Page 22 of 23 « First<1920212223>
Topic Options
#62095 - 12/02/11 01:26 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Nice dodge ace.
Top
#62096 - 12/02/11 01:41 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4007
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What point are you trying to make here, other than what seems to be highlighting why equivocation of definition is one of the major pitfalls of the english language?

Look, it's very simple. A communication of the idea of 'thingness' is not itself 'thingness'. The articulation of an experience is not the experience. Using the word 'abstraction' in some other context is neither here nor there in regards to the subject at hand.
_________________________



Top
#62100 - 12/02/11 08:17 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
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: Dan_Dread
Look, it's very simple. A communication of the idea of 'thingness' is not itself 'thingness'. The articulation of an experience is not the experience.


There is a very good article in the literature on this (actually a slightly more technical precursor issue), I'd recommend it to everyone:

What Mary Didn't Know , by Frank Jackson.

JK
_________________________



Top
#62102 - 12/02/11 09:00 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
Nice dodge ace.


Dodge? Whatever.

First you boldly claim language is no fucking abstraction.
Then you have to google to find unrelated arguments.
Then it is an abstraction but it doesn't mean I'm right.
Then the definition you ask for isn't good enough.
Then only your definition counts and it isn't an abstraction.

You see, I'm willing to debate with anyone but once they behave as a twelve year old, I am wasting my time. And this is sadly what you have been doing. Sure you think you're a big boy but all I see is a kid crying "it is not!".

If you grow up, I might one day take you serious.

D.

Top
#62106 - 12/02/11 10:34 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209


Dodge? Whatever.

First you boldly claim language is no fucking abstraction.
*** I did also provided reasoning for it to whether you can comprehend it or not is a different story. Still waiting for a single definition of abstraction on your part which would support your thesis.
Then you have to google to find unrelated arguments.
*** Actually no I've read and done research on this material before drunk I can reference Steven Pinker the language instinct and I also watched a youtube series from Yale on literary theory to which semiotics was covered and did further research. But I have come to expect ad homenim ad infinitum from you anyway so I wouldn't worry about it.
Then it is an abstraction but it doesn't mean I'm right.
**** A single instance of talking about a tree doesn't mean anything from a concrete or specific reference in time and space is abstract. Listing one example hardly proves you right don't be a fucking retard.
Then the definition you ask for isn't good enough.
***** That is because you give a definition not only from no other source but define it by question and what it is not. Try christian apologetics if this is your usual rhetorical tact you would have a natural inclination for it.
Then only your definition counts and it isn't an abstraction.
**** I challenge you to quote me once saying ONLY MY DEFINITION COUNTS then count the number of times I asked you for a definition including this one. I know which number will be greater than zero.


You see, I'm willing to debate with anyone but once they behave as a twelve year old, I am wasting my time. And this is sadly what you have been doing. Sure you think you're a big boy but all I see is a kid crying "it is not!".

***** ad hominem ad infinitum


If you grow up, I might one day take you serious.
***** Yo Momma.

Top
#62109 - 12/02/11 11:05 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
What point are you trying to make here, other than what seems to be highlighting why equivocation of definition is one of the major pitfalls of the english language?

Look, it's very simple. A communication of the idea of 'thingness' is not itself 'thingness'. The articulation of an experience is not the experience. Using the word 'abstraction' in some other context is neither here nor there in regards to the subject at hand.


I actually like you Dan and you know this so I will take some time to sincerely respond. Look man I think I have already said and recognized the map is not the territory. Though I am drunk I know I referred specifically to the fact you might as well reduce the entirety of phenomenon in some sense being consciousness. More specifically I referred to cognition being the root of language or at least the usage of it and worldview.

The problem here is the reduction, I refuse to acknowledge other definitions or the definition of abstraction being used as relevant. Namely thus far I am the only one thus far to provide a definition which is a cut and paste job from wikipedia and this is supposed to be a 'debate'(someone else's words not mine).

Basically when you say why I am I attached to the semantic definition of the english language. I would throw the same criticism back at you sir as it would probably come from your investment like D, KhK and any other of the 'we' discussing it here from the philosophical predilection in investing in that terminology. Hell to anyone with a clue it would be clear the star game symbolism or lingo is an esoteric form of semiotics.

My challenge is simply to infer that to say first principles of language is language is fucking retarded. It is more or less like saying humans are compiled of organic elements. In some sense yes but so is every other animal and the atmosphere so the reduction is stupidly vague. Because it does not describe the animal in any detail it set out to define I reject it in the same way Nostradamus has a prediction that is equally as applicable to the London Fires and 9/11.

When we build up language into specific statements and sentences, describe events and give specific referents. They cease to be abstract references or grounded in the realm of ideas by categorical imperative and context. At this point the language ceases to become abstract and specific and by definition this would not be an abstraction.

I am hardly hiding behind smoke and mirrors asking for a definition or a source for that matter. For this supposed debate but fucktarded exchange I would more aptly phrase. If the central debate is around how we use words and senteces some of these will be abstraction yes but others not. Simply because as statements the words cease to be isolated references and become contextually more.

Mathematics is a number each numeral 0-9 but 69 is no more the mere combination of 6 and 9 as ball is 'my soccer ball I threw to Stewart on a Friday afternoon'.

