"There is nothing new under the sun." And its all be done before... blah blah blah.. is what people say.

But each thing created, each thing done, each thing re-created is unique in that the person creating it is unique. Nothing is exactly like something else and no one is exactly like someone else.

It is because of this that the universe expands and changes and evolves.

I could win any battle of wits with you with one wit tied behind my back. (and I have many times.)

But its not worth my time.

You are not a nice person and yes, I don't really like you.

And I don't know why you keep referencing a cockroach; you obviously did not comprehend the meaning of my story of the cockroach at all, which is no surprise to me, and you are obviously hung up about that and think you can use it to ridicule me. Go pick on someone who cares.

Bee - Oh - Oh

Aitch - Oh - Oh


But I am sure that went right over your head!


Why would I be nice to you? Why should I be? You have said so much **** to me since you joined here. I think it has gone on long enough. I told you that a while ago, and informed you that I would not be as dismissive(submissive) to your 'verbal' jabs any more. I am keeping my word. Notice how you started it! I really do not give a rat's *** whether or not you ever respond in a thread I begin or not. In fact, I wish you would not. Because after a year and a half of having been exposed to you, I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Eventually you will say something very condescending, and then whine about it when it is returned...

Get a grip.

I do not like you either.

You think I want you to be nice to me? No, I don't expect that from you at all. That is not the reason for my remark. I have seen how you speak to other people. I've seen you get angry. There is no love there.

I'm not saying that you are a "bad" person, I just don't feel or see any evidence of love coming from you. In fact I don't even dislike you. I just don't 'like' you. There is a difference. Your emotional out bursts at me don't show strength. If anything they show weakness. Do you think I care what you think of me? I don't. You can think of me any way you wish. I won't analyze you. I just think you have a serious problem and should get help.

I won't enter your threads any more. I'll let them die on their own merit.

Refutation of what?

What exactly did you present other than to demand that the definition of the word 'thought' be restricted to only mean 'language-like' thinking?

I'm afraid that if you made a point beyond that it slipped by me completely.

Dead Thread

** And the ant looks up at those huge tower like bodies and shakes his head at how complicated humans have made their lives. **

Interestingly enough, this thread is a good example of exactly how difficult it can be to build a bridge of mutual understanding between people who hold beliefs stemming from different perspectives regarding the same subject matter, especially when those prior beliefs are of an absolute nature and are entirely constructed of meaning.

I find it curious enough to want to further devolop the conversation into the root of that notion.

It is easy to understand how humans can become so attached to foundational beliefs that the very process of contemplating new(contradictory) information is biased from the start. Biased, I mean, in such a way that the new information is immediately weighed against that which is already held to be true/accurate without a doubt.

All normal functioning humans consciously act upon logical grounds which are founded completely in belief. Sometimes those grounds are irrational and illogical, none-the-less a conscious decision between known choices is born from one's ability to recognize the different options available and to then act in accordance with what that person deems as a possible outcome for the action(s) taken.

That is assuming, of course, that one consciously thinks about what it is that they are doing.

If one is not consciously thinking about what it is that they are doing, then one is acting in accordance with previously established unconscious elements of belief. As James mentioned earlier, one can drive a car - after enough practice - without actually consciously considering all of the necessary steps that are required to perform such a task. The important thing to note when considering all of this(assuming that one is actually contemplating it) is the fact that all of those necessary elements have been previously thought about in the conscious mind beforehand enough times that those steps have become unconscious elements. That is how the unconscious elements gain their existence within our mind. We can say the same about eating with silverware, walking, washing the dishes, and any other conscious task... incuding conscious thinking.

When and if one applies this consideration to human knowledge, it becomes quite apparent that the foundation of human knowledge is both conscious and unconscious belief. Thus, the importance of what it is that one believes is held in the spotlight.

Belief is constructed with language. Doubt is born of conscious contradiction between current experience and prior belief - through language. Conscious thought is but a recollection of experience and invokes the need for memory - through language(representational understanding). Memory is constructed solely of language(not necessarily words). Therefore, language grounds the very existence of belief, doubt, memory, and conscious and unconscious thought.

Thought is unspoken language.

