Lessons in Conventional Language

How can a singularity be infinite...and how can it be held in mind as a idea?

It's a simple concept that only few can misunderstand.

A simple concept for simpletons, right?
Simpletons who use dictionaries as philosophical manuals; simpletons with zero artistry and so no ability to use language as an art.
Autistic simpletons.

Autists have zero charm.
They are bland...and troubling....or quirky....but that's not charm.
Charm involves social ability and artistry; particularly in the use of words.
Literal thinkers....by the book...for the book.
Obsessed with literal understanding...conventions.

They would think the idea of "one" exists outside and independent from the mind.

That's why you cannot comprehend why universe is not the same as cosmos - because in the dictionary they are used as synonymous. you do not see the etymology...only the current, conventional, understanding of the term.
Veritas as opposed to alethiea....baffles you.
Veritas you get, because you can look up "truth" in the dictionary....but aletheia is mystifying....so you dismiss it.
Being a mind of conventions...and no artistry at all.

I bet you are a dullard in person.
Harping over infinitesimal details that contradict conventions.
Philosophy for you is nonsense.
You cannot comprehend it, other than on a superficial level, after researching every word and how it was applied by each philosopher.

You call your dull conventionality "high", to indicate your superiority, though you are lacking.
Common sense means to adhere to conventional thinking.
Anything that diverts form it leaves you in distress.

Proprietism must have made you insane, that's why you mentioned Doolittle and his admitted autism. It was a diversion from your own autism.
His was faked....probably to get rid of you, or as a self-abasement that hints at humility. But you took it literally...because you ARE autistic.
You look up sarcasm, and metaphor to gain a grasp on what to look for....because you cannot comprehend this artistic use of language.
Like Sheldon in Big Bang theory. only autistic minds are not genius....they focused their intelligence, showing superiority in some areas at the cost of all other areas.
like those autistic kids that can play the piano brilliantly but are completely inept in everything else.

Focused intelligence can produce a specialized genius.....but at a price.
Social interaction demands artistry with words and symbols and gestures - reading cues, empathizing with others etc.
This you cannot do.
This can come across as annoying.

I don't think you know what autism is.

I think you might be surprised to hear that autism is characterized by:

1) bottom-up processing / thinking
2) thinking outside of the box
3) lack of regard for conventions
4) associative thinking
5) high creativity / innovativeness

Mind you, I am not an expert on autism, so I don't know what it really is, but based on certain sources, such as Temple Grandin's talks and Simon Baron-Cohen's ideas, these are common in people who are on the spectrum.

If I call you an imbecile I don't mean to say you are literally an imbecile, right?
The word "imbecile" has a very specific meaning.

So when I said you're autistic I didn't mean you're literally autistic.
(You should consult an expert if you want to know the answer.)

I am merely saying that you have certain problems with language.

I bet my position that the concept "Nihilism" represented by the word "nihilism" is itself part of nihilism, you cannot comprehend...because you look up nihilism in the dictionary, and you sample conventional uses of the term, and there's a particular definition and application, which you cannot ignore nor think outside of its conventional premises.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

I don't think you know what autism is.

I think you might be surprised to hear that autism is characterized by:

1) bottom-up processing / thinking
2) thinking outside of the box
3) lack of regard for conventions
4) associative thinking
5) high creativity / innovativeness

Mind you, I am not an expert on autism, so I don't what it really is, but based on certain sources, such as Temple Grandin's talks and Simon Baron-Cohen's ideas, these are common in people who are on the spectrum.

If I call you an imbecile that does not mean you're a literally an imbecile, right?
So when I said you're autistic I didn't mean you're literally autistic.
(You should consult an expert if you want to know the answer.)

I am merely saying that you have certain problems with language.

Ha!!
Are you flattering yourself?

I've met autistic individuals and one with Aspergers....nothing creative about them. Socially inept....awkward....obsessive.
You cannot understand subtlety so you look it up in dictionaries...to see what it is.

Focused... does not mean "indifferent" - the opposite.
They excel in one discipline because they are inept in everything other than that one.
Don't know what you excel at, other than being inartistic and anal.

You might play some instrument, other than your penis. I doubt you have many or any friends.

