Human thinking.

[TheVisionofEr]

For human thinking all things belong to time and so can never become mere objects of talk, or in the Latinized English, language. Only by abstraction does one reject daily life and move into the radical abstraction of logical identity. Of the, because you said it, you must keep to it, you must remember. Self-identity in human life is never a "being the same" as if it were something written down as in the answer of Hegel regarding time. So far as something is treated as identical to itself it is brought into an abstract present moment which doesn't exist. Beside from this it is abstracted in the simple sense of removed from its surroundings as though brought into a vacuum of black space which exists nowhere. A place where only one being, that named in some Proper Noun, is. Thusly, the radical thought experiment of Galileo had a much more radical forerunner. The most radical forerunner, the human noun, and its corresponding understanding of the world of the eye, produces the conditions for a positing of a time sequence at all by interjecting the present as a fiction. This fiction is the radical grounds of the imagination or being as such.

[Impenitent]

and then some ethical theory happens and we get improper nouns...

-Imp

[commonsense]

For human thinking all things belong to time and so can never become mere objects of talk, or in the Latinized English, language. Only by abstraction does one reject daily life and move into the radical abstraction of logical identity. Of the, because you said it, you must keep to it, you must remember. Self-identity in human life is never a "being the same" as if it were something written down as in the answer of Hegel regarding time. So far as something is treated as identical to itself it is brought into an abstract present moment which doesn't exist. Beside from this it is abstracted in the simple sense of removed from its surroundings as though brought into a vacuum of black space which exists nowhere. A place where only one being, that named in some Proper Noun, is. Thusly, the radical thought experiment of Galileo had a much more radical forerunner. The most radical forerunner, the human noun, and its corresponding understanding of the world of the eye, produces the conditions for a positing of a time sequence at all by interjecting the present as a fiction. This fiction is the radical grounds of the imagination or being as such.

I am certain that there’s value in pursuing discussion on what you have posted, but you have made so many points above that it comes across as word salad. Would you care to select a solitary starting point?

[TheVisionofEr]

and then some ethical theory happens and we get improper nouns...

-Imp

The proper nouns may likely be derivative on the kinds of things in general. As is suggested by Aristotle's observation about all men being "the father" to the child.

[TheVisionofEr]

"I am certain that there’s value in pursuing discussion on what you have posted, but you have made so many points above that it comes across as word salad. Would you care to select a solitary starting point?"

Would you grant that the word language is more puzzling to the mind which seeks to understand than is the word speech or talk? For myself, I find that the word language, which is from the Latin, suggests something difficult unless it is used restrictively in the very limited sense of German rather than English or Chinese. The words speech and talk seem more obvious to me. To speak is just to speak. To talk to talk. But, language connotes something puzzling. Aristotle says pleasure accompanies understanding. I find, however, that a certain frustration accompanies the word language. However, perhaps you do not detect any difference in the Latinate and, on the other side, the Saxon words, which seem to me to enrich the English tongue or language. Herzl said "the enemy is necessary for the highest effort of the personality." And the Heidegger text says that we only know our own language by bringing it into relation with another. And yet, in English we have a war of two tongues in one.

True, when we regard the matter grammatically, it may seem that the clarity regarding the part of speech involved is the main thing. And that language is not a verb, or much like any verb. I would mention, however, that grammar is something added on later on, and not what language or talk first tells it speakers, which is clear since learners of a second language are often better at its grammar than the native speakers.

However, if you find this observation does not compel you, I should ask you another question. Since your answer would then be a datum of the human soul and a help to the science of reality, provided you didn't lie.