Lessons in Conventional Language

Quote :

I owe no loyalty to conventional language

In which case you have no right to look down upon people who abuse language. Because that's exactly what they do. They use words any way they like without any regard to how other people use(d) them.

If the manner in which you define words is not grounded in social conventions then it's grounded in your personal preferences. There is no other possibility.

But since you don't like the idea of being an inventor of the language that you speak, you have to convince yourself (and others) that your language is grounded in something else, something that's neither a social norm nor a personal desire of yours. So what you do is you come up with the idea that your words are grounded in an imaginary entity that you call "world". Whatever that actually, you know, means.

So let me pose a question:
How does one determine the meaning of words?
What is the exact step-by-step procedure?

How does one determine the meaning of the word "tree" without 1) looking inside books such as dictionaries, 2) asking other people how they define the word "tree" and 3) looking at how people used that word in the past.

I hope you're not telling us that the meaning of the word "tree" is determined by looking at the actual phenomenon that is a tree.

Here's a picture of a tree:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How do you determine the meaning of the word "tree" just by looking at that picture?

Abuse and misuse is about words not referring to observable, testable, falsifiable phenomena, but refer to other minds, or to text.

The rest I've answered more than a dozen times.

I am using conventional language and you seem to not understand it.
I've explained all that, suing the "tree".

Using "love" as it is used conventionally, or how it is defined by Christianity, is not a test of truth.

Quote :

love
/ləv/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: love; plural noun: loves

1.
an intense feeling of deep affection.
"babies fill parents with feelings of love"
synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment; More
devotion, adoration, doting, idolization, worship;
passion, ardor, desire, lust, yearning, infatuation, adulation, besottedness
"his friendship with Helen grew into love"
compassion, care, caring, regard, solicitude, concern, warmth, friendliness, friendship, kindness, charity, goodwill, sympathy, kindliness, altruism, philanthropy, unselfishness, benevolence, brotherliness, sisterliness, fellow feeling, humanity
"their love for their fellow human beings"
relationship, love affair, affair, romance, liaison, affair of the heart, intrigue, amour
"he is confident that their love can survive"
antonyms: hatred
a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone.
"they were both in love with her"
synonyms: besotted with, infatuated with, enamored of, love-struck by, smitten with, passionate about, with a passion for, consumed with desire for; More
captivated by, bewitched by, enthralled by, entranced by;
devoted to, doting on;
informalmad/crazy/nuts/wild/potty about, bowled over by, carrying a torch for;
informaltwitterpated by
"I'm in love with Gillian"
affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf.
synonyms: best wishes, regards, good wishes, greetings, kind/kindest regards, felicitations, salutations, compliments, best, respects
"my mother sends her love to you"
a formula for ending an affectionate letter.
"take care, lots of love, Judy"
a personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid.
noun: Love
2.
a great interest and pleasure in something.
"his love for football"
synonyms: liking, weakness, partiality, bent, leaning, proclivity, inclination, disposition; More
enjoyment, appreciation, soft spot, taste, delight, relish, passion, zeal, appetite, zest, enthusiasm, keenness, predilection, penchant, fondness
"her love of fashion"
3.
a person or thing that one loves.
"she was the love of his life"
synonyms: beloved, loved one, love of one's life, dear, dearest, dear one, darling, sweetheart, sweet, sweet one, angel, honey; More
lover, boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, betrothed, paramour, inamorata, inamorato;
querida;
informalboyf, girlf
"don't fret, my love"
informal•British
a friendly form of address.
"it's all right, love"
informal
used to express affectionate approval for someone.
noun: a love
"don't fret, there's a love"
4.
(in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil.
"love fifteen"

verb
verb: love; 3rd person present: loves; past tense: loved; past participle: loved; gerund or present participle: loving

1.
feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone).
"do you love me?"
synonyms: be in love with, be infatuated with, be smitten with, be besotted with, be passionate about; More

A focus on the effect, not the cause.

