12
   

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 03:56 pm
@jerlands,
jerlands wrote:

igm wrote:

jerlands wrote:

igm wrote:

jerlands wrote:
Words in and of themselves are active things.

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

That is quite apparent. A bird isn't a bird unless it's considered in reference to something else. If you put everything together would it give a sound? If so then that sound would contain the meaning of everything.

As long as that sound isn't described using a word or words.


Here we go again... sounds are associated into words. words are parts of sound.

Words refer to sounds, words artificially created from one non-dual sound, they are not part of sound, they are artificially created by sound.

Words depend on sound for their meaning. Sound does not depend on words for its meaning, the sound is inefable, non-dual but the words that refer to it, create dualism. Sound in its true nature is non-dual, it is one sound. How can there be a sound that is isolated from other sounds or from everything, the whole of reality is interdependent and therefore non-dual. As it is non-dual it is ineffable, indescribable by words.

jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 04:06 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

Words depend on sound for their meaning. Sound does not depend on words for its meaning, the sound is inefable, non-dual but the words that refer to it, create dualism.


Man depends for some reason on associations. Does reality exist if we don't see it? We attempt to form our perceptions into something tangible and one form of that expression is word.

igm wrote:

Sound in its true nature is non-dual, it is one sound. How can there be a sound that is isolated from other sounds or from everything, the whole of reality is interdependent and therefore non-dual. As it is non-dual it is ineffable, indescribable by words.


You wouldn't see light if it didn't cross something. Duality allows us to see.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 04:10 pm
@igm,
This discussion is inevitably going to fall into whether or not life is purposeful.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 04:20 pm
@jerlands,
jerlands wrote:
You wouldn't see light if it didn't cross something. Duality allows us to see.

To reiterate:

The OP is, "Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?"

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

A word, in its attempt to describe, fails, because it is not the referent. Reality can never be describe using words because it is 'not' reality, just an attempt to describe it, which must always fail.

Reality experienced directly is where wise, intelligent thoughts, words and actions arise from, full of compassion, used only to point either directly or indirectly at how to experience the true nature of reality directly. The experience of which is ineffable but conventionally it is called non-dual happiness.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 04:30 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

To reiterate:

The OP is, "Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?"


A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

This is a matter of opinion because you're associating all words with our conception of word today. It's proposed words are intuitive in that our being has some association with them that allows certain sounds to be understood.

jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2018 05:04 pm
@igm,
see this posting.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 09:30 am
@igm,
jerlands wrote:
Here we go again... sounds are associated into words. words are parts of sound.

Something struck me... Light... what we see as red is only a part of light. What we hear as Oh, is only part of sound.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 12:20 pm
@jerlands,
Your analogy is flawed. In physics 'red' is to wavelength of light as 'pitch' is to wavelength of sound. In perceptual psychology, the sensation 'redness' is a function of, culture, ambient light and background features, whereas 'Oh' is a function of the socialization process through which 'phoneme discrimination' of one's native language is acquired.
In short, your phrase 'only part of' is vacuous because it understates the contextual complexities of visual and oral perception. Those complexities are allegedly what instigitated Wittgenstein to reject his own earlier acclaimed Tractatus and produce his Philosophical Investigations in which his adage 'meaning is usage' comes to the fore.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 12:48 pm
@jerlands,
EDIT
......'audio' NOT 'oral' perception.
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 01:34 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Your analogy is flawed. In physics 'red' is to wavelength of light as 'pitch' is to wavelength of sound. In perceptual psychology, the sensation 'redness' is a function of, culture, ambient light and background features, whereas 'Oh' is a function of the socialization process through which 'phoneme discrimination' of one's native language is acquired.
In short, your phrase 'only part of' is vacuous because it understates the contextual complexities of visual and oral perception. Those complexities are allegedly what instigitated Wittgenstein to reject his own earlier acclaimed Tractatus and produce his Philosophical Investigations in which his adage 'meaning is usage' comes to the fore.


Really? is that what it is? it's flat and not round?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 01:56 pm
@jerlands,
Not a clue what you are talking about. Have you ?
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 02:10 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Not a clue what you are talking about. Have you ?


Maybe I should have said All-A-Round.

fresco wrote:
In perceptual psychology, the sensation 'redness' is a function of, culture, ambient light and background features, whereas 'Oh' is a function of the socialization process through which 'phoneme discrimination' of one's native language is acquired.


This is simply a load of crap. You have no idea what you speak.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 02:25 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Not a clue what you are talking about. Have you ?


The Moody Blues wrote:

The Word
This garden universe vibrates complete
Some may get a sound so sweet
Vibrations reach on up to become light
And then through gamma, out of sight
Between the eyes and ears there lie
The sounds of color and the light of a sigh
And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe
But it's all around if we could but perceive
To know ultra violet, infra-red and X-rays
Beauty to find in so many ways
Two notes of the chord, that's our full scope
But to reach the chord is our life's hope
And to name the chord is important to some
So they give a word and the word is Om
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 02:36 pm
@fresco,

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 02:50 pm
@jerlands,
Unfortunately your 'crap' comment merely indicates that you are ignorant of the literature which I, and everybody in the field needed to take into consideration when engaged in perceptual research.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 03:35 pm
@fresco,
Well, when you're ready come play
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 03:39 pm
@fresco,
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 04:20 pm
@fresco,
Better Copy

0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2018 05:20 pm
@fresco,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2018 at 05:08:12