Christianity

[Dubious]

It is true that words are invented. What I doubt is that language -- some sort of background to the communication of which words are one expression and a central one -- is invented.

I agree. Language is inherent in whatever species as the individuals within such a group must be able to inter-communicate. Without that ability, it could never exist. Language is part of its DNA.

But this means, ultimately, that I do not think that the Universe, whatever it is, why-ever it is, invents itself as it goes along. So it is a 'necessity' that what occurs, what forms (and concept and language and communication is one of those things) had, in some sense, a prior existence. We must assume (at least I think so) an infinite number of prior creations and not just the relatively blink-of-the-eye manifestation of our universe and our *world*. It already happened -- I mean language and being and the need to communicate already happened infinite times. So in this sense 'language' is part-and-parcel of the manifestation

If I read you right – and I’m not sure I am - you’re conflating the creation of the universe with what the universe itself creates. A universe which survives its birth becomes its own god – in a manner of speaking – manufacturing a separate existence existence for everything in it as provided by its own creative logic.

The notion of *Word* and utterance and of consciousness vibrating everything into manifestation is, naturally, a freaky idea. It is also an archaic concept and is born of a certain primitiveness of conception. But what does it really mean? I would suppose it does not refer to a mouth uttering a Word, that would be childish and that would be a 'picture' which is a metaphor for something beyond the picture, right? It refers to constructive consciousness, ur-intelligence, a priori intelligence, manifesting the Kosmos. This is what I have always supposed 'logos' to refer to. Something within the Universe, the Kosmos and the manifestation organizes itself. It is hard to escape this idea. But then I have wondered if instead of all creation being pushed toward manifestation -- the idea of 'bang' and 'explosion' implies this -- I have wondered if it is not being pulled along. Not impelled or propelled but drawn. It is another way of seeing the same thing.

It’s indeed a grand metaphor manifesting a synthesis of both poetry and philosophy as a visionary rendering of the cosmos organizing itself. It’s an ancient idea which still holds one in awe. The only thing I can say is that the Big Bang idea does not describe the beginning as usually understood but only our limitation in understanding what came before. Who knows! That could have been the long existence of the universe itself in its preparation of re-emergence.

I also realize that *humans have consciousness* and what it is, and why it is, no one seems to know or be able to say definitively. But it seems to me that it is not a specific creature-consciousness that we must examine but Consciousness itself which is, by the fact that it exists in us and we know this is so, something latent and also necessary in the creation itself. And again if this is so, and it is manifest, it did not invent itself as it went along.

As I already mentioned, intelligence may not necessarily manifest itself as an overt phenomena as hosted in various degrees among animals of which we, as stated by Hamlet, are the supposed paragons. There is also, what I think of as a functional intelligence inherent in every process which, as it organizes into a fugue of such processes expressing harmony, creates all the phenomena we see including what we may never see. In that sense I view your pull idea as colluding with my own in thinking that there could be – for lack of a better word – a type of gravitating pull toward synthesis, each an ingredient in expressing an evermore creative Logos in its wake.

So again 'word' and the power to utter, to manifest, and for all things to take shape and 'come into being' -- even of course the 'world' (loka लोक) in which we are given this opportunity to be aware, to perceive where we are and what we are a part of, are perceptions and notions that are all tied together.

As metaphor, there is no reason to object to such a view. But I think it needful to remember that metaphors, however sublime, only amount to our own psychic projections, sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, usually superimposed on a concrete reality which our imagination seeks to mystify or conversely clarify depending on what it expounds on. Within nature itself there is nothing mysterious and every operation within it is simply a building block and nothing more.

If there is an absolute truth it's one ruled by probability which denies any absolute truth; it doesn't equate with logical necessity. It remains an empty variable without ever having been assigned a value denoted as absolute. Not least, an assumed absolute truth is one which grants itself complete authority, and that never worked out well. There is too much human subterfuge in determining Absolutes. One must always ask, whose purpose does it serve?

While I agree that those who are within the manifestation, within mutability and ensconced in it (here Dasein and the ideal of 'worlding' and being subjected to that worlding must enter in to our concept), must recognize that they cannot within their condition define some *absolute truth*, the notion of it is inherent and necessary. Perhaps I have negated by putting it this way that some terrestrial, defined 'truth' is possible. Yet to posit the opposite -- that everything is in flux and undecided and constantly mutating and in this sense ultimately unstable, even unknowable -- is as much of a mistake in the political-idea-social realm as its opposite.

