active participants in trying to understand another person. Funny thing is I understand your meanings of the words you invented. You probably wouldn't need to explain the words to me, as I could have guessed at about 75% accuracy on what it was you were referring to. Maybe it is not so much in having the right words as it is to get another person to want to understand what you are saying. What do you think?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Noreaster,

Thank you for the information you provided. This is exactly what I am talking about. How to express yourself, when you have an idea or concept so alien to the population. When thinking about how this is applicable throughout history, the story of Jesus in the bible explaining why he spoke in parables. It is like having an immense amount of knowledge and being unable to explain it with words which would get people to understand what I am saying.

I suppose inventing your own words is the only way to express the concepts. But, I have this feeling many who are in the know of what I am referring to in this thread, are active participants in trying to understand another person. Funny thing is I understand your meanings of the words you invented. You probably wouldn't need to explain the words to me, as I could have guessed at about 75% accuracy on what it was you were referring to. Maybe it is not so much in having the right words as it is to get another person to want to understand what you are saying. What do you think?


I think that you're right. I suspect that there's a form of cognitive dissonance that involves visceral resistance to conceptual wholes. I call it intellectual revulsion, and how I've witnessed it has been the capacity to understand and accept the validity of broad concepts (easy to understand stuff, like existential survival imperative expressions - competition, symbiosis, identity - or basic qualifiers, like true versus false, and relative gender expression) and even the application of several of these concepts in congress with one another. But then, if the conceptual associations begin to challenge the traditional views of the person (as they will in most cases once a certain point is reached, especially when gathering all well-established concepts and "knowns" together) a hyper-aggressive blind-spot emerges, and it's as if the person's capacity to even recognize what they accepted as obvious (just minutes before) becomes noticably crippled. In fact, not only do they become unable to connect the clear and obvious dots that they originally saw as obviously there, they lose the ability to even see the dots that they agreed where obvious only minutes beforehand.

I've become aware of why this occurs, and while it's a very important mechanism that the mind employs to maintain consistency-of-reality as the brain is working to ensure the survivability of the corporeal whole, the downside is a general imability for the human brain to learn overwhelmingly new and novel concepts, unless those concepts DON'T challenge that brain's established reality structural foundation in a wholesale manner. If they do, then the mind (which actively vets all incoming information before it streams into the short term memory storage center) will reconfigure it in the safest way possible, as it does during dreams and crisis moments. The survival of the mind's contextual identity is at stake here, and while fact-reality is important, relative perception-reality - for the developing human being - is how its inimitable identity is manufactured. That means that perception-reality trumps fact-reality every time.

So , yes, the person being informed has to be viscerally open to the information. If not, then their mind will scramble that information, and it won't matter what you do to explain it to them. It has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. It has to do with the contextual slurry that makes up the intellect of the person that is confronting that information. If that composition of experiences and accepted "reals" is directly challenged by that information to enough of a degree, that information will be rejected by being scrambled on its way from their ears and eyes to their short term memory load-in region. It's a form of cognitive dissonance, but a bit more sophisticated.
edit on 6/14/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I think you should get an applause for that response. Wow. I understood exactly what you are saying. Interesting to me, that a conversation so abstract as this can be understood for the meaning and its applicability.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Just dont move on to an amalgamated belief system. We are all subject to current accumulated knowledge. However this does not mean the future is sealed off. Maybe your mind is intercepting future ideas that you can not yet articulate. Matrix glitch 101



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


i know exactly what your talking about. When i first was awoken, I was just like "WTF" it was almost funny because i couldnt believe i hadnt realized it before, in plain sight.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join