100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is there a "before" the big bang? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am just socially mala, malajus, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or this could be a situation of "lost in translation". Some people don't realize right away that what they type will be interpreted differently than they intend because of how "impersonal" the medium is. Also, too much technical jargon makes it difficult to understand. If that is unintentional, then it is typical of a person who types as he thinks (stream of consciousness). This can make someone appear to have a big ego or simply socially mal-adjusted. In any event, leaping to conclusions on either side is a no-win slippery slope. If something was lost in translation, then both sides will have egg on their face when the dust settles. This is true. I will admit that when someone begins a post with "And you really believe all that non-sense? " he can be sure that he is not getting on my friendly side. I don't engage in "technical jargon" as I think it is pretentious. If a person is rude it does not matter how much "truth" he thinks he utters. I have no use for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
John8659
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:09 PM
|
|
Where I come from, it is rude to put your own twist on words instead of simply examining them to see if they are true or not.
A wise man once said, judge not by appearance, etc. I am sure you may have read it. It is not technical at all, it is just a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:09 PM
|
|
I am just socially mala, malajus, whatever. John....I wasn't saying you were. I was just saying that being an impersonal medium can leave too much room for interpretation of character. In other words, sometimes we have to be careful to demonstrate our character or intentions in our writing....maybe even exaggerate it at times. This is exactly why emoticons were invented in the early days of the all-text internet....To prevent misunderstandings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where I come from, it is rude to put your own twist on words instead of simply examining them to see if they are true or not. A wise man once said, judge not by appearance, etc. I am sure you may have read it. It is not technical at all, it is just a fact. I don't much care if you think your words are true or not, if they are rude they are rude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
John8659
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:15 PM
|
|
I must be one of the few people in history who can see the humor in Plato.
And lady, you have no idea of how rude you are. There is nothing rude about what is true. I will not lie for you, or to you, I don't care how polite you think it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is not about Plato.
And I am fully aware of how rude I can be. It is rude to accuse a person of being rude, therefore I am also rude. Now if you can enlighten me about your thoughts on "time" that would be appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did. And Plato was one of the teachers in history who could have led you to understanding how you contradict yourself when you think and speak. It is not my invention. It took me quite a long time to comprehend it and put it down simply.
Now, you can search the net and find at least a half dozen theories on what a sentence is, however, none of them are correct. Plato did have it right, portions are mentioned in Aristotle, but Aristotle was not very sharp. It is a two element metaphysics, that if you learn how it applies to language--every language, you can even demonstrate how Einstein was in error time and again. One error is having the same name for a thing and the material difference of a thing. When you confuse the two, you cannot speak or think correctly. A second of time, an hour of time, etc are things, time is not a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:38 PM
|
|
"time is not a thing."
Now there is something I agree with. But it IS a noun. Isn't a noun, a person, place or thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
John8659
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:43 PM
|
|
Then you also have to agree that because there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, and to predicate one equates the names of things to the names of that things forms and the material difference in those forms, that you cannot predicate of a predicate,
i.e. The names of things directly are subjects. The names of things composed by adding the names of forms and material differences are predicates. This is not how you learned English in school, but it eliminates the confusion in the books. Some sentences then do not have subjects, some do not have predicates. And most importantly, since you cannot abstract from an abstraction, you cannot predicate of one either. Because of the confusion in language understanding, progress in understanding the Universe has been derailed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you say "time is not a thing."
How, in this case, do you define the term "thing?" What is a "thing?" And isn't time really "spacetime" or "space-time" seeing as how they are intimately connected? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you give me an example of a sentence that does not have a subject?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no use of names, words, that is valid in any logic, or grammar system, that violates the original naming convention.
