Lessons in Conventional Language

Forget the universe concept, for now...you're too simple to rush ahead. We must take it slow and keep it simple, otherwise mind will not be able to understand things if we jump ahead to a concept like "universe". You've already mistakenly assumed that it means the same as Cosmos....like veritas, truth, means the same as aletheia.
All encompassed by the conventional, cosmopolitan word "truth".

An enclosure cannot be infinite.

What is a photograph of a man raping your arse, in relation to the act of a man raping your arse?
One is static - a complete whole movement of time....the other is dynamic
Actual;l;y, even the photograph is dynamic, because ti begins deteriorating the moment you snap it.
it lingers longer...you might even as it on to a friend, to see you being raped, or leave it to your children as their inheritance.
On can be doctored...the other cannot.

You still have to prove that the word "universe" was originally used the way you use it.

Ha...the word says it itself.
Uni = one.
The etymology Christian boy.
I posted it...but you ignored it....like you do everything I post, other than the stuff that suits your resentment.

Etymology wrote:

late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus ‘combined into one, whole’, from uni- ‘one’ + versus ‘turned’ (past participle of vertere ).

There is no one, other than in the minds of Christian boys and other degenerates.
Show me a one....do not use it as part of a sentence, or as a metaphor....show me a singularity.
Indivisible, immutable, eternal...complete, whole.
Don't arbitrarily cut away a piece of reality to form a boundary within which to project your mental and psychological dysfunctions, but show me a singularity independent from your mind....like a tree is.
Don't use it as a qualifier and as a quantifier....that's not an absolute.

the Greek Cosmos does not mean that...other than in the minds of conventional mediocre minds that use the dictionary, or some other text, as their philosophy manual - a deference to other.

Satyr wrote:

Ha...the word says it itself.
Uni = one.
The etymology Christian boy.
I posted it...but you ignored it....like you do everything I post, other than the stuff that suits your resentment.

Etymology wrote:

late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus ‘combined into one, whole’, from uni- ‘one’ + versus ‘turned’ (past participle of vertere ).

There is no one, other than in the minds of Christian boys and other degenerates.
Show me a one....do not use it as part of a sentence, or as a metaphor....show me a singularity.
Indivisible, immutable, eternal...complete, whole.
Don't arbitrarily cut away a piece of reality to form a boundary within which to project your mental and psychological dysfunctions, but show me a singularity independent from your mind....like a tree is.

Good stuff.

The etymology (which I'm aware of) doesn't say what you think it says. You're reading too much into it. For one, noone ever defined the word "one" the way you do. (Now you have to prove to me that the word "one" was originally used the way you use it.)

The word "universe" originally meant "everything treated as one" or "everything as a whole". The word never implied enclosure.

The same applies to the word "one". The word "one" never implied enclosure. (In other words, if something is "one" it does not mean it is finite.)

Satyr wrote:

the Greek Cosmos does not mean that...other than in the minds of conventional mediocre minds that use the dictionary, or some other text, as their philosophy manual - a deference to other.

Lesson learned. Next time I'm going to invent my own definitions and then pretend they are not mine but those of ancient peoples all the while having absolutely no evidence to back it up.

It implies a singularity.
Show me a singularity...not the common use as a quantifier or qualifier.
One can mean anything, because it has no external reference to restrict its use.
Like the word "god" as degenerates use it - according to connections.

The description then contradicts what the word implies.
Uni = whole, complete.
The infinite is incomplete never whole, so it cannot be describe as a one.
Similar to how you describe one tree when it is never the same tree....but a continuum held in your mind as a singularity.
The tree is never whole or complete.

The word "one" does not imply a finitude of any kind. It never did. That's why it's perfectly legal to speak of a single infinitely divisible physical object. (No logical contradiction whatsoever.)

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I'm clueless. Who knows. I've been in the past.
The question is: what's your evidence to prove that the word "one" originally implied finitude?

You don't invent your definition, imbecile.
Reality...the rose....exists before you name it.
The rose,., whatever name you give it, is a dynamic process, not a static immutable, indivisible, complete whole....it is dynamic.
But you, use a static word, referring to a static image...and that is what is complete and whole because it is an idea that is vague.....like a photograph...a representation...a simplification/generalization....a cutting existence into segments.
the "one" always refers to a different rose...a different stone.
the rose, being alive, is held together by its memory, its DNA...but not a stone.
You hold it into a unity in your memory. It has no memory.

Quote :

You don't invent your definition, imbecile.
Reality...the rose....exists before you name it.