I have no idea how any notion of absolute truth would be necessary to any living thing. To me, it’s the most useless of concepts, incapable of being creatively applied to anything. Forgo any construct of absolute truth and nothing changes. There are no artificially expounded meanings of our creation in danger of injury if any unconditional absolute truth prerogative were subtracted from any definition of meaning. We haven’t got the foggiest what it could be but still it’s called into being by words only as if its existence were actual. It’s a concept devoid of any functionality.

It's a function, a very advanced function but why should it be sacred?

Well, the notion of the sacred, when examined, becomes pretty complex. If you ask me to provide an answer I can only speak from experience. And in that experience, or vision if you wish, the sacredness of all things was clearly revealed. It is intuitive, subjective and personal. And, having let's say received that understanding, the choice became whether to accept it and choose to integrate the understanding, or to forget that it happened and, as the Platonists and also the Vedics might say, become immersed in mutable reality, become *lost* in mutable reality, or as the Vaishnavas say to 'forget' and lose oneself in 'the material entanglement'. Within that system of seeing, and believing and being, to become lost in this sense is a tragedy and has infinite layers of consequence. And if what is proposed here is true, and I suggest that it is pretty obvious that it is true, then let us define what is 'sacred' as that idea, that concept, that awareness, that brings about or augments the understanding I just outlined.

Any definition of sacred or its effect varies with the individual. Nature may provide the experience of it in human terms while remaining thoroughly defunct of any such thing itself.

Applying the word Sacred to an experience merely describes its intensity which is in no way tantamount in defining it as relative to some absolute truth connotation.

So 'awareness' and 'awaking' and 'purification' and honing and sharpening of the same is, let us say, something 'sacred'. Why then is what is sacred always surrounded by mystery? Why is the 'sacred ground' sacred? What is the demarkation-point that separates the profane man from the man who, in one degree or other, realizes awareness? Or carries it through let's say to some elevated point?

It’s primarily through the laminations of applied mysteries that any exceptional act or experience can be transcribed into the ineffability of what is usually denoted as sacred.

For example the 'sacred awareness' cultivated by shamans of the South American jungles. A similar paradigm exists. Take the story revealed in The Wizard of the Upper Amazon. They use a bizarre jungle drug and in their vision they encounter the Anaconda Spirit. And that spirit rules the domain in which they exist -- their *world*. It reveals itself and it brings knowledge and understanding.

One has to examine this paradigmatically, no? We are all, in one way or another, ultimately concerned for the same thing. We become *viewing lenses* that attempt to focus in on what is real, on what is true.

The ‘sacred awareness’ you mention is akin to their consummate oneness with an environment they have occupied for many generations. They feel immanent within it, unseparated, mentally and physically alert to every nuance. That which allows you to live and be symbiotic with becomes sacred as if it were a gift from a higher power. It makes complete sense that the visions which emerge due to the ingestion of local pharmaceuticals imbues a religious aura on the knowledge and understanding they already had further sacralized through the mythical representation of the local flora and fauna.

Though it is pretty obvious that the System that we now live in has separated itself from even the belief and understanding that such awareness as I reference is worth anything at all. We live in a system which begins to look more like a machine than a culture. Can the Machine lead people to awareness, freedom, knowledge and understanding? It does not appear so. The Machine in this sense functions when it incorporates a being into itself and, in this sense dulls awareness. Or do you see it differently?

Not really, though I would have described it a little bit differently. We are definitely enshrouded within an iron curtain of nihilism in a way never encountered. It’s not just belief systems which are and have been collapsing. What must be included are all the overt signals of deadly deteriorations happening across the globe. But that’s a separate subject.

Thus: the notion of what is Sacred must be given emphasis. If it has been forgotten it must be rediscovered. It may be a polluted pool and many see organized religion in this way (and perhaps religion generally) but I for one think there is much much more there.

I agree wholeheartedly that the the notion of the sacred must be given emphasis. If there is one outstanding image of the sacred it would be that of the planet itself. Nietzsche wrote “be true to the earth” which we have miserably failed at. Historical belief systems haven’t helped in that regard always giving some imagined other world the main priority. Nature has long had a policy that failures die without mercy.