Quote :

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, correctness, ethicality More
"the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness;
morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, fair play, justness, decency, probity, chasteness, chastity, purity, blamelessness
"the past few years have seen a sharp decline in morality"
moral standards, morals, moral code, ethics, principles of right and wrong, rules of conduct, standards/principles of behavior, ethos, mores, standards, ideals
"orthodox Christian morality"
antonyms: immorality
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

This conventional definition tells em nothing about how morality evolves.
So, people like you, can stay there, and think no further, and Desperate degenerates can claim it is divine, or universal, or mystical, or a social construct...or meaningless.

I do not define words using text, or another's mind, as a reference.
Do you get it?
No....you can't. The reason is ....other than a need to know.

You are, after all, perfect, complete and whole.

This question....among others, reveals how clueless you truly are.

Clueless wrote:

Here's a picture of a tree:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How do you determine the meaning of the word "tree" just by looking at that picture?

I'm not even going to respond to it....I want you to continue making a a fool of yourself.

Stop following me around.
It's unbecoming.

You're notoriously difficult to read because you write stuff like this:

Quote :

Define a word in a way that either makes it unprovable or defies disproof.

People do not prove words, they prove statements. It makes no sense to say that a word is provable or unprovable.

There are many kinds of words. There are words that are meaningful (the word "car") and words that are meaningless (the word "msdkfw"); words that are applied literally (when I say "lion" to refer to an animal) and words that are applied figuratively (when I say "lion" to refer to a fierce warrior); words that are used to represent something that exists (the word "Unabomber") and words that are used to represent something that does not exist (the word "Batman"); words that can be used to represent something that exists (the word "horse") and words that cannot be used to represent something that exists (the word "unicorn"); and so on and so forth. But there are NO provable and unprovable words.

It is statements that can be provable or unprovable and it is statements that can be proven or disproven; statements such as "The original meaning of the word universe is that of a totality of existence that is finite in space and time".

Quote :

Abuse and misuse is about words not referring to observable, testable, falsifiable phenomena, but refer to other minds, or to text.

Language abuse does not mean using words to construct statements that do not refer to something that exists. If that were so, pretty much every fiction writer ever would be guilty of language abuse.

Also, language abuse does not mean using words to construct statements that are not true. If that were so, pretty much every person ever who said something that is not true would be guilty of language abuse.

Language abuse means using words in a way that leads to confusion.

Quote :

The rest I've answered more than a dozen times.

Answering it once would be enough. Where are the links?

Satyr wrote:

This question....among others, reveals how clueless you truly are.

Clueless wrote:

Here's a picture of a tree:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How do you determine the meaning of the word "tree" just by looking at that picture?

I'm not even going to respond to it....I want you to continue making a a fool of yourself.

Stop following me around.
It's unbecoming.

Where's the answer to the question?

For the long time I've been posting my ideas on what words are, how they are detached to become part of Nihilism, and what their proper, useful, pragmatic, application is.

On this thread, alone, I have repeated my positions on what words are and how they've been corrupted.

I am one of the few people, on-line, who has multiple explanations of what his positions are.
For someone to come here and ask be stupid questions, exposing that they've either not read anything I've written, or have not understood it, signals to me that they either cannot understand, or are motivated by another purpose than to actually understand.

That's when I switch personalities. I sued to attack and degrade others, but I'm over all that crap.
Now I just can't be bothered.

This entire forum is full of what I think and why I do so.
Language and the misuse of words is my current interest, because I've how I've diagnosed what Nihilism is and why it emerges.

You don't have to agree, or even understand....and the gods know I have no need for your appreciation.
I get too much attention....too much attention from minds I do not want to receive attention from.
Idiots are tiresome.
Playing with them used to be how I found a white lining no this dark cloud.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Where's the answer to the question?

it's repeated throughout this forum.

