I one read a study on the etymology of the word 'word' with respect to the creation story of . In particular, with the very early mentions of it as follows:

"In the beginning there was the word, and the word was God"

The study took these early scriptures back through various translations of the languages they had been written in and found the following.

The word 'word' had been a translation from a previous word that abstractly mean 'symbol' which was a translation of an even earlier word that meant 'form'.

So now if we rewrite this replacing the word 'word' with the word 'form' we get:

"In the beginning there was the form, and the form was God"

A lot of religious people take the 'word' to literally mean the 'word of God' (i.e. the holy scriptures themselves).

However, that makes absolutely not sense at all because to replace that meaning into the original sentence we have:

"In the beginning there was the Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Scriptures were God"

Not only does this not make sense as a creation story. But it actually implies that people are worshiping nothing more than writings as if they are God. Like as if the writings themselves existed before creation.

I think it makes much more sense when translated as:

"In the beginning there was the form, and the form was God"

Then if we view form as arising from vibrations, we can take it yet another step and say,...

"In the beginning there was the vibration, and the vibration was God"

Anyway, just thought I'd toss this in as an interesting etymology.

Yes that's a great conclusion, since form is vibration.

If you take water and slow down the vibration of the molecules by removing heat, you have solid ice. If you take water and increase the vibration of the molecules by warming it up, you have water. If you increase the vibrations of water even further by adding heat, you have water vapor and it is a gas. Solid, liquid and gas molecules of water... water can have form or be formless and invisible...just a difference in vibration and state of energy/heat.

I don't exactly know what my point is...sorry.

It is a good point. The point is, you can make something disappear if you change its frequency. (Philadelphia experiment. )

I want to respond to an earlier statement from invisible...



That can be logically shown.



It still seems there is confusion surrounding the term groundless and(perhaps) my intent for mentioning it. Let it be known that despite some opinions expressed here, I have not invoked the use of that term prior to the thread where I asked for a rule regarding it.

Groundless in metacognition applies to the earliest conscious correlation to actual experience that one can remember having regarding what one believes to be true. In that sense, the earliest belief and knowledge exists without grounds. That foundation frames all other knowns. That is why I say it is utterly important to know what you believe and why.

Groundless in philosophical discussion can mean different things. It is often used as a way to refute a claim or statement(they are the same thing). In this sense, the claimant cannot effectively show how s/he has arrived at a conclusion by strictly following a premise - in an inductive argument. If a conclusion does not cover all known possible evidence in a deductive argument, that conclusion can be said to be groundless because it does not cover all known evidence relevant to it's formation. In philosophy all of that must be logically shown.

Groundless can also apply to an isolated statement or claim made by one without any expressed logical reasoning behind it.

So invisible, groundless does not apply to a statement because it is different.

Science based upon words alone is not science but conjecture...

For words have inexact and unmeasured meanings.

Formulas derived of words alone would then have many possible final results.

Philosophy birthed science.

Ideas birthed science.

Philosophy is simply a more measured and thoughtful form of bar room conversation.

I understand both philosophy and bar-room conversation AB. University of Drexel and the back patch. To me they are not one in the same... not even close.

Peace brutha.

Someone like Galileo (a thinker ahead of his time) today would receive the same treatment from University's and such.

Not much has changed in the world of Academia since those times... Universities exist to continue the 'acceptable' practices of science.
One cannot receive the diploma until one has shown the powers that control an 'acceptable acceptance' of their dogma.
So they turn out students that will perpetuate the currently accepted dogmas and myths... (which history will eventually show to be such).

Non possession of a degree does not equate with stupid or ignorant... One can receive quite an education by reading, experimenting, and applying without ever attending an institute of higher 'learning'.

I would concur. Most universities teach one how to be a cog in the idealogical machine.

Philosophy however, when done right, imparts wisdom.

This may be true. However, based on the things that you've been saying it doesn't appear to me that you have a clue how philosophy is actually done.

At least not by the way you work. You want to work from the top down. But real philosophers actually work from the bottom up.

I've already written the following response to your previous post.

The things you are claiming about philosophy just don't hold true with respect to the way professional philosophers work, and I've tried my best to explain why below. It's a lengthy post, but I elaborated for the purpose of clarity and understanding.

The methods that you have been using to present your philosophical constructs do not line up with the way that professional philosophers work at all.



In professional philosphy it doesn't work exactly the way that you describe here because you have failed to elaborate on the importance of the primal premises!

(Edited to add: Perhaps I should say that you don't use this method because you don't start with clear and well-defined premises that have been accepted by everyone in the discussion for the purpose of examining a specific premise-based philosophy.

