back to the beginning: the limitations of language

The Limits of Language?
Ronin Winter

On the other hand, “for all practical purposes” what does this mean given the fact that in most communities the killing of others is a fact of life. And the language we use in reacting to that fact – to the killings themselves – must accommodate countless sets of circumstances. So the question becomes who decides what the limits of language are in connecting the dots between words and worlds.

Logic then.

Logic and capital punishment. Logic and assisted suicide. Logic and euthanasia. Logic and abortion. Logic and self-defense. Of course here the language employed by science is no less problematic.

That’s why I created a language of my own. One that revolves around differentiating the use of language and logic in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. In one, being altogether and in the other fractured and fragmented.

Then back to how this in and of itself is but another “general description intellectual contraption”. The sharp boundaries and clarity revolving around how we define the meaning of these words…logically?

And clear and distinct thoughts when you defended, say, the trucker protest in Canada, or clear and distinct thoughts when you defended the government?

My clear and distinct thoughts on this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … &start=475 – or gib’s clear and distinct thoughts?

Context please…how does this apply in our everyday life, like when Mary Land fucks a loser, Jack Black, and is impregnated with his undesirable seed?
How do we apply your copy paste, references then?

I need a play by play.

Absolutely shameless!!

She always wins…lose/lose for the resat of us.
If you respond, she wins; if not, she wins…no matter what you say, she ignores it and posts the same nonsense and wins.

This cunt is unbeatable.
Like all cunts.

What man has ever gotten into a fight with a cunt and not walked away…as she laughed at him ‘running away’?

He means me. Sorry.

Fire with Fire…

Deal with repetitive cut & paste, that ignores everything said, with a repetitive cut & paste that does not.

Works in any context.

Language in nihilism’s memetic DNA.
Using words they invert meaning, by first detaching words from their mediating role, connecting the noumenon ([size=85]abstraction, concept, idea[/size]) to the phenomenon ([size=85]appearance, inter-activity, energies[/size]).
They detach and then reconnect intentionally - usually to emotions, feelings, sacred texts…references to other minds.

They call this “esoteric”…to conceal the motive.
They use obscurantism to insinuate and use the target’s private needs/desires.
Like fArtists use the observer’s weakness to sell their abstract garbage as “high art”…when it is nonsensical garbage.

Note to my Philosophy Now forum brothers and sisters:

Let this be a warning of what can happen to a philosophy discussion forum when the Kids, the fulminating fanatic objectivists and the pinheads take it over.

Well, in a free will universe anyway.

Context generator, for retards…

Note to my Philosophy Now forum brothers and sisters:

Let this be a warning of what can happen to a philosophy discussion forum when the Kids, the fulminating fanatic objectivists and the pinheads take it over.

Well, in a free will universe anyway.

Not to worry though. I’m only here to humor him.

See?
=D>

By the way, if you’re really looking for a good laugh, go here: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

See?
=D>
Nothing

I agree, albeit, a designation of the familial to the more familiar (image replacing the role they play in a deconstructed memory) is perhaps a more sensible way of putting it, not involving subabstracted perhaps unrecoverable emetic-genetic bonds, which are still a hotly debated what if.

All begins with the act - interaction.
All is energy.
Energy that is ordered - patterned - and energies that are chaotic - random, lack order.

Consciousness only perceives patterns because life feeds on patterns, needs patterns, is a unity of patterns.

Mind interprets patterns as scents, textures, sounds, images etc.
Those faster than his mind’s processing speed - his metabolic rhythms - it interprets as energies…those slower it interprets as matter…with a range in-between, for air, liquid etc.
The patterns sequence, rhythm, speed, is interpreted as a kind - ειδος.
Different patterns = different types of phenomena - apparent.
Appearance is how the mind interprets presence of patterns.

Chaotic energies cannot form complex unities so they remain on the infinitesimal scale, affecting patterns inconspicuously.
What we call free-will - choice - deals with these chaotic effects, manifesting the novel, the unforeseeable, requiring real time adjustment to interactivity.

Philosophy uses words to create meaning
Meaning is the interconnected matrices of phenomena/noumena.

Metaphorically.
Philosophy is a mental map of a geography.
Nihilism’s map is a fantasy map or an anti-map, rep[resenting no experienced geography.
Points on the map are phenomena in the world.
Distances, elevations, terrain etc. represent connectivity.
all these connection establish meaning.

A philosophy that cannot define its own concepts is not a philosophy - it is an anti-philosophy
Anti-wisdom.
No lover of wisdom.

A definition that cannot connect the concept to experienced reality - world - is all theory.
If it is used to replace the world it is nihilistic.