I've explained what words/symbols are, how they are misused and abused, and what the original and proper use of them would be.
I really cannot give private lectures.
It's why most of my posts are general - directed at more than one audience.

I even used "tree" in my examples. But that's where you got it from. You just come here in bad faith.
Normally I would tear you a new asshole....but meh. It's better to leave you to your own fate.
More in line with my current self-interests.
I ain't here to save the world.

I'm not interested in your justifications, apologizes, excuses, rationalizations, trash-talking, etc. You know full well what I am interested in and you are free to not give it to me -- without any explanation whatsoever. (You don't have to feel guilty about it.) This is a forum (at least in theory) so there are other people around here who can interact with me. And even if nobody does, it's okay.

I give.....to all.
Not to individuals, one by one.

No guilt, little man. That's your projection.

People who don't feel guilty have no need to explain themselves the way you do (:

I explain because I need to be clear.
No guilt....responsibility; integrity.

But you can think what you like.

Is that what you do, to pretend you are over "Abrahamic guilt"?
Ha!!!

You need to explain your idea that the meaning of words is determined by the "world".
You didn't do this and I doubt you ever did (yes, I know, you're a prolific writer.)

I don't care why you don't want to interact with me. Nobody does.

You can doubt all you want.

"Nobody cares"....that's your message?
I've heard that one before.
Defensive. The voice of "the world" spoken by you, as the conventional member of it.
You are not my intended audience.
More of a nuisance....like going into the jungle and facing a cloud of mosquitoes. Annoying...but harmless.

Quote :

This conventional definition tells em nothing about how morality evolves.
So, people like you, can stay there, and think no further, and Desperate degenerates can claim it is divine, or universal, or mystical, or a social construct...or meaningless.

That's because the purpose of definitions is not to explain how things evolved but to explain how words are used, how they can be used, in practice.

The purpose of the definition of the word "morality" is NOT to explain how the thing represented by that word evolved.

Then seek your philosophical insights in the Dictionary...or the Bible, or any book full of words.
Why would I care if you, or the world cares?
Is caring a validation of reality?
Is your understanding or awareness necessary?

My use of the words reconnects words to reality, from where they've been detached - fro conventional use purposes - and made ideologies, mediocre minds can conventionally use without understanding them, beyond they're continental utility, as linguistic sharing idiocies with idiots.

Then you can fall for God being the source, or morality being a "social construct"....like how you understand language.
Did words come first, like the Bible says....or did society? What was their original function?

Male/Female are now becoming conventionally defined as social constructs. you must agree, to remain true to your own "principles", or you are a hypocrite.

Quote :

Then seek your philosophical insights in the Dictionary...or the Bible, or any book full of words.

You suffer from some kind of irrational book-hatred.

Quote :

Male/Female are now becoming conventionally defined as social constructs. you must agree, to remain true to your own "principles", or you are a hypocrite.

You're horribly confused.

By standard definition, masculinity is not a social construct. Of course, people can change the definition, and they might be working on it as we speak, but that would be a deviation from the norm, which I'm against.

By standard definition, both men and women are humans (not just women.) Of course, people can change the meaning of the word "human", and they might be working on it as we speak, but that would be a deviation from the norm, which I am against. The word "human" (similar to the word "masculinity") is defined in such a way that the word "human" can be used to represent both men and women i.e. both men and women can be considered humans (not just women.)

Magnus Anderson wrote:

You suffer from some kind of irrational book-hatred.

Among other things...yes.
I never read books.
I am functionally illiterate.
This post is written by an AI word processing program. I can barely speak, conventionally, as well. I mumble.

Quote :

You're horribly confused.

By standard definition, masculinity is not a social construct. Of course, people can change the definition, and they might be working on it as we speak, but that would be a deviation from the norm, which I'm against.

Yes...so no need to engage me.
Nothing but confusion here.
Move along. Tell your friends, if you have any, not to come here.