All philosophies do not begin with the same premises. Professional philosophers make their premises clear at the onset. (You seem to always be implying that all philosophies must be based on the same fundamental premises or could be reduced to the same fundamental premises, but that notion is entirely false)

You often speak about the philosophy of Spinoza, for example. However, to me that's a totally meaningless philosophy because I do not accept Spinoza's classical Newtonian-world premises. So it matters not how sound his logic might be after that. I simply don't accept his foundational premises which he offers as being 'self-evident'. They are no longer 'self-evident' based on modern physics. In fact, it is far more evident that they don't hold in light of today's scientific discoveries.

Logic always begins with unproven premises. So if we were to do what you suggest all we would be doing is taking every view that everyone holds, picking it apart until we get down to their primal premises, and then perhaps stating that we disagree with those fundamental unprovable premises.

Who wants to be bothered doing that all the time on a discussion forum? And what purpose would it serve anyway?

In professional philosophy they work the other way around. They begin by offering their unprovable premises as a foundation upon which to build, and then try to build upon those. That is constructive philosophy rather than the destructive philosophy where you take an idea and try to show that it does or doesn't have a leg to stand on.

~~~~

Also, if you go back and re-read your thread on "Is thought unspoken language?", I'm certain that you will find a place where I suggested to you that rather than attempting to prove your 'assertion' from top down, you should just state that as your premise and show what constructive things you can build from it.

The only problem with that in your case was that your very assertion was ill-defined because you failed to initially offer very precise definitions of what you meant by 'thought' and what you meant by 'language'.

So you weren't building anything 'upward'. All you were doing is stating an ill-defined high-level assertion and trying to prove that it must hold.

I followed your lead precisely. I was playing the devil's advocate in precisely the way you describe. I offering you every logical reason that I could think of for why your assertion doesn't hold logically.

Of course, I had no choice but to use my own personal definitions of the concepts of 'thought' and 'language' because you had not precisely definite your basic terms. You failed to build your philosophy from the ground up.

So what was the result?

Well, I kept pressing you for more and more clarity on precisely what you meant by these terms. You kept refining your definition of language until it became so abstract and meaningless that to make your assertion hold it would need to be an obvious tautology by mere definition. No useful insight could come of that.

Like AB says,...



Your entire argument, Michael, ended up being nothing more than a meaningless play on semantics.

You could have done us all a big favor and simply define what you meant by 'thought' in the most precise way you could. Then define what you mean by 'language' in the most precise way you could. And then just show whether those two definitions were compatible, equivalent, or whatever.

In fact, if you had actually approached it in this professional way, then most people probably would have simply disagreed with your original semantic definitions of 'thought' and 'language'. They would have simply said that they personally define, or understand, those concepts differently from you. And you'd never even get off the ground.

Then we'd know that there is no basis for any logical arguments because we disagree on the core premises of the very starting definitions. At that point in the philosophical game primal premises cannot be "grounded" in logic. It's too abstract. People are free to have various ideas associated with those words.

This is what I mean when I say that your philosophical arguments are nothing more than empty semantics. You start out by making high-level semantics assertions and then you want to 'prove' them by arguing that only your semantic definitions can be accepted. That's semantic BS, that's not philosophy.

Words just aren't defined that precisely in absolute terms. If they were there would be no need for philosophy at all! All we'd have to do when we have a philosophical question is look up the concept of interest in the dictionary and read what it says. Clearly this isn't how philosophy is done.

And this was precisely what I was attempting to convey to you though the words of Richard Feynman.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

But instead of understanding what I was attempting to say, you just told me that it's impossible to think like this and I'm just kidding myself if I think this way.

This is precisely where you will always end up when you approach philosophy from a semantic point of view. It just won't work that way. That's not a productive method to build philosophical constructs.

If you want to build a philosophical construct what you need to do is start with a very rigid set of primal premises that you define as best you possibly can define them and then work up from there.

However, everyone may not agree with your primal premises. You'll just have to accept that those people have every right to reject your primal premises based on personal disagreements concerning their own intuitive views of how those terms should be defined. Logic stops here!

The decision to accept that a primal premise is 'self-evident' is entirely subjective and cannot be proven. The best you can do is give an argument that you hope may convince some people. But you can't be claiming that your primal premises are absolutely true and logically sound. The logic buck stops here. All logic ultimately is built upon sand. There is no logic build on a rock. If we had such a thing then we'd know the ultimately truth. But we don't. All logical constructs are based on unprovable premises. All of them, even modern mathematical formalism!

There are no philosophical rocks in the universe Michael. It's all sand. The best you can hope for is to find people who like the sand that you start with.