In Vedic thought as well as in Hebrew thought it is the language itself, the word, the revelation, the meaning, but the Word itself that reveals this, and that is sacred. The vocalization of the scriptural word that is given 'sacred' emphasis. This sense comes through it seems to me. It cannot be denied. But it is an allusion to higher, even transcendent truths. The story is not the truth, the enactment isn't either.

Since humans became sapiens, there have been nothing but words; some meaningful, others less so and some completely on the wrong track. To humans, talking isn’t much different from writing; most of what we’ve done is talk. Look where all the generations of culture and belief got us; a planet that’s collapsing under the weight of our stupidity and neglect which sacrifices everything for a profit. So much for human wisdom wherever it’s presumed to be! Among humans, truths are far less transcendent and more like an ugly stepchild one wishes to ignore.

New Sacred you say? It might go round in circles but I am uncertain if a genuine new sacred is a viable idea. But obvioulsy I tend toward a form of traditionalism (having read a good amount of René Guénon and others like him). It is, I guess, the way I am wired (to put it in mechanical-electical terms).

Regarding the earth itself as sacred is a very viable idea; as it turns out an essential one...but it ain’t gonna happen!


BTW, I love the Vivaldi whose sacred works are among the greatest in the barock genre. I'm familiar with a lot of them.

[Ansiktsburk]

Why did he say anything? Noone was listening.

Not a criticism. There is no such word as, noone. It is always two words, "no one," in correct English. It's a common mistake, but looks silly. Don't worry about it, just thought you'd like to know.

Thanks. I’m a Scandinavian with poor English.

But why did he speak to himself? I sometimes do, but only when I’m frustrated over something.

[Belinda]

I hereby give you my word I always enjoyed wordplay.

RCSaunders is a good wordsmith and moreover I believe he keeps his word in his business relations.

My word! Ansikstburk, whose native language is a Scandinavian one, knows far more English words than most native English speakers know foreign words !

God gave His word to Noah; perhaps not in so many words but with a rainbow and a dove.

The meaning of a word is its use.

[RCSaunders]

We don't know what language God spoke at Creation.

Of course we do.

You might have spared yourself all the effort.

It was no effort. It was fun!

No, we don't. Your assumption is based on the idea that whatever language it was must be a human language. However, no human language has creatorial force. So no, we have no idea. All is speculation.

Well, it was a joke, but since you take it seriously...

There is no other kind of language than human language. Language, all language, is the invention and creation of human beings.

And as for "creatorial force," (I could not find, "creatorial," in any dictionary), all creation begins with language. Look at all the fantastic things that have been created with language: all fiction, all religions, most philosophy, and every ideology. Probably 99% of the things people believe, worship, and fight wars over are just made up with language.

[RCSaunders]

Why did he say anything? Noone was listening.

Not a criticism. There is no such word as, noone. It is always two words, "no one," in correct English. It's a common mistake, but looks silly. Don't worry about it, just thought you'd like to know.

Thanks. I’m a Scandinavian with poor English.

But why did he speak to himself? I sometimes do, but only when I’m frustrated over something.

Oh I agree with you. It's nonsense.

On the other hand, thinking is just, "talking to yourself," silently, like reading silently. Thinking is asking and answering questions and making judgements by means of language one, "speaks," to themselves, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no other kind of language than human language.

Again, you have no idea whether or not this is true.

All you know for sure is that every language you know is a human one. That's as much as you can say.

But if you take the language "mathematics" as an example, there you have a universal one, and one that speaks about the universal order of things, regardless of local linguistic habits. Maths, as a language, works regardless of every other linguistic peculiarity: 2+2 is still 4 in Dublin, Yakusk and Micronesia. And it works if you use "2", but also if you use "II" or ".." or " ". That suggests there is rationality underneath the universe itself, a universal "language" of being, that will work whether humans even know of it or not. For there was a mathematical relationship of phenomena long before human beings ever invented -- or better, recognized -- the language of mathematics.

So what else is under the rationality of reality? You don't know. You only know that it has an order, a sense, an intelligibility in potential, but you don't know what it is yet.

What "word" did God speak? He may not have spoken in Hebrew or in mathematics...but whatever it means when it says, "and God said..." it made things in the universe come into existence.

Now, if you know anything about that language, then you would yourself be God. And I'm going out on a limb here, but...you're not.

[RCSaunders]

There is no other kind of language than human language.

Again, you have no idea whether or not this is true.

