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.

 

A Word Has No Meaning.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


when i say love do not exist i mean it literaly

what exist is constant value

now the free joy sense or the joyful freedom sense that one could amplify from knowing being getting without effort while being really free to enjoy it or from knowing being really happy in relation to other or else present
those kind of senses never last but the second of being free, u cant repeat the same freedom
that is why lies and hypocrisy are always fast coming




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


and to prove what i say being true,

once individual freedom is true value it could b forced indirectly from being forced to stay existing still, while there is no values around nor any truth value out of any perspective, then it would b forced to realize its own value totally as a self constant excuse, while there it would b truth hate, which prove that love do not exist

what exist is wether truth value or truth hate

true value reject to realize itself bc of truth essential rights of staying free n being always more free so out of any self justifications or limits, when truth value is exclusively bc it is free so never generated nor meant

here we touch the bottom true end point of subjects, which is freedom truth rights realisations, objective freedom rights and subjective freedom of individuals means or wills



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Thanks for you help everyone.

If I explore it further. I can arrive at some implications.

For the question "What is being?" I can't arrive at any meaning of any of the words in that statement. What is what? What is is? What is being? (I realize that these may be the most ridiculous questions in the human language) As people have mentioned, each word represents a concepts, usually some refined ideal, but nothing that exists outside of our mind. When you say tree I think of a tree, but I could never find the tree in my head anywhere in the universe. The same is true of other ideals: God, love, being, etc.

Through evolution, symbols began to take the place of things existing in nature. The circle, for instance, became the representative of anything elliptical. It was likely first used to portray the sun and the moon in earlier times. Over centuries, the notion of an ellipse became so refined that we can now picture a perfect circle in our thoughts even though no such thing exists in nature. The assumption that everything circular must be a circle, or the creation of an ideal, is an optimization of language and not an explanation of the universe. It speeds up the process of interpretation and conveyance of an idea, nothing more. These symbols, which didn’t exist, and which achieved perfection in the minds of men, grew to represent a foundation of fundamental errors. Eventually, these assumptions became revered truth, and a whole system of language was born.

Anyways, thank you for sharing.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Agreed. We need to look past the "collection of letters" obscuring the full meaning beneath, even if it sometimes takes some digging to get to it.

Is it: "Life and Death" or is it "Truth and Death"?

Perhaps the fountain of youth and immortality is simply Truth as only Truth can exist, and False can't exist. Be literally true to yourself and everyone around you and you defeat death. The Lived Life is everything between absolute truth and death.

Probably not what you were asking about, but considering the power of words and language over us...

Namaste.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I have no idea what you are trying to say.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This is why I always said there is no such thing as a bad word just bad intentions. If I say Ass in reference to a body part what makes it bad? Why is it worse to call someone and ass than a butt? You insinuate the exact same thing, but one is more PG....why? I think hate behind words makes them worse than a bad word itself.
S&F
edit on 23-5-2012 by PutAQuarterIn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I read some of this thread and was slightly agreeing,,, then i remembered once being in the presence of a dictionary, and so i know every word has a meaning. ( some multiple)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PutAQuarterIn
 


as if bad intentions is the truth and objective hypocrisy is the obligation rule on everyone to bring its oness life to exist forever



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Actually, I have every reason to believe that words mean EVERYTHING, and that's part of the reason humans have so much difficulty and disease. We speak so freely and flippantly, not even realizing the depth in meaning of many of the things we're saying. They are energy...period. Now, when intention/emotion and faith is placed behind a word, it becomes REALLY powerful. But even the Bible states, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was WITH God, and the word WAS God." Words are the driving creative force of our reality, whether idly spoken or not.

Not that I'm a Bible thumper, but I do find it ironic that it and other religious texts emphatically state not to allow untruths to be spoken, otherwise we will prescribe our own death. In other words, speaking lies literally destroys us, physically.

Just some food for thought...


Yeah I "feel" ya. Not a Bible thumper but there are just things we know and understand.

A word is powerful. Meaning and context does not matter in my opinion as much as the force ( energy) behind said word.

Each word has its own vibration and according to how its sent out into space is when it matters.... Literally.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I think the reason for that is just because of strange etymologies that we discover. Historically speaking, words are recycled and reinvented, so their meanings are fascinating because of how they are still being used.


This is probable.

It's like we've built a labyrinth of words, and we are trapped in it.

I'd much rather be able to use words to convey my thoughts than not. I should think that those who are the deaf and the mute are at a disadvantage when it comes to the ability to sing.
IMO a word is like a number, I haven't studied enough to for my words to be infalliable, but like Edgar Allen Poe said, "Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality."

As for, being "trapped" by words..

Emancipation from the bondage of the soil is no freedom for the tree.
- Rabindranath Tagore

edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: words words words



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

For the question "What is being?" I can't arrive at any meaning of any of the words in that statement. What is what? What is is? What is being? (I realize that these may be the most ridiculous questions in the human language) As people have mentioned, each word represents a concepts, usually some refined ideal, but nothing that exists outside of our mind.

I suppose that you are right in a sense, after all, the word "atauciq" would not exist inside of your mind until you first have heard then sought out the meaning of the word.
The tower of Babel comes to mind.
Interesting that you ask "what is being" when you have three words describing yourself.
I think that even human language comes in different forms like sign language, body language, facial expressions, intonations of voice, sarcasm, satire, symbolism, pictures worth a thousand words..even telepathy..
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The OP is essentially in agreement with a branch of modern linguistics, specifically generative semantics based on the epistemology of the fifties, especially on the work of Scottish epistemologist Gregory Bateson.
NLP is a behavioral science developed on this theoretical basis. Its basic tenets as to the use of modern languages are in essential agreement with medieval Buddhist epistemology (search for Dignana and Dharmakirti).