In the meantime you're trying to work from the top down by making higher level assertions and trying to prove that they hold no matter what. Like as if there is a logical rock at the base of reality. But no such rock exists Michael.

Semantic arguments like that will always crash.

That just amounts to an empty semantic house of cards with no real foundation at all. The deeper you dig into your semantic sand the more people are going to disagree with the refinements you'll need to keep making to the semantic definitions of your terms. Until, finally, your primal definitions become so abstract that they no longer have any specific meaning, and everyone will reject them as either being far too vague or not at all 'self-evident'.

In order for a philosophical construct to be meaningful you need to define your primal concepts very precisely before you begin. Then show why one concept logically leads to the next as you build upward. Then finally offer a practical example of what insight this logical construct brings.

Otherwise, like Jeanniebean suggested; don't be blaming other people for having 'groundless thoughts' just because you fail to provide convincing constructs.

Fix up your own presentations so people can follow you upward in a constructive meaningful manner, instead of making top-level semantic assertions and then attempting to argue that they can't be logically refuted. That's just a semantic approach that will always go downhill and crash at the level of premises.

You'll always be on the defensive clear down until you hit rock bottom premises where logic can no longer be called upon for support.

You can not prove your ultimate premises. If such a thing could be proven then we'd already have a single absolute philosophy that cannot be logically refuted. No such philosophy exists.

You can't argue philosophy top down. It will always crash when it hits the level of unprovable premises.

All you can do is start with premises that you define and state as 'self-evident' and then just accept people who are willing to climb on board with that, and politely accept that those who don't climb on board have their own premises in mind as a starting point.

You can't prove any absolute truths Michael. If that were possible don't you think REAL philosophers would have already done it?

Gimmie a break.

From the way you talk I can only conclude that you have absolutely no clue how philosophy is even done.

And that's just grounded on the things that you keep insisting concerning 'groundless thoughts'.

There's no such thing as a 'groundless thought' at the primal premise level. Or to put that another way, all fundamental primal premises are ungrounded. Whichever way you want to look at it.

So it's impossible to argue from the top down and expect to come to an absolute truth at the bottom. That ain't never gonna happen.

To JB's responses...



I told you earlier, the first time you asked, but it seemed as if you believed your pre-conception of what ambiguity represents moreso than my reason. There is no need for a point when contemplating.



Some may see it that way. What if there is no point?



Whatever.

To state that 'it lays a trap' is, again, to presuppose intention. To lay a trap is to attempt to entrap. If one feels as if my words are a trap, then what exactly is being trapped?



I agree.



Could you show me this so-called 'circular logic?'



That is quite an assessment. I am reminded of this earlier response you gave...



I answered...



To which you immediately responded...



Are you kidding me?

Completely dismissing my own understanding of my own intentions and/or purposes in lieu of your own preconception emboldens a false sense of confidence in the ability to determine one's intent through the perception of ambiguity alone.

An ambiguous statement is not necessarily holding back truth, nor does it mean that is must be veiled.



I think it is safe to say that if one is intentionally holding back truth, then s/he is deliberately allowing something other than the truth to be believed. That is being deliberately misleading, and no amount of denial and or linguistic gymnastics can change that fact.



With those who presuppose that they can establish a reliable method of character assessment from perceived ambiguity, there could be an issue like that. Those who know that ambiguity alone does not constitute grounds for such a thing would not allow themselves to draw such an unreliable conclusion.

James...

You have no idea what you are talking about. I was open for ideas and entertained them the same way I do my own thoughts throughout that language thread.

I have yet to draw a conclusion...

So what are you trying to claim about me, again?

... Nevertheless, higher 'learning' is a necessary step in a person's development because it establishes the necessary specialized set of associations between the acquired knowledge-base and the real world. (home education may also be effective in that regard, though the settings are less productive(?)..)

In fact, memory itsellf is just that -- a set of associations with the hooks (i.e. links) to every other concept stored in memory:
* that's how human beings are capable of memorising enormous amounts of information which is not stored all together at one particular region, but is spread throughout the memory (together with the links to other concepts).

(* BTW, the heart of the computer language, LISP -- the language of Artificial Intelligence -- is represented with the function, ASSOC, which is an abbreviation for ASSOCiation. *)

But if we start associating some of the posters with Groundlessness, we risk being labeled intollerant dictators, etc. One may question the opponent directly, or ridicule them indirectly, or bringing their questionable assetion to the public forum... But enforcing any rules -- thus limiting the freedom of everybody else's self-expression -- would be counter-productive to the nature of the site. Finally, a member who raised the matter -- but has not followed any of the routes I mentioned above -- has a choice of creating a new thread, the main condition for participating in which would be the GROUNDFULNESS of postings!!! (as my sister once suggested to one of the displeased mebers).