Right. I am afraid you don't know what the word "definition" means.

Yes, id does..it implies a compete wholeness..a boundary.

Who cares what it originally implied?
It's how it is currently being used and abused.
One god...universe....

One simply implied a presence. Not a metaphysical fact.

When you name a rose...you define it...using your limited perceptions.
It smells a certain way...it is thorny...it is red etc.
but then it can be abstracted into an idea...a rose defined in ways that has no external reference.
Like male/female is currently being redefined....not by complete whole perfect entities, like yourself, but my degenerates in the west.
What is conventional for perfect, whole, full beings, might differ from that of imperfect, incomplete becoming.  
I wouldn't know...I'm not perfect. But you are.

You can define aesthetically or idealistically.

Quote :

Yes, id does..it implies a compete wholeness..a boundary.

Who cares what it originally implied?
It's how it is currently being used and abused.

The standard definition of the word "one" implies no finitude whatsoever. That's why it's perfectly legal to speak of a single physical object that is infinitely divisible.

Most people stick to this definition. In fact, pretty much everyone does.
It's mostly you who deviates from it.

So the word "universe" originally meant "a totality of existence that is finite in space and time" because it contained the word "uni" which meant "one" and now when I ask you to prove that the word "one" implied finitude you're backing off?

Interesting.

And yet it does.
One applied to the infinite is nonsensical.
A contradiction.

One implies whole complete...like you.
Infinite is never whole nor complete.
One implies a bounded reality, not a boundless one. Conventional thinking is about mediocrity communicating its mediocrity to one another.
There is no one tree, if you mean it as an infinite tree.

A one-god is contradiction if it is then defined as infinite Being.

Multi-verses are infinite in space/time....no one-universe there.
How a mind conceptualizes is always as ones - abstractions.
it describes its own abstractions when it is referring to what contradicts them.
Contradiction of Ideal and Real.

First. you defined the word "one" to imply finitude.

Then, you concluded that the concept of a single physical object that is infinite is non-sensical (i.e. that it is a logical contradiction.)

So far so good. I agree. The conclusion logically follows from the premise.

But now you're claiming that the statement is logically contradictory EVEN IF you do not define the word "one" the way you do (i.e. to imply finitude.)

You see, that's the problem.
The classic example of language abuse.

It's called EQUIVOCATION.

An unbound concept is never whole or complete - but it can only be conceptualized as such - phenomenon converted to noumenon.
Like one cow, is converted to a singularity, when the cow is never the same - but a continuum converted to a singularity - an idea.
The mind then compares the idea of a cow with the cow in the world - similarities indicate an identity.

you are never the same from year to year...but you do have a consistent pattern. But this pattern is gradually being altered,d eroded....changing. What holds you together as a single becoming is DNA - memory.

A stone has no memory. It is a mind that holds its continuum together...in its memory.
The stone has no intent, no will...it doesn't care.
It is an amalgamation of different patterns, conceptualized as a oneness by the observing mind.

Yes..."one" is nonsense if it is mistaken as anything other than a mental abstraction.
One as metaphor, a tool, directing the mind to a phenomenon that is arbitrarily cut-away form the background, si a useful tool.
if it is taken literally it is a nonsensical concept.

Like a painting of a tree as an artistic expression, representation, a tool...is useful...but if it is mistaken for a tree itself, then it is nonsensical.
A photo of a dog taken as a literal dog, is nonsensical...as a representation, a frozen instance of space/time, using a different medium...it is a tool.

So if I point to a tree and say "a tree" or "one tree"...and I mean "a" and "one"  literally, and not as a direction giving, a pointing to....then I am an imbecile, like you.

When I say "A HOUSE" the "A" does not exist in reality.
There is no "A" in the world.

The "one" is used to direct another mind to encompass a specific segment of reality identified as house.
One house.
There is no ONE....it is a linguistic direction giver transmitting a concept - an encompassing of space/time. It tells the other....look only within these boundaries, and at nothing else.
Focus...remember focus, idiot?
It means show interest focused only in this section of space/time....and the definition identifies the boundaries.
Exclude all else, but this house.

like the word 'this" imbecile.
is there a "this" in existence?
It indicates something within the immediate - something within a spatial range...and a temporal range.
This hat...this moron....this whore....this imbecile.
The self is taken as the focal point of "this", establishing a range of space/time.  

"That" hat, indicates something beyond the range of "this", or other than.
Not this moron, but that imbecile.

You can also say "this universe".

Quote :

Yes..."one" is nonsense if it is mistaken as anything other than a mental abstraction.