This, I think at least, highlights the importance of not only what one is taught to believe, but exactly how one is taught to construct that it is which they believe, which is also necessarily dependent upon language.

I think that sums it up quiet well

Yes. THE END.

As a conclusion I think the idea that the structure of the mind is a developmental processes that never ends until death is valid and if language is unspoken thought only hinges on the definitions used.


Glad we could wrap that up! hahahah!

Cheers!

chess - monopoly, how about using a specifically designed, set number of cards from which to create thousands of card games?

Did they exist before the first of it's kind?

What is a game, Creative - how did the word game come into being and what does it apply to? How was "game" inferred and from what?

(ok I admit, I did not read the responces after this one that I've quoted from you - so forgive me if I've missed the mark here.)




Edited - dang I should have kept reading - JB, got any dogfood in that doghouse How bout popcorn, my treat.

Edited again - WHAT? I missed the whole thing? Dammm that homework. Sorry I was late. By the way, now that I've completed the reading I'll let my responce to your quote stand, creative.. just in case you get back here.

Concluding... just as we begin to chew the meat?

I agree but would like to add another facet for clarification...

What would any of that statement even represent without knowing the meaning(definitions) of the terms being used? Definitions direct that meaning. Well spoken individuals and most rational and intelligent people use a dictionary as a means for referencing the meaning of words. I am sure that you would agree. It enables coherency.

Concerning validity...

Every statement's validity necessarily depends upon definitions and meaning(common language), for if that were not the case, then a sentence is but a series of meaningless marks.





Earlier I asked...



Di wrote...



I first want to say that this response has some great potential for developing the conversation at hand, and is also quite relevent to the place in which this discussion currently 'stands'. I am not at all surprised at it's source.



I am not dismissing - nor would I - the human imagination(memory, thought, and volition). It is one of the most remarkable things in our 'possession'. To answer your questions...

Chess?

War-based.

Monopoly???

Society-based.



This can be a misleading question, depending upon how one's thought follows the answer.

No thing can exist before it exists, but what can that clarify?

I believe that that is the wrong question to ask, because it does not address what needs to be addressed, it does not directly address the 'meat' of it. The answer to that question cannot negate nor support the claim that all human 'creations' are derived from nature and imagination(memory/thought/volition) because it seeks no relevant answer.

Allow me to further explain my thoughts on why I say this...

'Kind' implies a set of shared traits. Should just some of these attributes be different, then there is reason to 'create' another name, yes?

Perhaps a more exacting question(s) would be... 'What individual elements of the game are known to have existed before the game was invented? 'What knowledge preceded and (most likely) founded the understanding which gave rise to the imagination that inferred the very idea of the game itself from prior experience?

Can we show this?

Numbers existed before the cards. The material that the cards were made out of also pre-existed. I feel that that is sufficient reason to warrant the belief that the game is a product of inference from past experience.

I mean, what makes the most sense when these things(and some others) are considered? What part(s) of these examples is/are completely unrelated to any and all experience beforehand? What part(s) is/are undoubtedly not inferred from experience?

Can we show that? I do not see how.



A system of enjoyment? A job? Life? The answer depends upon who you ask.

That is the most relevent and invasive question yet! I love you for it! I love great questions - the ones which make ya think.

The term 'game', I would say, is a name for several different things actually, like most other terms. I am almost certain that you are already aware of this. The word came into being because the human who invented it wanted to share his own representional understanding of what it meant to him with another.

Di, one cannot absolutely know the answer to any question -such as this - beyond a doubt, can they? It is a matter of certainty, and that which grounds such a thing. I mean, either way one looks at the subject matter involved here - whether we create from imagination only, or whether we infer from experience through our imagination(memory/thought/volition) - both require *some* previous knowledge that leads one up to the ability to even be able to infer/create anything...

Is that not safe to say, and can(has) be/been shown?

If our ideas come from nowhere(meaning that they are completely independent of experience/original) surely it would not have taken as long as it has to get to where we are... would it?

The closer we get to understanding exactly how and why humans develop their belief systems, in addition to knowing the direct affect(s) that those have on our thoughts, the closer we can be(hopefully) to becoming 'better' humans.

The closer we get to understanding exactly how and why humans develop their belief systems, in addition to knowing the direct affect(s) that those have on our thoughts, the closer we can be(hopefully) to becoming 'better' humans.