This is of course going by common definitions and appropriations of the word. Which seem utterly relevant in public discourse because I'm about as inclined to take 'original sin' as a legitimate conceptual proposition as any other language communities specific jargon by matter of debate or discourse. Which considering I am (?)/was(?) supposedly in one I don't see shit for me to just take it as a transparent. Though I do sincerely suspect that this 'debate' is about as sincere as everything I said in the post of wank innuendo but perhaps made to be taken seriously.

I don't know but at this point I don't really give a damned I'll debate/discuss whoever/whenever on the topic in some kind of live discourse chatroom, BTR or otherwise. But the forum shit is chopped liver there is too much fucking tap dancing going on and in something of an actual debate the same rhetorical pussy footing would disappear.

Top
#62110 - 12/02/11 11:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
And this is why we should close our Internet browsers when we drink. I understand you're very close to making sense here, although I can't be bothered to sift through the circlespeak at the moment.

I'm not trying to criticize from a position of incomprehension or ignorance here, but you're making it very difficult to understand exactly what you're trying to say, and I suspect the drinking didn't help.

Please understand I'm not out to ridicule you in public, just kindly ask you to make more of an effort to make sense. It's polite advice, and I suggest you take it.

Plenty of people post stuff here while inebriated, and most of them actually make sense. If you suspect this may not be the case with you, it might be a good idea to not bother.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#62125 - 12/02/11 05:25 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Unfortunately the computer I am typing on right now does not allow me to copy and paste.

If it did I would refer members to a simple Wiki page on the Linguistic Sign or Sign (Semiotics). I know they are Wiki, but they are still quite good for just giving the basics.

What is meaning at its most basic? What is the basic element of culture?

Well it is the semiotic sign and that sign comprises two parts, which together in totality produce the meaning, constitute the sign.

These two parts or sides of the sign are the signifier and the signified.

The signifier is the accoustic or graphic figure or image. So I say tree and that speech act itself is the signifier in this particular case.

The signified is the ideational component, the concept, the thought object which the spoken word or image (signifier) elicits in the mind.

Together they form a sign. This sign is completely arbitrary, it is completely cultural and it gains meaning from what it is not just as from what it is. Its place in the system and in distinction to every other sign gives it a meaningful distinctive place.

The referent is the real "material object" in the world to which a sign refers to. There is no necessary relation between a sign and a referent in the world. Again the sign is arbitrary, culturally created.

The notion of abstraction confuses me somewhat. I would talk about culture and the arbitrary nature of the sign in order to discuss how language, as an order of meaning, enjoys a separate existence, to the order of the material world of objects.

How does a human acquire language in the first place? Not sure, science may be able to speculate somewhat. I think cultural pressures and the need to be able to function with others plays its part.

Top
#62126 - 12/02/11 05:39 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What you mention as not necessary having a relation with the referent in the world is what we talk about when we say abstraction. It is separated from (the real) even when it might have its origin there.

D.

Top
#62127 - 12/02/11 05:45 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Yes indeed D. I could see that you were using the word abstraction in that way.

Talking about the arbitrary nature of the sign was intended to bring more clarity to the discussion of language as so called abstraction from the real. It was intended to bring a better set of wording/meaning.

Top
#62128 - 12/02/11 05:55 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I enjoyed your input and your mentioning of culture related to language. Even environment plays a role.

To use the simplified tree example again, when we both communicate and the word tree is used, even when we both directly understand what the other talks about, the tree in my mind is most likely the sort of tree I am familiar with in my environment, while you might be living in Africa and imagine quite a different tree.

What happens in our mind when communicating might not only be quite different from reality, but also from each other.

D.

Top
#77470 - 06/27/13 10:57 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
As I see it, Satan is not needed, nor Set, nor any titled deity or archetype. Forms are vehicles of enlightenment and personal development, and becoming stuck in any one form is to restrict that growth, thus logic dictates that, while all forms must be Interrogated, ultimately, all Interrogated forms must be torn down, that the adherent Know that they have not become stuck.


I suppose that depends on the wielder of the scalpel. While I can agree with you that some people get 'stuck', and its certainly your prerogative to shirk pre-conceived modeling but there's something that your missing here. I can't help but notice how much time you spend having to explain your own modeling, and with due frustration. Case in point, any real critique is taken as a criticism as the Stone becomes a pebble shattered on the anvil.

What you have left is dust, are you going to examine every granule to determine its nature? Or are you going to scoop it up and put it in your pocket?

 Quote:
The essence underlying these forms is Human, thus the human essence is the most important. Not how forms get along or progress... wtf?


How important is the form to you really?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#91073 - 07/20/14 06:54 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Interview with Darryl Hutchins II, The Sinister without Superstition

Transhumanism explained.
The Numinious.
The Sinister.
Interrogistic Symbolism.

Enjoy!
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#91088 - 07/20/14 07:17 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: SIN3]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2092
Loc: Texas
Bottom line:

Lives off the system (presumably via student loans) or not?

Sounds like it to me, but I could be wrong.
_________________________
From the ashes arisen

Top
#91090 - 07/20/14 08:22 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Fnord]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Technically he's a 'sometimes' college student. Student loans for sure, maybe he's moonlighting as a pimp by night. Who can say?

heh
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 22 of 23 « First<1920212223>


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.011 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.