Difficulty with non-verbal communication...so verbal communication becomes particularly focused.
No artistry....literal thinkers.

Quote :

You cannot understand subtlety so you look it up in dictionaries...to see what it is.

Nah. I check the dictionaries so that I do not look like an idiot when talking to other people.

"One bottle," to prove 'one exists"...that was brilliant.
A whole, complete, perfect bottle.
Full of liquid or air...so also full.

You looked them up in a dictionary.
When I showed you the vid with the string ...you ignored it. It doesn't compute.
How can one string be multiple lengths...or infinite in length.
This does not register.

What acts...if not a thing?
A one thing...a singular thing.

And still you look like an idiot.

A conventional one.

Quote :

you do not see the etymology

There is nothing in the etymology that says that the word "universe" has a different meaning than the word "cosmos". That's your pretense.

Your argument is that the word "universe" implies enclosure because the word "uni" means "one". This is based on the premise that the word "one" implies (or at the very least, that it originally implied) finitude. You have yet to prove this.

Quote :

Difficulty with non-verbal communication...so verbal communication becomes particularly focused.
No artistry....literal thinkers.

Quote :

autistic minds are not genius

Now you're an expert on the subject of autism. You met a couple of people who are on the spectrum and now you know all about it.

Quote :

Human is a symbol...not a literal human.

Yes, the word "human" is not the same thing as the phenomenon that can be represented by that word. We all know that, you don't have to repeat it.

Quote :

There is no human...there is an organism named human.

Now you're abusing language.
Note that this isn't artistry.
This isn't being artistic, this is being weird.
You calling it artistry is just a clever lie you're trying to sell to yourself and to others.

Normally, when we say "There are no humans" what we mean is that there is no phenomenon out there in the real world that can be represented by the word "human". Understood the proper way, the statement "There are no humans" is clearly not true. Why? Because there ARE phenomena out there that can be represented by the word "human".

What you're trying to say is that the word "human" does not refer to the word "human". But instead of being concise you're being weird (and trying to sell that abomination as some kind of "art", "charm" and "social ability".)

Quote :

Man gives phenomena symbols....right imbecile?

Right. Everyone knows that. And it's pretty clear to everyone apart from you that I agree with that. The fact you still can't fathom this is just a proof how bad of a listener you are. (Ironic considering you boast about being charming.)

Quote :

Read the definition of "metaphor" dipshit....the last segment.
Is the word "rose" a symbol, representative of something else?

The last segment . . .

Quote :

a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract

Yes, that's true, but it does not mean that anything that represents something else is a metaphor. Words are things that represent something else but that does not mean they are metaphors. They are not. Metaphors are words that are used to mean something other than what they really mean. Like when you use the word "lion" to mean "a fierce warrior" instead of a wild animal. The word "lion" on its own, despite being a representation of a certain physical object, is not a metaphor.

Again, this is not an example of artistry, this is just plain and simple weirdness.

There is absolutely no need to say that words are metaphors.
It's neither literally true nor is it an interesting figure of speech.
It's poor language -- no more than that.
(Unless you can prove the word "metaphor" had a different meaning in the beginning, that can be excused.)

Quote :

Language is an art-form, imbecile...and you are autistic with no artistry.

There is nothing artistic about the manner in which you use words.
You sound more like a weirdo and an obscurantist than like an artist.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

Moderns use previous applications as a limit, and abide by the meaning given to a word by a another mind.
This transfers the limit of world to the limit of another man - an authority - so that when they hear the word they immediately associate its meaning with how the necessary dictionary restriction of definition connects with the meaning given to it by this unnecessary intervening authority.

The meaning of words is determined by humans and not by something that lies outside of humans (whatever that is.)

So when someone asks "What is the meaning of this or that word?" what they are asking is "What does this or that word mean to this or that group of people?"

When I ask "What is the meaning of the word one?" what I am asking is "What is the original meaning of the word one?"

When it comes to definitions, there is no authority other than human authority.

Quote :

This is how philosophy becomes a debate over abstractions with no reference to reality - meaningless noetic constructs, usually referring to human feelings, internal private delusions, creative combinations etc.