One can also just visit many countries and learn about the different cultures, lifestyles, and reasons they think they way they do. In effect also "accept" their lifestyle. I think this makes us more open minded in the end. Actually I wish this was a requirement for schools throughout the world.

Well, as far as I'm concerned this just drives home my whole point.

The point that I was attempting to make is the very point that has been made for thousands of years by the Buddhists and Taoists. We don't need to fall for this façade. We can abandon this kind of analytical thinking (or language-based thinking) and let go of it altogether.

The very fact that you recognize that this language-based concept of thought is associated with beliefs basically drives home my whole point. This is what is known as the illusion of the analytical mind (more popularly known as the ego or false sense of self).

And that's my whole point.

If it is possible to free ourselves from that kind of thinking and still retain our conscious awareness as living beings, then there must be another mode of thought and that other mode of thought is indeed pure awareness.

I'm in full agreement with Jeremy when he said:



It's just a matter of definitions. Period. It's an argument of pure semantics

Micheal, all you are doing is denouncing that pure awareness qualifies as thought.

That's all you are really doing here. You're simply demanding a restricted defintion on a word thought.

Your whole presentation here is an argument of semantics and nothing more. You're simply demanding a restricted concept for the meaning of the word thought.

A restriction that I had even asked if you were making way back at the very beginning of this thread, yet you refused to acknowledge this semantic restriction!

But ever since that time all you have been doing is demanding that this semantic restriction holds as a definition of what constitutes thought.

This is why I say that this is ridiculous.

I was, and I still am, in total agreement that if we restrict the defintion of thought to only refer to analytical thinking, or language-like thinking, then thought would indeed be language.

After all, if that's the definition that we are demanding then how could it not be true in that case?

But to demand this restriction on the meaning of the concept of 'thought' is an utterly restrictive semantic demand that I most certainly do not agree with.

This whole thread has been nothing more than an arugment over the definition of a word. And I had even asked for clarity on this way back at the beginning of the thread!

All you had to do at that time was acknowledge that you were indeed restricting what you mean by the word 'thought'.

This is nothing more than an argument that the word 'thought' should only apply to language-like thinking.

Well, obviously if you restrict this to be the definition of the word thought then of course that's all the word would mean.

This whole thread has been utterly absurd. And the thing that upsets me is that I had asked for clarification on this way back at the beginning of the thread and you refused to acknowledge this semantic restriction.

That's the thing that I don't understand. Why didn't you just acknowledge your semantic restriction when I asked?

If you define thought to 'only be language-like thinking' then of course thought would need to be language-like because that's what you have decided to restrict the definition of the word to mean.

What insight have you presented here that hasn't already been presented by Buddhists and Taoists for thousands of years?

Like Massagetrade suggested, this is a tautology once you restrict the semantics of the word thought to only include language-like thinking.

What new insight has been gained that hasn't already been common knowledge in Eastern Mysticism for thousands of years?

All you're doing is forcing a restricted semantics on the word thought and refusing to recognise that many other people consider pure awareness to also be a form of thought.

This whole thread has been nothing other than an argument for the restricted definition of a word.

What insight has been gained that hasn't already been recognized for thousands of years?

This would be like as if your original question was phrased:

"Is thought unspoken language if we restrict the definition of the word thought to only mean unspoken language?"

Well, yes of course! Do you even need to ask such a redundant and obvious question? That would be a taugtology!

The only way the question even makes any sense is if you are going to consider other possible meanings of the concept of thought.

Abra said:




I agree.

So after 14 posts of complicated chat can we finally have a one word answer? Yes or No!



Ohhhhh never mind! Pass the mashed potatoes instead

James,

Evidently you missed this and it applies to every word that you just rote, in other words - the entire known meaning of your response.



Other thing(s)...

You denounce Christianity based upon the acts of Christians, yet hold Taoist and Buddhist thought on some personal alter - how much do you actually know about the actions(regarding humanitarian) of some of those?

Research it.

You threw out the dictionary! My thoughts hold their meaning with it's use.

In other words, it is your semantical argument, my entire construct holds it's meaning.

So for you to biatch about the meaning of any term is pissing in the wind!