The word "one" isn't non-sensical even if you define it the way you do i.e. implying finitude.

The problem is the word "one" simply does not mean and never meant what you think it means. Consequently, the word "universe" does not mean and never meant what you think it means.

Quote :

One as metaphor, a tool, directing the mind to a phenomenon that is arbitrarily cut-away form the background, si a useful tool.

The word "one" isn't a metaphor.

Quote :

if it is taken literally it is a nonsensical concept.

It is not.

Quote :

A photo of a dog taken as a literal dog, is nonsensical...as a representation, a frozen instance of space/time, using a different medium...it is a tool.

It's not nonsensical. It's merely a different definition of the word "dog" -- an unconventional one. The problem is that the word "dog" does not mean a painting of a dog.

Quote :

So if I point to a tree and say "a tree" or "one tree"...and I mean "a" and "one"  literally, and not as a direction giving, a pointing to....then I am an imbecile, like you.

The reverse.
You are an imbecile because you do not understand language. In other words, you suffer from autism.

Quote :

When I say "A HOUSE" the "A" does not exist in reality.
There is no "A" in the world.

What the hell does it mean to say "There is an A in the world!" ?

An autist has no charm, moron.
I can charm the panties off of you.

But...whatever.

One is a linguistic tool - an abstraction.
It does not exist outside minds.
A tool of delineating a segment of space/time.
It does not exist independently form minds.
A tree does...a dog does....a one ...no.

Ta, Ta,

Nope, autists can be charming as well.
(As far as Internet is concerned, you have zero charm and zero social skills.)

Pretty much every single word is a tool used by humans to attain certain ends.
That changes absolutely nothing.

True meaning is found between mind and world; like a map that had meaning only when it refers to an external geography.

A map that refers to other maps is meaningless, other than a map referring to an internal structure; an abstraction of an abstraction; a representation of a representation - words/symbols referring to other words/symbols facilitating an exchange of a shared abstraction, that has no external reference.

Like a map of Tolkien's middle-Earth - concise and self-consistent, but entirely non-existent, other than as a representation of a shared narrative; a shared fantasy world.
If such a map is taken literally, or confused for an actual existing geographical are, then the minds participate in a shared delusion - a realm of communal escape.
But, if the map refers to an actual external geography, then it is a tool for exploring reality.

I wrote this some time ago:

Quote :

Meaning of Meaning
Living in an age of Nihilism means we live in an age of institutionalized autism, of feminization, of idiot savants, and of literate illiterates, or educated ignoramuses.
Moderns know a lot, but understand little. They have a fluency based on two-hundred, or so, words, and of those with a bigger vocabulary few actually understand the words they are using. They know the dictionary definition, but they cannot connect the term to a real world phenomenon. Instead the symbols/words hover in a state of limbo awaiting some charlatan to connect them to their own abstractions. As such the very meaning of the concept “nihilism” has been converted to its antithesis: defining a world void of manmade concepts, such as “god,” “whole,” “one,” “morality,” taken as universal absolutes, in other words understood as a world lacking what the mind has constructed, abstracted and considers literally, rather than as representation. This world, lacking their fabrications they call “negative”.
Moderns not only live in the delusion inside their own had, but they refuse to exit them. They prefer the words to remain meaningless, because then concepts like sex and morality and race can be dismissed as social constructs. If this is how nihilism has been used and abused, then what of the meaning of the word “meaning” itself.
Moderns use the word but they do not really understand what it means. All they know is the dictionary definition, and this is what they consider its meaning. But what does meaning really mean, if we wish to connect the linguistic convention, facilitating communication, found in dictionaries, and connect it to a real world, real life utility? To begin let us sample the meaning of the term, in the Greek, bringing us back to a shared tradition which Anglo-Saxon English fails to fully connect with. The equivalent of meaning, in Greek, would be {Νόημα}, comprised of two words: νοώ, or νους, and νήμα = thread. Rooted in the word νέομαι = to turn, re-turn, as when you weave thread together. Therefore, meaning means to turn, weave, in the mind, or to return, the thought to the world. To place in mind and then return to world. To weave, in mind, the world.
Meaning refers to the relationship of observed patterns (phenomena), as interested by a mind (noumenon). What we mean, by meaning, is our own understanding of how the different phenomena we experience relate to one another, as we’ve interested their relationships in our mind. To say something is ‘meaningless’ is to accuse it of lacking all cohesive relationship. These relationships may refer to external phenomena or may be entirely in our head, because in our head the relationships are more easily connected, whereas in reality they may refuse to abide by the observing mind’s will.
Now we add a new word: nonsense. Nonsense refers to meaning that lacks all sensual references. It lack sensuality, it is non-sense. When a meaning makes sense, it has an internal relationship corresponding to an external one. The esoteric abstractions is in harmony with an observable external relationship between phenomena, or patterns interacting. It is possible for a nonsensical relationship to be constructed din the mind, and in fact most Moderns live within these constructs – they live in a nonsensical world of their own making that has no reference outside their own minds. They may have given their constructs meaning, by abiding by a dictionary definition, but instead of referencing a world outside their brains, they have established noetic relationships inside their head, where the real world cannot contradict them. They live in a world full of meaning, but of no sense – a nonsensical world, or a world of meaningful nonsense.