However, when it comes to beliefs, it's a different story. These are judged by the portion of reality to which they refer.

For example, the statement "The average height of humans is 175cm" is a belief because it is used to mean that there is a portion of reality that can be represented by that statement. The statement is either true or false and this is determined by the portion of reality to which it refers -- by the actual average global height of humans out there in the world.

So what Satyr is doing here is he's trying to shame people who say that the meaning of words is determined by humans by accusing them of explicitly or implicitly stating that the veracity of beliefs is determined by humans.

It's a neat little trick.

Quote :

Confused minds produce confused sentences.
Minds wanting to exploit and manipulate will use exploitative and manipulative words.  
Minds failing to find meaning, use meaningless language.
Words, how they are used, what order they are placed in, their patterns, their application, exposes the mind using them, and how it relates to existence - his/her motive, intent.

Exactly.

This is such a shit feast, if you are as confident in your right as you are and in your philosophical outlook as you evidently are then leave the old moron alone and focus on what is of real value to yourself instead...

"One" is finite, because the human mind cannot conceptualize infinity or anything open-ended. Even dynamic processes are reduced to static things.
Therefore "one" is a static idea referring to a dynamic open-ended process; a finite referring to something ongoing and infinite.
The word "one" referring to the concept "one" is a metaphor. It is not literally a whole, complete, static thing....but a word referring to an ambiguous complete, static, whole, representing an incomplete, dynamic, open-ended, process.  
So what it is applied to is not literally what it is defined as.
Single simply refers to a piece of space/time, enclosed by the mind into a thing, a here and a now.

One is not both finite and infinite, but only in the minds of confused imbeciles who cannot discern between representation and represented, using the dictionary as a philosophical reference.
Even when it refers to the concept of an infinite it reduces it to something finite, because it cannot process the infinite, nor visualize, nor conceptualize it, unless it does so.
An abstraction is the reduction of the phenomenon into a static, enclosed, singularity - abstracting involved simplification/generalization - a cutting away of dimensions to reduce the phenomenon into a form that can be processed - 1/0.  

"One" refers to the mental abstraction, which is a simplification/generalization of a segment of reality, cut away from reality itself - reality is dynamic not static; interactive.
Even infinity is referred to as a singular concept, because the mind cannot conceptualize an open-ended dynamic multiplicity unless it reduces it to a singularity - an idea.

One/Nil, do not exist outside human minds. They refer to ideas, representing a segment of reality, or to idea with no reference to reality at all.
One it a bounded portion of a dynamic reality - nil to its negation.
There is no literal one in the world - it is a human concept.
A horse, for example, is a dynamic process maintained as a singularity in memory or by memory DNA.
a single stone has no DNA, so it is in the human mind where it becomes a singular thing - through human memory.

And...polishyouth....this "old moron" has had many desperate degenerates after him over the years.
It's part of posting your opinions in public venues.
All sorts of imbeciles and desperate degenerates around that feel offended or hurt, eventually wanting vengeance.
Anyone exposing himself to public sentiments will always face such retards.

I wanted to see how long the resentful obsessions of an autistic, insane, mind would last.
He came here for vengeance...because I once embarrassed him when I pointed out that "focus" did not mean "indifference"...but the opposite, in fact.
Focus means extreme interest, at the expense of all else.
Back then he insulted me and ran off....planning his return, and his retribution upon the one who made him feel bad, and made him look like a fool.

Ha!!

In the namby pamby erotic method, one focuses on anything, nay, everything but the subject described. An apple is thus defined as the absence of everything appleness.

The idea apple, as it is defined, refers to patterns many phenomena share.
The word apple is not an actual apple.
The choice of letters and sounds associated with the word are not an apple.
There is no singularity called apple, because the phenomenon is not static, nor ever complete and whole.
There are only phenomena named apples, and one apple refers to a segment of space/time cut away from all else.
A "focus - if you will " upon the single phenomena, that then becomes in the mind a complete whole, even though it is open-ended, because it is continuously changing.
The singular is cut away from space/time to create a noetic whole.

