Page 20 of 23 « First<1819202122>Last »
Topic Options
#62039 - 11/29/11 11:53 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Let's continue then.

The situation as is, if I correctly understood, is me apparently painted in a corner. I'm amused.

D.

Top
#62042 - 11/30/11 03:13 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
OK. So let me get this straight. HOW MANY angels can stand on the head of a pin?
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#62044 - 11/30/11 06:32 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Jake999]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I would probably take a post that begins to imply an evaluation of character or action and ends with an accusation of wanking with a sack of salt but that is just me...

D let me ask you one simple things.

Is the claim as simple as 'All language is abstraction' ?



Edited by thedeadidea (11/30/11 06:39 AM)

Top
#62045 - 11/30/11 07:28 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Jake999]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
OK. So let me get this straight. HOW MANY angels can stand on the head of a pin?


I believe the answer was determined to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million per pinhead. But that's all give and take, since it depends on how many angels were left in each choir after the Rebellion.

JK
_________________________



Top
#62046 - 11/30/11 09:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Jason King]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ This is a closing statement from me for this thread, abstraction not being a debate, I post here two things which I hope may be somewhat useful to take into account.

1 : The earliest known writing system developed by the Sumer was composed of Pictographs in cuneiforms that were supposed to symbolicaly resemble a concept, object, or event - the Sumer abstracted these pictographs from actual things. A little like the onomatopeia or a word that sounds like the sound it makes, i.e. galoshes.

Later the pictographs evolved into a syllabic cuneiform which was deciphered only from the 1960's onwards. The beginning of the earliest written records of language are grounded in a sympathetic connection that abstracted [or extracted if you prefer] information from the thing percieved, into an equivalent symbol that stored the necessary information, until someone else read it, abstracted and evoked the information. The fact that the Sumer made the leap from Pictogram to Syllabic [slowly, over a thousand years or so] was the necessary leap through which written language evolved - but it was originally grounded in the symbolic attributes abstracted from an object, stored in a glyph, which glyph then evoked or was intended to evoke, or recall, that information.

Nothing has really changed in the process, - except perhaps for the complexities of the process as time has gone by. - we still extract information from words to relate to some real thing.


2 : English, derives from Latin, wherein Latin was a deliberate attempt by the Papacy to amalgamate many of the most common Languages into one unified language to spread the word of the Church / Holy See and stamp out resistance. As a side-effect it carries within it the specific relational attitudes to time and space and the dualism of monotheism - wherein to say one thing, automatically sets up the exclusion of others.

When we say 'Language is an abstraction' we are really referring to TWO things, but habitually use a SINGULAR sentence. This, confuses us.

There is the +, or 'Language+' or the act of speaking, verbally communicating, USED to abstract which + or real thing itself is not an abstraction;
and there is the -, or 'Language-' being the word, term, concept used to refer to 'Language' which term is an abstraction of Language+.

The wall itself is not an abstraction. 'The Wall' as a descriptor - is. My explaination is both and abstract, and an event of its own accord. But since the TWO occur simultaneously due to the nature of language - confusion ensues because there is no distinction between event and description of event.

History records, through such records as law manifestoes, building legislation, and other documents - that despite whatever
a culture thought of objects, abstraction, form - Sumer, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, or otherwise that a falling block - killed you. So no matter how you wanted to percieve an object - it existed of its own unknown accord.

If we place an object on a table in a room - and seat 12 people from around the world around it and ask them to name it - what do we get? potentially - 12 different answers. Can the object be all of these? Yes - because what we abstract [abstract-] is changeable. Reality is concensus.

And - to a lesser or greater extent history-wise we could do more or less to actually change the composition of the apple - whether we painted it, ate it, cooked it, made wine, applejuice, fermented it, dropped it, cut it, boiled it, blew it up, grafted it, poisoned it, or whatever.

But the object contains no singular expression of its being no matter what we do to its composition - it cannot and does not inform us what it is at its essence from its point of view - we only abstract its information, from ours - we call it a solid, liquid or gas, or any other convenient term that stores information we have, over time, loaded language with to automatically trigger associations stored in the information - but these are abstractions, because there is no such thing, as a singularity. Even the Sun - which has been the same sun all people who have ever walked earth - has different names and meanings depending on where you go, it looks different depending on where on earth and at what time you go. Like everything else+ is has infinite variations because it is sub-connected to every other thing.

It is only conjecture that there is such a thing as a discrete object [separate] such as a ball separate from the ground or your spleen - wherein it may very well be that we are in one thick moving soup where time and space are figments - as quantum has suggested, and that psychotic accelerator they built in Germany somewhere to fire atoms faster than the speed of light [and did] in a ring [where many said it would collapse the earth if they achieved] - only shows the ever-changing face of physics, and reveals our prejudices toward space and time for what they are - changeable -, not definite +.

The way we abstract also has a great deal to do with our particular height and size. A toddler sees the world differently from a child due to the event horizon shift which, child sees the word very differently from an adult due the same lowered event horizon shift. Likewise is the world tailored unconsciously toward Right-handed people because they are the majority - and most of whom never think to themselves that those of us who are Left-Handed find difficulty with the subsequent geometry.

[edit] Wherein, I make this last point as an allegory for the unflinching monotheism that English was created from and for - and was not designed to be a vehicle for Pagan thoughts outside of a Very definite rigour and standard of Time, and of Space, and of God. It is an unnatural creation, magical and deliberate that binds us to a specific dimension. It is a prison designed to deify an archaic type of mind. +O+

Anyway...




Edited by Khk (11/30/11 10:06 AM)

Top
#62049 - 11/30/11 10:34 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
Is the claim as simple as 'All language is abstraction' ?