Our bodies environmental acquisition systems are divided into two classes. Those that abstract material, and discard its form, and those that abstract form, and disregard the material. This gives two logic systems, depending on if we start with form, or material difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A second of time, an hour of time, etc are things, time is not a thing. In language, time is treated as a thing. A concept is a thing. Freedom is a thing. Sanity is a thing. We speak of concepts in these terms. "Time flies." Symbolic, yes. But only "things" fly. Birds, planes, escapees, time.... Nouns -- as my first grade teacher said -- are persons, places, or things. A thing is not necessarily material. We understand it in the form of a noun, even if immaterial. Spirit. Consciousness. I suppose it's a question of defining terms. Time? Julian Barbour says there is no time, what we see is ultimately due to the collapse of a probability wave function in the blue mist over Platonia. (Plato reference there; I highly recommend Barbour's book "The End of Time.") Time as a process? A process is a thing. Time as a perceptual error? But a perceptual error could be a thing. Time as a mystery? But a mystery is a thing.... Whether it actually is a thing or not -- and I leave that one to the experts -- our understanding of it is based on the necessity of perceiving it in thing-like terms.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you give me an example of a sentence that does not have a subject? The name of a thing directy. A man is an animal. "A man" is a composition, therefore it is a predicate. "an animal" is a composition, therefore also a predicate. Tom is happy. Subject = subject. Tom is a man. Subject = predicates. (there are always at least 2 predicates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no use of names, words, that is valid in any logic, or grammar system, that violates the original naming convention. Our bodies environmental acquisition systems are divided into two classes. Those that abstract material, and discard its form, and those that abstract form, and disregard the material. This gives two logic systems, depending on if we start with form, or material difference. Okay okay, but the question is... can you communicate? (Just kidding because I don't understand any of what you just wrote, hence you are failing to communicate with me, but if you don't want the blame or responsibility for that failure, then lets say that I have failed to comprehend what you just wrote.) So, do you think you can communicate with me? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you give me an example of a sentence that does not have a subject? The name of a thing directy. A man is an animal. "A man" is a composition, therefore it is a predicate. "an animal" is a composition, therefore also a predicate. Tom is happy. Subject = subject. Tom is a man. Subject = predicates. (there are always at least 2 predicates. What exactly is the definition of a predicate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A second of time, an hour of time, etc are things, time is not a thing. In language, time is treated as a thing. A concept is a thing. Freedom is a thing. Sanity is a thing. We speak of concepts in these terms. "Time flies." Symbolic, yes. But only "things" fly. Birds, planes, escapees, time.... Nouns -- as my first grade teacher said -- are persons, places, or things. A thing is not necessarily material. We understand it in the form of a noun, even if immaterial. Spirit. Consciousness. I suppose it's a question of defining terms. Time? Julian Barbour says there is no time, what we see is ultimately due to the collapse of a probability wave function in the blue mist over Platonia. (Plato reference there; I highly recommend Barbour's book "The End of Time.") Time as a process? A process is a thing. Time as a perceptual error? But a perceptual error could be a thing. Time as a mystery? But a mystery is a thing.... Whether it actually is a thing or not -- and I leave that one to the experts -- our understanding of it is based on the necessity of perceiving it in thing-like terms.... An element cannot be defined. See Aristotle. One cannot define lineatiry, or plane, or space. These are material differences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
John8659
on
Thu 12/22/11 05:55 PM
|
|
As I said, I am using grammar as taught by Plato, not by those since.
Since we have 3, and only 3 primitive categores of names, we name things directly, or we can name them by a composition of their two elements, form and material difference. This composition is a predicate. In school, you never learned that assertion and denial, "is and is not" does not indicate that a predicate is present. Anyway, the geometry work I did, and the work on analogical algebra, were only part of learning to understand language, Grammar, common grammar I will do a rewrite of, and I have started with that project by posting audio books of Websters work, and outlines of grammar that Plato was trying to teach, but I have not yet done all the work on it because I am video logging this discovery in geometry of mine, along with my understanding of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>Tom is happy. <<<
So are you saying that "is" means "equals." Since "happy" does not describe what Tom is (He is a man) then what does it decribe? How he feels perhaps? So would the correct sentence be: Tom feels happy. |
|
|
|
|
