Random Thought

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Based on my theory & knowledge of conceptual thought and how it applies to metaphoric language building … I came to a random thought today.

There are predominantly two kinds of statements that people can make: knowledgeable / unknowledgeable statements. A “knowledgeable” statement implies that the person speaking has a basic understanding of (or premise for) the meaning of the communication being derived under any and every possible circumstance. For example, a cheering fan may be excited after his team won a soccer game. Hollering and screaming loudly expresses a certain knowledge that the person (probably) knows the meaning of its verbal expression and the purpose for being happy. Similarly, when any opinion or semantic expression is given (whether philosophical, scientific, or religious), the speaker should have a knowledge of the words they choose to utilize. If knowledge cannot be claimed in any circumstances, then the respective person is “unknowledgeable” about his / her own communication. This is the basis for misunderstanding within every living language (of specie).

My random thought is this: all knowledgeable sentence structures are comprised of a person’s whole entity of life, being, and existence. This means that when a person speaks or communicates in any form (implying knowledge) that he / she is vocalizing reflections of an entire lifetime of processed & refined metaphorical concepts. Whether the language being used is fragmented or adhering to common & cultural grammatical standards, the expression of knowledge is rooted in the self to which is being referenced. In other words, my words are the story of “me-myself”. Within every knowledgeable statement I make necessarily goes into the completion of my life’s works & struggles. And there is a conclusion to be had from this…

If I deconstruct any fragment or sentence comprised of assumed knowledge, then every complete expression of communication reveals the whole entity (or self) of a given individual. It is not the language that then changes from sentence to sentence, merely the change of self that is being reflected. And finally, language rests on order & consistency, an assumption that self-knowledge stays consistent when communicated, a reference point or a “relativity of person”.

P.S. I’m bored and I have nobody to engage philosophy with…

2

To be honest most of what you said couldn’t penetrate the fog of fatigue that my head is in right now at this late hour but this one sentence resonates with some similar thoughts I’ve had recently, notably the idea of reflection. Consider the mirror, there are two, the subject (I) the object (reflection), the I is in a state of constant change, the reflection is merely the image of the I at each frame of change. We contradict our nature of constant change by using the language of the mirror, I’m referring to the statement of is, beauty is…, art is…, god is…
If Time is eternal, it flows never ceasing, like a river, to make a statement of is obstructs the flow, ice is frozen water, frozen motion, here in ice the reflection appears, here we can say such a thing is whatever it appears to be, because that is all we can know it by, in a frozen world, but we don’t live in a frozen world so nothing is it always appears to be such a thing at this point in time but swiftly changes to the next.

](*,) time for bed, bran dead.

3

Take it to the next level… :astonished:

4

I need more beer to solve this “problem”…

5

:laughing: I don’t advocate E-Prime in my speech, that’d be too much effort but it is useful for thought especially in arguments concerning what is or is not right wrong good bad ugly beautiful etc.