So, one apple places a noetic boundary around the phenomenon apple; a noetic border to exclude all space/time except what is encompassed by the mind's conceptualization of a single apple, among many.
It is in the mind where it is a complete and whole moment, thing...like a snapshot of an apple freezes space/time and encompasses it within the dimensions of the photograph, excluding all else.  The surface of the apple - its outer membrane/skin, is the boundary.
It reduces the dynamic and open-ended into a thing....like infinity.
How does the mind conceptualize an open ended process?
It reduces it to a singular idea, gives it a singular symbol, names it with a single word.  
The word refers to the abstraction, which is vague and obscure enough to represent what cannot be conceptualized otherwise.
That's why I asked the imbecile how he conceptualized "infinity".
And he gave me a symbol.
Infinity can be defined and even represented, but it cannot be conceptualized, unless one reduces it to a singularity, which is in the mind.

I expect another ten days of him posting his dribble...at least.
If you noticed, the words he used to insult me were words representing how he felt when I corrected his mistake about "focusing".
He was unloading how I made him feel, upon me.

This was like a trigger...a spin, to keep his obsession going.

The other autistic man-child, Purple Dragon used to do the same thing, only he did it to make me explain things to him, when I ignored him.
remember him?
He followed me around for years.
Now he's on ILP, and he only visits here, after I closed him up in the Dungeon and stopped responding to him.
Autistic minds become obsessed with repetitive behaviour.

And like iambiguuos who is still obsessed with me, the only retort I expect is the usual "No it ain't"...."Yes it is".
No argument, no reasoning, simple declarative statements of negation or affirmation, sprinkled with insulting insinuations which are then denied when I respond ten-fold.
But morons have always called me a "bully", after they've had their arses handed to them, when they goaded me with insults.

polishyouth wrote:

This is such a shit feast, if you are as confident in your right as you are and in your philosophical outlook as you evidently are then leave the old moron alone and focus on what is of real value to yourself instead...

I came here in order to clarify certain things. I didn't come for vengeance.

I actually think that Satyr is far more insulting than I am.

The fact that he thinks that he's the one who's being insulted + the fact that he thinks that I came here for vengeance gives me the impression that he's suffering from some kind of victim mentality.

After all, what's your contribution to this thread?
Nothing but insults.
But do you hear me complaining about it?

Satyr wrote:

"One" is finite, because the human mind cannot conceptualize infinity or anything open-ended.

To conceptualize something means to form a concept of something. Obviously, since we have already formed the concept of infinity, it follows that it is not true that human mind cannot conceptualize infinity.

But then again, one must ask: what does Satyr mean when he uses the word "conceptualize"?

Quote :

The word "one" referring to the concept "one" is a metaphor.

The word "one" referring to the concept "one" is not a metaphor.

The word "metaphor" is not synonymous with the word "symbol".
The word "metaphor" has a much more specific meaning.

Quote :

One is not both finite and infinite, but only in the minds of confused imbeciles who cannot discern between representation and represented, using the dictionary as a philosophical reference.

Well, I do not know what it means to say that "one is both finite and infinite". Most likely, that's your misrepresentation of what I am saying.

Hypermasculinity: if everything is qualitatively equal - as probable, where I am blind (self, self-knowledge) is exceptional. Nevermind I effectively reduced it (probability) to possibility.

Satyr wrote:

That's why I asked the imbecile how he conceptualized "infinity".
And he gave me a symbol.
Infinity can be defined and even represented, but it cannot be conceptualized, unless one reduces it to a singularity, which is in the mind.

Okay, let's take a look.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

Can you visualize infinity, or can't you?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Magnus wrote:

How do you visualize infinity?
This is how: ∞.

That's the symbol of infinity.
You see, it has got some nice curves.

What's your point?

Note that this wasn't a serious response. The reason my response was not serious is partly due to Satyr's aggressive behavior and partly due to the fact that whether or not you can visualize infinity has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Let us first ask: what does it mean to visualize infinity?

Does it perhaps mean to visualize an infinite quantity of something? say an infinity number of apples? And what does it mean to visualize a quantity of something? Does it perhaps mean to imagine every single element that belongs to a set? If so, I might be able to answer the question.

