An Idea

[Fairy]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

[Alexiev]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

"Language has a tyranny on thought." The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Whorf explains:

background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade.

[MikeNovack]

Except tyranny perhaps too strong and perhaps how a culture creates named categories as important as the grammar. Tyranny implies something blocking expression of ideas/concepts rather than grammar and categories making it far easier to express alternative ideas/concepts.

[Walker]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

Without words the thoughts expressed are imprecise Pavlovian grunts, clicks, whistles and music. Shredding meaning with word games such as up is down, nothing is everything, death is life, etc., carries on the imprecision tradition and may as well be grunting.

[Impenitent]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

so much for poetry...

-Imp

[Age]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

If this is true, then 'what', to you, 'should' originate ideas?

[Fairy]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

If this is true, then 'what', to you, 'should' originate ideas?

First of all you need to ask yourself what is an “idea” ?

[Age]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

If this is true, then 'what', to you, 'should' originate ideas?

First of all you need to ask yourself what is an “idea” ?

But 'I' have absolutely no need to.

'you' made the claim that words do not originate ideas, 'I' am just wondering what 'you' think or believe does, or should, originate ideas.

If, to 'you', words 'should' or do not originate ideas, but 'should' express ideas, then what in 'your view', exactly, originates ideas.

If 'you' are just not able to say nor explain, then that is fine and totally understandable. But, if you can, then will you?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Can anyone here speak Newspeak? Lie for the truth?

[Fairy]

If this is true, then 'what', to you, 'should' originate ideas?

First of all you need to ask yourself what is an “idea” ?

But 'I' have absolutely no need to.

'you' made the claim that words do not originate ideas, 'I' am just wondering what 'you' think or believe does, or should, originate ideas.

If, to 'you', words 'should' or do not originate ideas, but 'should' express ideas, then what in 'your view', exactly, originates ideas.

If 'you' are just not able to say nor explain, then that is fine and totally understandable. But, if you can, then will you?

Okay I’ll explain in my view what exactly originates an idea. The answer is I have no idea have you?

[Age]

First of all you need to ask yourself what is an “idea” ?

But 'I' have absolutely no need to.

'you' made the claim that words do not originate ideas, 'I' am just wondering what 'you' think or believe does, or should, originate ideas.

If, to 'you', words 'should' or do not originate ideas, but 'should' express ideas, then what in 'your view', exactly, originates ideas.

If 'you' are just not able to say nor explain, then that is fine and totally understandable. But, if you can, then will you?

Okay I’ll explain in my view what exactly originates an idea. The answer is I have no idea

Thank you.

have you?

Yes.

{Usually I would have just answered 'the question' asked, and then just left it at that. As that was all that was asked for.)

However, although I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, for the reasons I keep explaining, here, I will 'now' presume that if I do have 'an idea' of 'what', exactly, originates ideas that you then would be 'somewhat' interested in hearing it.

'What', exactly, originates 'new ideas' are, at least two or more previous thoughts.

All thoughts come from what the human body has previously experienced, hitherto. And, only when two or more thoughts are put together, or come-together, then this is what originates any and all 'new ideas'.

Now, what allows 'this' forming of 'new ideas', within human beings, is the One and only Mind, which is within every one, and which is always Truly Open.

It is this One Mind, which I call God, and which you are 'referring to' when you say that God dreams/imagines all conceivable things.

Through the Truly Open perspective, which can only come through, and from, the Truly always Open Mind, is how human beings, individually and collectively, keep imagining, dreaming, conceiving, inventing, designing, planning, building, creating, and making newer and newer things, all of the time. All of 'them' obviously coming from 'new/er ideas'.

So, all 'new ideas' come through an [the] 'Open Mind', originate 'in thought', and are then stored in 'the brain', which is then able to share 'them' with other brains, and thoughts.

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “ However, although I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, for the reasons I keep explaining, here, I will 'now' presume that if I do have 'an idea' of 'what', exactly, originates ideas that you then would be 'somewhat' interested in hearing it. “

Assumptions are the mummy of all fuck ups anyway.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words should express ideas, not originate them.

Language and thought occur both by symbols. Symbols, by nature have meaning. Meaning is the attention on a phenomena that is in turn directed beyond itself by the phenomena. Symbols are means of transitioning consciousness by directing it and by direction a recontextualization of consciousness, the act of paying attention, occurs. This direction of consciousness is the transformation of it as the limits of the symbol are the distinctions by which consciousness occurs, thus when a symbol transitions consciousness to another symbol a transformation of consciousness begins for the attention on the symbol is the contextualizing of consciousness by giving it form. By paying attention to a symbol the consciousness gains definition within the inherent energy of attention thus the symbol is a metaphorical vehicle or house that contains the psyche. The symbol is a dimension of reality whose composing relations are determined by the attentive energy invested within it thus the fusion of consciousness with a symbol is the act of awareness by which distinction occurs where consciousness is the act of distinction itself by means of its self-reflective, self-referencing and self aware nature that justifies it as its own distinction.

[Impenitent]

Can anyone here speak Newspeak? Lie for the truth?

government is double plus good

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Can anyone here speak Newspeak? Lie for the truth?

government is double plus good

-Imp

and it costs you nothing