Quote :

By standard definition, humans are women. Of course, people can change the meaning of the word "human", and they might be working on it as we speak, but that would be a deviation from the norm, which I am against. The word "human" (similar to the word "masculinity") is defined in such a way that the word "human" can be used to represent both women and men i.e. both men and women can be considered humans (not just women.)

You're behind the times...or living outside the forefront of conventional thinking in North America.
Human no longer refers to biology, or to reproduction - its a non-sexual idea/ideal....non racial as well.
The Dictionary will adapt in time, to reflect conventional use.

You are waaaay behind the modern conventional use of words.

It's because you are complete and whole....and absolutely so.

The original meaning of words is what matters. How people originally defined words.

You are a strange guy because 1) you are not sticking to the original definitions and 2) you have this weird idea that words are not free inventions of human mind.

I do?
Well, then it must be so, if you say so.
You are the complete, whole one....so I can only assume your opinions are perfect and complete and whole.

I'm also described as hateful, by some minds, like your own.

When I say "original" I am as pre-civilization use.....as nouns.
"This good"
"Meat".
"Tree"
"Bird".
"Me Qunta Quinte, you?"
Then verbs evolved:
"See spot run"
"Meat taste good, Me like meat."
"Me fuck pussy, after eat meat".

What does "free" mean?
Contingent? Absolute liberty?
The mind invented the word.....then looked for something to name?
Yes...I'm confused, and strange...and I do not know what I am saying....which begs the question:
Why are you here, if you are whole, complete and perfect?
You sound like you are lacking something, even if you call yourself flattering words.  

Did you "freely" think of them? Did you pull them form your arse, or did you conjure them up from nowhere?

Does the word come first, Christian boy, or does the action?

Quote :

The mind invented the word.....then looked for something to name?

Let's make it super simple. We are free to associate any concept with any word. That's why we have synonyms. That's why we have languages (instead of a single language.) Do you agree? If you do then you have to prove that people originally associated the word "universe" with the concept of an enclosed totality of existence. (When you say "enclosed" I suppose you mean "finite in space and time".)

Does the word come first, Christian boy, or does the action?

Suppose I saw a tree the other day and now I want to give it a name. You have an action (the sight of a tree) and now you have me sitting here trying to think of the word to use to describe what I saw. Am I not free to call it anything I want? See, Englishmen call it "tree" and Serbs call it "drvo". Who's right? Who's calling it the right way?

Spare me the lesson.
I've been through all that. And if you had bothered to read what I've already written you would not expect me to bother taking you seriously.
Such disrespect on your part...expecting respect in return, is a sign of a dysfunction.

Does the word come first, Christian boy, or does the action?

In the above example, the sight of a tree precedes the choice of a word to represent that tree. Still, how you're going to call it is arbitrary i.e. you can call what you saw anything you want.

So let's return to my question:

Quote :

Let's make it super simple. We are free to associate any concept with any word. That's why we have synonyms. That's why we have languages (instead of a single language.) Do you agree? If you do then you have to prove that people originally associated the word "universe" with the concept of an enclosed totality of existence. (When you say "enclosed" I suppose you mean "finite in space and time".)

It's arbitrary as it represents a historical relationship.
A culture, a meme, is a representation of a people's relationship, over time, with their environment.

Ergo, Christian boy, a Chinaman calls a rose by a different name, than an Englishman.

What's in a name, Christian boy?
Noumenon/phenomenon....I've written it all down as simply as possible to accommodate simpletons....yet you've read nothing....and now come here calling me names and expecting me to take you seriously.

How can you challenge someone if you are clueless about what he says or means?
A womanly ploy, to express desire without admitting it, or the act of a coward?

So, little boy....we've established that the ACT came first...and then the symbols/words.
So, how can a dynamic, interactive objective - free from all interpretations - phenomenon, be represented by a static, ephemeral, subjective symbol/word?
How can an activity, be represented by a static symbol a word?

If you get this, I'll give you a treat.