So, meaning refers to noetic matrices, interconnecting concepts, that represent external relationship between phenomena.
More phenomena and matrices indicate a more complex and profound understanding - meaningfulness.
The degree of accuracy between internal matrices and external inter-connectedness indicates a degree of understanding the complexity of the real world.

The standard definition of the word "existence" implies no interactivity and no affectance. In other words, the statement "There is a part of reality that has no effect on anything else" makes perfect sense -- it is not a logical contradiction. Therefore, to state that the meaning of the word "existence" is "that which interacts" is to deviate from the standard definition by either replacing the original meaning or by increasing the number of meanings the word has.

The meaning of the word "existence" is well-known. There is little to no need to verbally describe its meaning, so any attempt to do so need not be perfectly accurate. Thus, definitions such as "that which is objectively real" should not be criticized for their obvious imperfections.

The best way to make it obvious that the word "existence" does not mean "that which interacts" is to realize that the statement "A portion of reality that has no effect on anything else" is not a logical contradiction.

(That's exactly the same way you show that the word "one" does not imply finitude. The statement "A physical object that is infinitely divisible" is not a logical contradiction.)

On the other hand, that which has no effect on anything else is of no relevance to humans, so one might be tempted to drop the general definition of the word "existence" in favor of a more restricted (= specific) one. But is that a good thing to do? I don't think so. That which has no effect on anything else might be of no use to humans, but words that can represent such things are clearly useful if for no other reason than because that's how we originally defined them.

I am of the strong opinion that:

1. the word "existence" never implied interactivity
2. the word "one" never implied finitude
3. the word "thing" never implied immutability
4. the word "universe" never implied finite space and time

These are Satyr's inventions.

Obviously, some people find highly abstract concepts highly problematic.

For example, a lot of people cannot comprehend Aristotle's concept of "actual/completed infinity" because they think the word "infinity" by definition implies lack of boundaries of any kind.

Implosion of multiplicity into a singularity occurs in the mind by noetically including "all" into one. The one is a reference to the abstraction.
Abstraction is a simplification/generalization of existence - converting the fluctuating dynamic into a static concept - retained in mind as a vague obscurity. Given a name, to imply an understanding and a synthesis.

In this way the multiplicity of known and unknown patterns and non-patterned energies are conceptualized as a whole - as a complete one.

An infinite oneness, is like omnipotence and omniscience - a nonsensical concept with no external references.
a one-god, is absurd for this reason alone. It, the very concept, is a contradiction of existence.

In a similar way when a mind conceptualizes one bottle, one cow, it detaches it from space/time, and places noetic borders around it - usually a specific piece of space time, or a specific part of the continuum which is the cow.
It abstracts the cow and bottle by simplifying/generalizing its momentum, measured in time. It cuts it...or freezes it, like a camera freezes space/time to produce a photo.
The photo of a cow is a piece of space/time, representing the cow. It exists as a representation, but it is not the cow itself.
The cow is a mutable divisible and mortal phenomenon....a continuum wit a finite existence.
The photo of a cow may exists longer than the cow - the space/time it represents frozen in time - much like a memory.

No complete whole, no fullness, no complete anything.
All is momentum....movement towards and away. This movement is frozen by the mind as abstraction - idea, concept, when integrated into a group of ideas.

Quote :

True meaning is found between mind and world; like a map that had meaning only when it refers to an external geography.

The meaning of a symbol, such as a word, is the set of all phenomena that can be represented by that word.

For example, the meaning of the word "dog" is the set of all physical objects that can be represented by the word "dog".

If a word cannot be used to represent anything that exists, it does not mean it is meaningless. The word "unicorn", for example, is not meaningless.

Again, you are using words in a way that noone does and you have no way of proving how you use words is how they were originally used.

You did and I am telling you that's not what the word "meaning" means.