You cannot possibly know what I do or do not know. I know you cannot show me any language that is not a human language.

All you know for sure is that every language you know is a human one.

Well, it is true, I only know what I know. I do not regard what I don't know as evidence of anything, and there is no reason to consider the existence of anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

But if you take the language "mathematics" as an example, there you have a universal one, and one that speaks about the universal order of things, regardless of local linguistic habits. Maths, as a language, works regardless of every other linguistic peculiarity: 2+2 is still 4 in Dublin, Yakusk and Micronesia. And it works if you use "2", but also if you use "II" or ".." or " ". That suggests there is rationality underneath the universe itself, a universal "language" of being, that will work whether humans even know of it or not. For there was a mathematical relationship of phenomena long before human beings ever invented -- or better, recognized -- the language of mathematics.

All language is the invention of human beings. Mathematics is a subset of language, like logic and trigonometry, which do not exist at all outside human consciousness. There are no, "numbers, propositions, syllogisms, or secants," floating around in space. They only exist as the inventions of human beings.

This mystical view of mathematics as something that exists on its own is just a form of Platonic realism similar to the Pythagorean fallacy, "everything is number," because they believed everything could be described by numbers, until they discovered incommensurables.

All of mathematics is nothing more than a method invented to identify and describe those attributes of physical things that can be counted or measured. The countable and measurable things actually exist on their own. The attributes of things human beings have discovered can be counted and measured exist ontologically. All the mathematical concepts and symbols by which human beings count and measure things were invented by human beings and otherwise do not exist at all.

Your absurd argument that different symbols can be used to represent the same mathematical concepts proves the mystical nature of math is nonsense. There is nothing dictating what symbols must be used in any language, including mathematical language. 'XV,' '15,' '11101 (binary)' and 'E (hexadecimal)' all represent the same numerical concept, just as the words, 'home,' 'domocile,' 'residence,' 'abode,' 'casa,' (Spanish), 'maison,' (French), 'spiti,' (Greek), and 'ban,' (Thai) all represent the same concept. The symbols are totally arbitrary inventions of human beings. There is nothing mystical or ontological about mathematics.

There are only human languages.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And as for "creatorial force," (I could not find, "creatorial," in any dictionary), all creation begins with language.

By the bye ….

Shakespeare was a great poet. He invented words. Shakespeare was a man. We are men like Shakespeare. Therefore we share in shakespearesqueness even if to a minor degree. So, all and any of us are entitled to neologistication when it pleases.

Ok, just wanted to get that out there ….

[RCSaunders]

And as for "creatorial force," (I could not find, "creatorial," in any dictionary), all creation begins with language.

By the bye ….

Shakespeare was a great poet. He invented words. Shakespeare was a man. We are men like Shakespeare. Therefore we share in shakespearesqueness even if to a minor degree. So, all and any of us are entitled to neologistication when it pleases.

Ok, just wanted to get that out there ….

Of course. Who ever said otherwise? If you read my post, you know my point is every word in every language there ever was are words men invented. I was just pointing out, "creatorial," was just that, a recently invented (and as yet undefined) word. I didn't object to it's use. 'Neologize' to your heart's content, Shakespearesque neologistication included.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All language is the invention of human beings. Mathematics is a subset of language, like logic and trigonometry, which do not exist at all outside human consciousness. There are no, "numbers, propositions, syllogisms, or secants," floating around in space. They only exist as the inventions of human beings.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All language is the invention of human beings. Mathematics is a subset of language, like logic and trigonometry, which do not exist at all outside human consciousness. There are no, "numbers, propositions, syllogisms, or secants," floating around in space. They only exist as the inventions of human beings.

Wait a sec. Man does not invent his physical structure and in fact the entire world and every element in it has nothing to do with man's inventiveness. So it could be possible to assert that this thing that man does -- language, using sounds and symbols to communicate concepts and meaning -- is not in fact man's invention at all, but part-and-parcel of some sort of background that exists independently of man. Man comes into the use of something which is already there. It is discovered not invented.

In some other galaxy must we not suppose with high probability that other creatures use similar language? But would you then say that they *invented* it? What if (to speculate) there are in fact hundreds and thousands (*billions & billions*) of creatures that have and use language.

Would you still stick by your assertion that they *invented* it?