First, let's see what it means to imagine a finite quantity i.e. a set that contains a finite number of elements; for example, a basket that contains three apples. What does it mean to visualize such a thing? It means to imagine a basket, an apple, an apple and an apple. Is that possible? Yes, of course, provided we have enough time. But what if our basket containeed an infinite number of apples? How would we imagine that? We would have to imagine an infinite number of apples and for that we would need an infinite amount of time. So is it possible? Yes, provided we have an infinite amount of time. Otherwise, it is not.

Since we can only be alive for a finite period of time, it follows that none of us can visualize an infinite quantity of something.

We all agree on this one, right?

Where me and Satyr disagree is just because we can't visualize infinity does not mean that the concept of "one" implies finitude i.e. that it is logically contradictory to speak of a physical object that is infinitely divisible. The latter does not follow from the former.

Let's take the word "tree". The four-letter symbol that is the word [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] looks nothing like what it represents, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

The question is: does that mean that when I point with my finger at that tree and say "This is a tree" that my statement is, in fact, false?

The answer depends on how you define the word "true".

There are people who define words in an usual way, in a way that noone ever did. Among them, there are people who define the word "true" to mean the degree to which a given symbol looks like what it is used to represent. According to such a definition, the aforementioned statement is not completely true because the statement "This is a tree" does not look exactly like the tree it represents. If I used a picture, instead of a sequence of words, I'd be closer to truth, but still not quite there. Then there are people who go even further than that and say that even symbols that look exactly like what they are used to represent can't be completely true because they are not what they represent. (Yes, dear past self, I am talking about you.)

On the other side, there are people who define words the way most people do and the way these words were originally defined. For them, the statement "This is a tree" when pointing to an actual tree is completely true because the word "true" has a different meaning. Namely, the word "true" is used to refer to a symbol that is used to represent a phenomenon that can be represented by that symbol (as per its definition.) In other words, the actual symbol DOES NOT HAVE TO look exactly like what it represents nor does it have to be the same thing as what it represents.

Hopefully, this sheds some light.
If not -- oh well.

Mencken, H.L. wrote:

Since the beginning of time they have been trying to get order and method into the thinking of Homo sapiens- and Homo sapiens, when he thinks at all, is still the brother to the lowly ass (Equus africanuus), even to the ears and the bray. I include the philosophers themselves, unanimously and especially. True enough, one arises now and then who somehow manages to be charming and even plausible. I point to Plato, to Nietzsche, to Schopenhauer. But it is always as poet or politician, not as philosopher. The genuine professional, sticking to his gloomy speculations, is as dull as a table of logarithms. What man in human history wrote worse than Kant? Was it, perhaps, Hegel? My own candidate, if I were pushed, would be found among the so-called Critical realists of to-day. They achieve the truly astounding feats of writing worse than the New Thoughters, whom they also resemble otherwise - nay, even worse than the late Warren Gamaliel Hading.
What reduces all philosophers to incoherence and folly, soon or late, is the lure of the absolute. It tortures them as the dream of Law Enforcement tortures Prohibitionists. Now and then, when they forget it transiently, they grow relatively rational and even ingratiating, but in the long run they always resume their chase of it, and that chase carries them inevitably into intellectual Bad Lands. For the absolute, of course, is a mere banshee, a concept without substance or reality. No such thing exists. When, by logical devices, it is triumphantly established, the feat is exactly on all fours with that of the mathematician who proved that twice was double once two. Who believes in Kant's categorical imperative today? Certainly not any student of psychology, who has got beyond the first page of his horn-book.        

The Human Mind - On Metaphysicians

If you cannot grasp how something can change without there being a thing, or why absolutes do not actually exist, other than inside the mind, or why "one" implies a finite piece of space time, and you run to the dictionary for help, then there's no purpose to my efforts in proceeding further.

My position is that human thinking is limited by its own methodology - reflected in language.
A limitation exploited by Nihilism to fabricate self-comforting abstractions that "ought to exist but do not.
Your limitation can be frustrating when it is accompanied with patronizing and insulting commentary.
Look back at my first attempts...before I began insulting your idiotic arse.
I am no victim...I fight back....hard, you imbecile.
I multiply how people treat me. If they are respectful, I am thrice so; if they are demeaning....well, just watch what I do....and did.