*** JB must remember her -- HANDLEWITHCAUTION -- who's found her match (though, not through this site) and, thus, no longer participates...

Thus, each member has a right to
-- Post Anything...
-- Read Anything...
-- Reply to (Or Ignor) Anything...
In fact, a member can do anything Except of enforcing his/her rules at the public forum!!!

Janestar...

That post was very relevant...

This particular statement contains presupposition.



I can understand what I think you mean, but groundless applies to a statement not to the poster themselves.

But that is something I seem to see a lot here.

Some of you choose just to respond to posts from certain people, you dissect them to death to find the 'groundlessness'(I know it's a non-existing word, but I don't have another one, sorry) in this persons post.

Instead of trying to find something you 'could' have in common you just go for the things you don't, and then y'all argue the hind leg off a donkey to prove it.

I see. (Personally I do my contemplating in private. I don't involve others in my "pointless" and personal thoughts.)




If there is no point, there is no point in involving others in an absurd and pointless conversation.






Its your trap you should know the answer to that. You trap people into your pointless contemplative conversations who have no idea that you are just contemplating or that they are pointless.





Circular logic leads a person in a circle of agreement to the final conclusion. Unfortunately your attempt at circular logic never gets even half way around the circle so it is a failed attempt. But if as you say, you are simply "contemplating" and suggest that there may "be no point" then your musings are not circular logic at all, they are all over the place.





No I am not 'kidding.' I dismissed it because you demonstrate that you are not interested in "as many ideas as possible" you just seem to want to argue that you are right and you are looking to see if anyone can prove you wrong.

Even in this response, your argument about the difference between being "deliberately misleading" as apposed to "veiling or withholding the truth. YOU STILL REFUSE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE and want to argue your point.

The difference is that one is a passive action and the other is active deceit or a lie! There is a big difference! I gave you several examples and you still want to argue! Fine. If that is the way you interpret it, so be it then, but don't accuse me of wrongly assessing your intentions as being deliberately deceitful! By doing so, you are dismissing MY definitions!

**************************************************

Now I will address another of your 'beliefs'in the next post.

******************************************************

That would depend on intent. If it is intentionally ambiguous, then it is holding back truth. (Yours is the truth of your agenda) If the truth(agenda) cannot be seen, then it is "veiled." An unintentional ambiguous statement can be innocent. But you seem to be aware that you are ambiguous and this appears to be your intention.

All ambiguous statements invite misunderstanding and wrong conclusions. That you intentionally CHOOSE ambiguity leads me to think you are intentionally inviting wrong conclusions and misunderstanding in order to draw out different reactions from different people.... which reveals to you where there thinking is.(you have said you want different "ideas") You may even be doing this unconsciously, but you are doing it.




"Allowing" a wrong conclusion or allowing others to believe something other than the truth is a passive act. Lying is a deliberate act. It is active deceit. Do you know the difference between active and passive?

In court if one refuses to testify, they cannot be charged with perjury or lying, only contempt of court. If a witness who knows something does not come forward, they cannot be charged with misleading investigators. People are not required by law to spill their guts because no one really knows what they know or what they have seen. They can be vague and they can "veil" the truth without using intentional deliberate deception by misleading or lying by pointing the finger in the opposite direction of the truth.

Now this is MY firm understanding of these terms. You are free to disagree, but on these grounds you should not accuse me of assessing your character as being "deliberately deceitful" and go around complaining that I have judged and assessed you wrongly. This is only your personal enterpretation and it is not accurate.

This is one small sample of why we don't communicate. You understand and interpret things differently. This is the last explanation on this subject you will hear from me.





Ambiguity alone? You admit your ambiguity is intentional. You choose to use it anyway. You invite unreliable conclusions. You leave people who are trying to understand what your point or agenda is or what you are getting at.. little choice in the matter. Then you complain when they make their own conclusions!

And that is your trap! Poor misunderstood guy, everyone jumps to conclusions about you or your character and its all their fault! You are the innocent one who was just pointlessly comtemplating. You are innocent. Everyone else is against you, misjudging you. You are the victim.

But apparently you are not really interested in learning where your communications fail, you just want to argue and continue to believe that the fault is not yours. Thats just your ego. You always, without fail, point the finger at the other person.

I think we have beat this subject to death now. I doubt if I'm even getting through to you.

Peace to you.

James,

Thank you for the great post on philosophy. I think you are right about making the premise clear in the beginning of a discussion. I think we should ask people to do this before they state their philosophy or belief and the grounds for their belief. I think that would make for a very interesting conversation.

Also, before letting a conversation deteriorate we should ask for the premise and the definition of important terms.

You have helped me to understand philosophy better.

I think it would be a real challenge for me to try that with my philosophy. If I could find the time to do so.