This notion that people use as a weapon -- 'man invented morals' and other such declarations -- has always seemed to me suspicious. Anything that *gets invented* gets invented within the system of which man is merely a part. He invented none of this. How can it then be said that he has invented language? or maths?

Therefore, it actually likely does exist 'outside of human consciousness'.

Glad I could help clear this up . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some of what you write, RC, reminds me of dialogue in Dr Glas by Hjalmar Söderberg:

Let me tell you something: there are three
sorts of people -- thinkers, scribblers, and cattle. It is
true I secretly count almost all who are called thinkers
and poets among the scribblers, and most of the
scribblers belong among the cattle. But that's not the
point. The business of thinkers is to search out the
truth. There is, however, a secret about truth which,
oddly enough, is but little known, although I should
have thought it was clear as daylight -- and it is this:
truth is like the sun, its value depends wholly upon our
being at a correct distance away from it. If the thinkers
were allowed to have everything their own way they
would steer our globe straight into the sun and burn us
all to ashes. Small wonder, then, their activity some-
times causes the cattle to become restive and bellow:
Put out the sun, in the name of Satan, put it out! It's
the business of us scribblers to preserve a correct and
satisfactory distance from the truth. A really good
scribbler -- and there aren't many! -- understands with
the thinker, and feels with the cattle. It's our job to
protect the thinkers from the rage of the cattle and the
cattle from too hefty doses of truth. But I admit the
latter duty is the easier of the two, and the one we make
the best job of in the ordinary way of things; and I
admit, too, that in this we have the invaluable help of a
mass of spurious thinkers, as well as of the more
sensible among the cattle....

[Immanuel Can]

I know you cannot show me any language that is not a human language.

Ummm...that's because...I'm human.

Mathematics is a subset of language, like logic and trigonometry, which do not exist at all outside human consciousness.

The specific words do not exist outside of human beings. The realities to which the language aims to refer do. And what that fact shows is that the universe is rational, at the deepest level.

But how does an accidental universe end up being rational? That's a good question. See if you can figure it out.

[RCSaunders]

All language is the invention of human beings. Mathematics is a subset of language, like logic and trigonometry, which do not exist at all outside human consciousness. There are no, "numbers, propositions, syllogisms, or secants," floating around in space. They only exist as the inventions of human beings.

Wait a sec. Man does not invent his physical structure and in fact the entire world and every element in it has nothing to do with man's inventiveness. So it could be possible to assert that this thing that man does -- language, using sounds and symbols to communicate concepts and meaning -- is not in fact man's invention at all, but part-and-parcel of some sort of background that exists independently of man. Man comes into the use of something which is already there. It is discovered not invented.

In some other galaxy must we not suppose with high probability that other creatures use similar language? But would you then say that they *invented* it? What if (to speculate) there are in fact hundreds and thousands (*billions & billions*) of creatures that have and use language.

Would you still stick by your assertion that they *invented* it?

This notion that people use as a weapon -- 'man invented morals' and other such declarations -- has always seemed to me suspicious. Anything that *gets invented* gets invented within the system of which man is merely a part. He invented none of this. How can it then be said that he has invented language? or maths?

Therefore, it actually likely does exist 'outside of human consciousness'.

Glad I could help clear this up . . .

Oh thank you! You've explained a lot more than you think.

Just do one thing for me. Describe a single mathematical, logical, geometrical, geographical, or scientific concept without using any form of language, and explain how any language or concept of mathematics, geometry, geography, astronomy, physics, chemistry, or biologby existed, and in what form, separate from any human beings.

All language, all logic, all the sciences, and most intellectual disciplines are knowledge methods invented by human beings as a means of identifying and describing what exists and its nature. That which human knowledge methods study, identify, and describe exists and has the it has whether any human is aware of it or has any knowledge of it or not, but the knowledge of what exists, and the language used to identify and describe it, do not exist independently of human consciousness. Why would it. The universe doesn't need to "know" it exists, in order to exist? Sans human beings, there is no mathematics, no science, no knowledge, and no language and they have no meaning or purpose except to human beings.

I'm sorry you've swallowed that superstitious nonsense about language. It's like those in the remote Islands and their, "cargo cults," who believe man-made things, like planes had mystic powers (because they really didn't understand them), just as you believe man-made language has mystic powers (because you don't really understand what it is).

Perhaps if you learned a little epistemology and the difference between the epistemological and ontological you could be cured of your cult-like superstitions.

[attofishpi]

.