The abstraction is language at work but no, I'd say the only time we don't abstract when using language, is when we communicate about that which both directly observe.

D.

Top
#62055 - 11/30/11 12:03 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Even then, though, there is no guarantee the two observers will interpret what they observe in the same fashion, much less be able to communicate it with any accuracy.

Nevermind the receivers ability to extrapolate with any accuracy that which is at the base of any given attempt at explanation.

I still say all written and spoken language amounts to abstraction.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#62057 - 11/30/11 12:11 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Agreed Dan but the main difference is that both will be talking about the "real" in such a case.

When we're sitting somewhere and I mention that tree out there, even when the observation of us both is not necessarily a perfect match, we'll both be talking about that thing out there called tree which we both observe at that very moment. So one could consider language in these cases as not being subject to abstraction, comfortably ignoring reality itself is an abstraction. But that's a hornet's nest we better not kick right now.

In all other cases language is merely a collection of simplified triggers. I say a word which triggers in you what this word symbolizes but it no longer has any connection to the real even when much has its origin there.

D.

Top
#62058 - 11/30/11 01:14 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Sure I hear what you are saying, much of language maps in no way to anything in reality. Most of what qualifies as 'philosophy' or 'religion' comes to mind.

Still though, even in cases where language maps directly to something real, the words themselves can only ever be an abstract representation of that something, and depends on the person being communicated to having certain experiences in common.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#62059 - 11/30/11 01:24 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Yes and no. I would differ it as language either being a pointer or a trigger, depending upon its use. When we see that tree, the word "points" towards the observable while when the word is used without any direct observation, it "triggers" that which is tree to you.

It's like the difference between a photo and a cartoon drawing. The first is very clear what it is about while the second needs a degree of imagination to make sense.

To those others out there; yeah we're being nerdy.

D.

Top
#62064 - 11/30/11 05:25 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
The recent branch off in this thread reminds me of my rather brief foray into understanding and implementing e-prime. I find it a fascinating idea and it does seem to remove some of the gray area involved in explanation by way of forcing one to think in more concise terms and admitting to what is and isn't perception. My experiment didn't last too long because removing 'be, to be' from one's vocabulary can prove cumbersome and difficult. I try to analyze things this way though.

Of course the real nut to crack here appears to be that perhaps most things are subject to perception and interpretation and a baseline between even two people may sometimes be difficult to establish.

Have I linked this RAW video here before? \:\)

Ties to the discussion via language/interpretation.


Edited by Fnord (11/30/11 05:28 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#62070 - 11/30/11 09:43 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Fnord]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Right so language from a wholesale term is moving to the act and witnessing of communication. Rather becoming communication itself. We communicate(have language) that is often subconscious, body language, tone and other inferences has no place in ideas or comprehension.

The other thing which is being ignored it how people acquire and learn language. Abstractions are a set of first principles which involve little to no character. We use language to make specific inferences and communicate the rules of the game might be what they are but we each play specifically. Words are only given meaning by the words we place next to them. Given the specific transactions of communication in content describing an object, making specific references, complexities of grammar etc abstraction seems like an inapt reduction. Children demonstrate the ability to derive this use of language is specifically creative ways using unique sentence structures quite early in the game.

Communication/Language as/is/kinda/maybe abstraction(there are a few things being tossed round and for a variety of reasons).

I'll just go with cognition being the foundation of Worldview and just the foundation of all things human.




Edited by thedeadidea (11/30/11 10:04 PM)

Top
#62071 - 12/01/11 07:06 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Actually we have never been talking about anything else but written or spoken language here.

D.

Top
#62072 - 12/01/11 08:57 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Actually that barely responds to anything which I raised.


Actually by not including non verbal language one is hardly talking of a comprehensive discussion on language at all.

Actually you are hardly talking about anything much at all but meandering around describing a cognitive base of language. Although this does nothing to actually justify your nothing statement language is abstraction.


Actually you never defined any of your terms with any real clarity.

Actually what you would crudely be describing is best centered around phonology perhaps more specifically a shitty rendition of the theory of signs.

Actually that is relevant but hardly the basis or only concern linguistics as a study is built on. It is only one component of language and hardly comprehensive enough to say one is discussing language in any holistic sense.

Actually you are ignoring syntax structures,semantics and pragmatics all of which are integral to spoken and written language. In which language ceases to function in abstraction because words take on specific referents and statements. Actually this comprises the vast majority of human communication to one another and our conscious or inner narrative.

Actually the abstraction as ideas is not a psychological premise but actually more relevant to philosophical idealism where objects retain little to no detail.

This is how things actually remain consistent and whilst abstract concepts or language might in some ways derive first principles on individual entities. Abstractions actually do not comprise the specific rules of grammar at all.

Actually I'm done here.

TDI

p.s. Actually.


Edited by thedeadidea (12/01/11 09:03 AM)

Top
#62073 - 12/01/11 09:06 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I respond to it didn't I?

We have always been talking about language in the sense of using words or sentences when communicating. That's been very obvious.

So the claim was that language was either an abstraction in all cases, as Dan proposed, or in most cases an abstraction, as I said, or not a fucking abstraction as you said. Dan and I stated our arguments and that was that.

You now suddenly start to talk about things we didn't talk about at all. Sure there is body language, as there is sign language and yes language is acquired as there are several methods to "store" it. And there's visual language too.

But all of these are besides the point debated.

The point was: whenever I use a word or sentence to communicate; is this an abstraction?

You said no; which is totally fine with me but instead of providing arguments for this no and show us why we're wrong, you dodge the actual point in the hope as such to still preserve a win.

D.


Top
Page 20 of 23 « First<1819202122>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.