You never read anything I posted but came here, high on your fuckin' horse, demanding a tutorial, and when I gave you some trite responses, because I could not be bothered with someone who had not put any effort into it, you insulted me.
Bad mistake.
I am not Christian. I never forget, nor forgive.
But I do have a three-strike rule.
So, far you're on strike two.

---
To conceptualize and visualize is to reduce a phenomenon to a form that can be processed.
So infinity may be defined in a way the mind cannot conceptualize...so it refers to the definition.

Do you understand why Mencken, a writer, a reporter, says there is no "absolute"?
Do you, or will you seek relief in a dictionary?
It's coincidental that I'm currently reading some essays of his, and I came across this piece. I had no idea he ever commented on philosophical matters.
He also had an English dictionary and thesaurus....he made a living using words.
He knew why "absolutes" are nonsensical...but you, from Serbian, learning English as your second or third language, are an expert...because you can read the dictionary definition.  
Imbecile...language represents human understanding; conventional human understanding.
That's why philosophers are forced to invent their own terminology.
But this can go crazy...as many on ILP prove, where words are used in ways that are entirely noetic and are mere projections of their abstractions.
All language is art. Representational. Some art is realistic, other is cubism, surreal, etc.

My motive is to return language to its original role as mediating symbols between noumena and phenomena. Phenomena are my standard...not dictionaries that make communication possible.
That means, exposing many words, taken literally, as being no more than metaphorical representations of what is not in existence, but only in books reflecting human minds that write them. Human minds that are imperfect, limited, and sometimes, if not mostly, irrational.
That means, some, not all, words, can be reconnected with reality, by redefining them, or rationalizing them....as with "morality" and "love"....demystifying them.
If you cannot understand how "whole" and "full" and "perfect" and "complete" are human abstractions founded on a limited understanding and perception of existence, and on how the mind works....then I cannot help you and your mental deficiency.
If you cannot understand why "one" is not literally a one, because you can see "one bottle", and you can name it, and point to it, and think it, then I cannot help you.
Oneness does not exist, other than in books and in the human mind...which places it there.

You are wasting my time.
See how I never push my ideas on members of this very forum.
They may think I'm an "old fool" but I do not care, if they do not say it to me directly.
I know more about humans than you can ever imagine.
I know why they come to KT, though many disagree or cannot understand what I am saying. I also know what many of them think of me, and why.
We aren't friends here...we are members of a select group with a common ground and a common purpose.
KT is the only place we can share ideas that are deemed undesirable in other forums....I've been banished by more than half a dozen of them over the last 20, or so, years.
I know some think I'm a bit off...odd. So what? That's the risk all writers face when they write honestly and share their thoughts publicly.
Many of my thoughts I do not share....I'll be arrested.
My purposes are made clear.
If you don't like my metaphysics....don't read them. If you can't understand them and you think them loopy...so be it. It doesn't matter.
My metaphysics are not my main dish....more of a side-dish.
If they are wrong then the result will show in my positions on the physical realm; my positions on humans, males & females, politics, psychology etc. So far...nothing to report.

I cannot help you.
I cannot return to ten years in the past and take you by the hand....especially when I've posted it all so that I do not have to do so.
If you want to read it, read it...if not fuck off!!!

Quote :

you insulted me

I think that part of the problem is the fact that you are easily insulted.
That also explains why you get banned on other forums.

Yes....because you were there. You know.
I am supposed to tolerate a half-wit who calls me names, without ever reading pages of text explaining my positions...demanding that I give him a private lesson on years of thinking and posting my views.
Nah...I'll pass.  

Respect is a sign of nobility.
I never attack, unless I am attacked....even if it is a palyful slap with insinuating implications. I know too much, moron.
I know how a jest hides an underlying assault...a test to see how tough the other is. A posturing to others.
The slap gets harder if no response is given...like your insults would become increasingly demeaning if I did not stop you.
A taunt to get the other enraged...feeling powerful when accomplished.  
I even know you imagine me banging on my desk and screaming with anger...when I am, in fact, calm as a kitten.

Ta, Ta, twat...