In Buddhist terms, this school says that the meaning of words are "empty," that is, they have no inherent meaning except by context and use.
Each language has its own bushes of words related to a life situation. Words we usually believe are common physical phenomena like "bird" or "blue" have different boundaries in some Amerindian languages, where classes of living beings are divided differently, and shades of what we call green and blue in English can refer to the same color.

In early Buddhist epistemology, D & D developed the "apoha theory." In simple English, it says that the true meaning of the word "cow" in Sanskrit is the exclusion of all (Sanskrit language uses) that refer to something else than a cow.

The corollary of this philosophy is that the world is really divided to phenomena by language, it is not that there exist real "objects" out there which we then decide to name. Very simply, a spider or an ET would even divide the "physical world" differently as their perception itself would be totally different.

Now each human language proceeds to do this "division" of what we can call (in Western philosophical terms) a fundamental One Reality differently.

They say in some Eskimo tongues there are hundreds of words for snow, sleet and ice. While this is literally only a scientific legend, it has some deep truth in it about the nature of languages.
Modern English has thousands of words for money (cash, futures, hedge funds, savings accounts, annuity etc.) Sanskrit has many words for mind and consciousness. You cannot translate "hedge funds" to ancient Sanskrit.
There are no exact pairs or equivalents for abstract concepts between languages - words are part of subsystems of reality. And yes, reality itself is different for a native speaker of English than to one of Hungarian.

Psychologically this type of insight can yield practices that free one of the constraints of consensus thinking.
edit on 5/23/2012 by Kokatsi because: spelling



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by satron
 


Is the goal of this thread or topic to, as you say, "solve problems"? I for one find the OP's subject to be quite interesting and thoughtfully rendered. You're purpose seems only to be one of ridicule.

To the OP: Well said. This is something I have been thinking about for sometime, and I like the way you shared a difficult concept to much of the unlearned on this site. S&F



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neOrevolutionist
reply to post by satron
 


Is the goal of this thread or topic to, as you say, "solve problems"? I for one find the OP's subject to be quite interesting and thoughtfully rendered. You're purpose seems only to be one of ridicule.

To the OP: Well said. This is something I have been thinking about for sometime, and I like the way you shared a difficult concept to much of the unlearned on this site. S&F


I'm not trying to ridicule it, I tried to extrapolate some use out of it.


What use do you think it has?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Language is a limitation, pure and simple. Try describing a color – it’s impossible. Take the color blue. All I can do is relate objects that I perceive as blue to another person. For instance: my eyes are blue, the sky is blue. There is no way to ‘prove it’ because color is a perception.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


When I started reading this, I was skeptical but decided to keep an open mind and I think it is an interesting thought. I still think words have meaning, but you are right, it is extremely limited without context. Especially something like the word "love," I think you picked one of the most complicated ones possible for your argument.

In the end, I'm not sure a single word can replace an idea. But that gets me wondering what context this quote came from, because its flaw seems to be too obvious...
edit on 24-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by satron
 


imo, the use of this post, like the majority of philosophical statements, comments and questions is to induce thinking. Perhaps that was where you were going and I did not see it. My apologies



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

In the end, I'm not sure a single word can replace an idea. But that gets me wondering what context this quote came from, because its flaw seems to be too obvious...
edit on 24-5-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


You figured it out. I was trying to deceive. I was hoping someone would at least question the context of the quote, which, after a while, I feared no one would. I wanted to prove a point by being ironic and self-contradictory. I tried to employ Socratic irony, but it felt short when it's apparent that no one has read Faust.

I found the quote on the back of a thesaurus—a book of words. But I didn't remember this quote in Faust, only something vaguely similar, so I immediately went and re-read it. The thesaurus was using it in the positive sense, as this and the other quotes there were promoting the use of language in some poetic way or other. They used it out of context.

I wanted to try use it out of context as well, and in a negative light. I wanted to use the words in that quote to show how words out of their intended context (and in this case also mis-translated) can be turned around and pushed in any direction I choose. They are void of meaning without context.

The story Faust is about a professor who tires of life. He makes a deal with the devil for unlimited knowledge. This is where the idea "selling your soul" comes from.

In its intended context, the quote is found in a conversation between Mephistopheles and one of Faust's students:

Mephistopheles
And after—first and formost duty—
Of Metaphysics learn the use and beauty!
See that you most profoundly gain
What does not suit the human brain!

*******************The Quote**********************

A splendid word to serve, you'll find
For what goes in—or won't go in—your mind

*******************End Quote******************

But first, at least this half a year,
To order rigidly adhere;
Five hours a day, you understand,
And when the clock strikes, be on hand!
Prepare beforehand for your part
With paragraphs all got by heart,
So you can better watch, and look
That naught is said but what is in the book:
Yet in thy writing as unwearied be,
As did the Holy Ghost dictate to thee!

Student
Yet in the word must some idea be.

Mephistopheles
Of course! But only shun to over-sharp a tension,
For just where fails the comprehension,
A word steps promptly in as deputy.
With words ‘tis excellent disputing;
Systems to words ‘tis excellent disputing;
Systems to words ‘tis easy suiting;
On words ‘tis excellent believing;
No word can ever lose a jot from theiving.


In it's intended context, the quote means the exact opposite than what it meant when the thesaurus and myself used it. This is a problem when any quote is used.

Thank you for questioning the context.


edit on 26-5-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join