Example:
A spirituality that proposes a singularity, negating the world’s multiplicity, is anti-world.
A philosophy that proposes an immutable, indivisible, thing-in-itself, or a god-particle, or a one/nil - an absolute. Is anti-world.
a philosophy that constructs an elegant, magical fantasy map that corresponds to no existing geography, yet offers the mind an alternate world, i.e., Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or DC MARVEL Universes, or Rowling’s Harry Potter overlapping fantasy world, is nihilistic if it is literally believed and considered to be more real than the real world.

Semiotics - words, symbols, codes - are mediating connectors between the mind’s representations - abstractions, concepts - and the world outside the mind, experienced via a mediating interactive phenomenon e.g. light, atmosphere.
The map is a noetic representation of the world, not the world itself; nor is it a replacement alternate world.
Like a map it uses symbols, converting mathematically, the world to a representation of the world - an interpretation.
The interpretation - like any good map - is not arbitrary, nor is it imposed upon people by some collective; its utility is based on its accuracy and its accuracy is easily evaluated by every mind independently.

A map requires constant updates because all is in motion - dynamic. It requires constant reaffirmation.
The utility of the map is not determined by its popularity, like fantasy maps that use the map to escape the real world, not to engage it.

Three levels.
Physis… primary - ground, dynamic, interactive, existent.
Metaphysis…foundation of physis. Aligned with, not contradicting physis. Secondary - foundation.
ideal…aligned with the first two, projected as an objective - an orienting goal. Tertiary - ambition, destination.

These three bring us to Plato’s psyche:
Reason (charioteer) - Will (reigns) - Passions (steeds)
Past (immutable, determined) - present/presence (dynamic interactive becoming, determining) - Future (projection, yet to be determined)

Past manifests presence - perceived as appearance - moving towards the forever distancing future (space/time expanding outward, from a near absolute point that never finalized - Yin/Yang.
Chaos/Order
Patterned/Non-Patterned Energies.
Chaos is not complexity, it is the absence of pattern (order) which a conscious mind cannot perceive directly and so interprets it as void, darkness, abyss.

If only philosophically.

See, a-philosophy
Just mock, nullify, undermine…she’s a typical Americanized cunt.

When I leave this shit-hole all that you people will have is this.
No definition of words, just gibberish, quotes and some laughable commentary that pretends to be saying something relative.

The Limits of Language?
Ronin Winter

And yet we all know that in regard to countless contexts in our actual lived lives, language does reflect reality with a precision that if not the “absolute truth” will do into it finally shows up.

Language:

[b]"Spoken words are produced when air expelled from the lungs passes through a series of structures within the chest and throat and passes out through the mouth. The structures involved in that process are as follows: air that leaves the lungs travels up the trachea (windpipe) into the larynx. (The larynx is a longish tube that joins the trachea to the lower part of the mouth.) Two sections of the larynx consist of two thick, muscular folds of tissue known as the vocal cords.

“When a person wishes to say a word, muscles in the vocal cords tighten up. Air that passes through the tightened vocal cords begins to vibrate, producing a sound. The nature of that sound depends on factors such as how much air is pushed through the vocal cords and how tightly the vocal cords are stretched.”[/b]

True for all of us except those who are afflicted with medical conditions that prevent them from speaking.

And the limits of language in the either/or world revolves mostly around the extent to which someone actually does know what they are talking about. But the crucial point is that there is in fact an objective reality that can be conveyed with language.

I must be missing something here. Probabilistic truth? Joe Biden wanted to be president. Joe Biden campaigned to be president. Joe Biden won the election and became president. Joe Biden, the president, now occupies the Oval Office. That’s probably true?

No, instead, where language here becomes problematic is when it shifts from what some insist are these actual historical facts to another set of alleged facts altogether. The ones coming out of the mouths of those who insist that the democratic process was corrupted by the Democrats and that in fact Donald Trump really won the election.

And here, in the absence of an omniscient God, mere mortals do the best they can in trying to accumulate a set of facts that comes closest to the objective truth. But it’s generally understood by both sides that there is an objective truth. Biden either did win fair and square or he cheated.

And then language becomes especially problematic [given my own moral philosophy] when it is used to judge the social, political and economic policies of Joe Biden as either more or less rational and virtuous.

A constant stream of commentary and critique.
This is what she considers “philosophy”.

If she were commenting and critiquing art she would consider herself an artist.
She has nothing.
Literally, nil is all she has.

Her motive is to undermine, reduce confidence, seed uncertainty, to make her “compromises” possible.
She’s a Neo-Marxist, opportunist.
An anti-philoospher…an a-moralist that contradicts herself.