Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Influence’ Category

The Wikipedia entry defines Quala thus:

Qualia (play /ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkwliə/; singular form: quale (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːle]) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjectiveconscious experience. The term derives from a Latinword meaning for “what sort” or “what kind.” Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the experience of taking a recreational drug, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.
One might argue on this evidence that the definition applies only to some subjective qualities of a macro and  external experience while the most subjective experience of the organism must be, can only be, that internally generated experience of the individual self.  The quale of inner-experience cannot be a “macro” quantity, symbol or component such as the amount of pain or even the word, or the uncountable shades of red.  I can personally attest that one may know pain without also knowing how to interpersonally express or symbolize it.
 
I am not alone in believing that “qualia,” if it be an identifiable sort or kind of particular — salient to the awareness and consciousness, must instead be a micro, molecular or morphogenetic quantity representable in an associative network of firmly grounded states, (grounded in physical laws and causality).
 
I am aware, for example that my own inner-experience is conditioned by the homeostasis of the structure and function of my central nervous system; (not only the brain) the brain and its sensors along with the metabolism.  The objects of my inner experience are felt and reflected upon because I am emotionally invested in being here and now and in being me (the present particular “I am”).  
 
This emotional investment (from which one feels things) forms a feedback loop caused by the modal transformations of exogenous matters of the ecosystem and interpersonal realities into the conscious endogenous energy of self-realized experience.  It ought go without saying that I am also emotionally invested in the modern social world, (I have been raised with an American and interpersonal worldview) and I am socially, professionally and politically engaged in interactions with others.
 
A worldview is more than just a belief, opinion or perspective.  A worldview is a framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interpret their conditions of existence.  I have more recently been developing the idea that modern ethnographic worldview is not an invention or a construction, rather it is an expression of poiesis: a creation or production of that which is named by the combining roots of organism.  
 
The expression of which must be seen in light of both morphogenic and “ontogenic” properties in that there are a set of semantic rules that govern ontogenesis (i.e., growth of the morphogenic fields of language from the simple to far more complex forms of expression).  The macro field of “human reality” is seen as an expression of this biogenic field of organismic poiesis, rather than as a social, cultural, literary or political construct, or any other ethnographic construction.  
 
Poietic semantics operates (in intelligent people) by unifying and focusing intuitive cognitive processes (onto rudimentary elements and operations of poiesis and organismic function) and by regulating interprocess interactions and individual (endogenous semiotic) rulemaking.  I can vouch for the idea that the uptake, adoption and retention of a poietic worldview affects associative thinking in intelligent people (it anchors them; it gives them an objective and transformative hand-hold in a sea of assumptions) from more than thirty-years of personal experience.  
 
A poietic worldview engenders (in its learner) an exactness in the immediate conception of the elements and operations of poiesis (i.e. it is a concretion of Daniel Kahneman’s system-1 type thinking (i.e it is not AI nor analytic/reductionist)). It synthesizes the components, elements and influences of associative thinking, making such thinking that much more concrete and reliable.
 
Here is a short video overview I prepared recently that can be shared and downloaded.  
 

Read Full Post »

This post follows on my last introduction to an objective point of view and it continues exposing Adi’s semantics and the objects of the metalanguage he developed to help explain the relation between language, thought and basic or fundamental existence.

In this post I will charaterize, once again, the idea of conception.  Instead of using a psychological or psychoanalytic language as I have in the past, I will return to the physical theme that guided early research, after finding support for these ideas in Bohm’s book On Creativity (mentioned previously), to introduce the semiotics of creativity.  In this context, semiotics is seen as a system for the interpretation of symbols and creativity is simply the ability or power to create and to conceive (e.g., to form or devise a concept).

In what follows, I will show how the symbols of language are steeped in the creative forces of Nature so that we may extract the flavor and meaning of life.

As I have reported elsewhere in this blog,  computer scientists and linguists are fond of propositional theories that turn beliefs into statements and assertions that can be aggregated into data.  So, it has been difficult showing computer scientists, logicians and programmers, that there are other ways to process meaning.  What is called ‘semantics’ in the computer industry is the epistemological truth or correspondence between such stated beliefs or assertions.  This is all good, even rational, yet somehow ‘artificial’.  This has been demonstrated in the past and more recently with game-playing computers.

The ‘epistemological methods’  do not account for the ‘natural causes’ of human perception or the production of belief. This may be hard to grasp fully, yet, one intuitively knows that their ability to act or judge (also seen as an action) is subject to physical forces and conditions, arising from within and without, and to the passage of time.  Dr. Tom Adi discovered the essential nature of these physical powers and creative forces while looking for semantics in samples of a historically consistent language.

The semantic logic of the poietic-side (generative) use of language derives from physical processes: Upon enduring (more-often after appreciating) the forces and powers behind prominent events — take one that evokes a familiar, if not pleasing, sensation X — a Speaker S may find they can fashion physical gestures and symbols and actual procedures (moving towards, away / forward, backward, etc.) into mental tools. Such tools are used for projecting the idea (the configuration or arrangement of objects and procedures) that causes X, where the sophistication and use of such tools increases over time. Children often learn repetitively; by simulating or causing a physical procedure (influencing X) to reoccur.

Such ’physical procedure’ (explained more fully below) may be carried out in the imagination or for real. There is nothing mysterious about sensation X. It is defined according to practice as a palpable feeling or perception resulting from something that happens to or comes into contact with the body. It is physical nature that all living organisms have a proprioceptive sense; one that relates to the stimuli connected with the position and movement of the body. These stimuli, produced within the organism, are sensations that cause further reaction or response. Most people have witnessed a flower turn its petals to the sun.

The sensation that moves the flower is produced from within, from a sense of the extent, direction and force of impinging stimuli, i.e., For the flower, the ‘meaning’ is in the orientation of the flower in respect to the natural forces moving it to take the ‘right’ position. Moral and other distinctions holding mind and body apart are unnecessary to one’s proprioceptive sense of the position, location and relevant extent of objects and forces in one’s immediate presence.

While all living beings have a proprioceptive sense of being at their discretion, (to avoid running into things, face in the right direction, or simply satisfy their role, etc.) humans beings also have limited dominion over the creative forces of nature to go along with their animal instincts. It is human nature to uncover or discover the physical nature that causes one’s experience. One can use or abuse these powers and act in many ways, though mainly, one acts to change the future and one may act as if the future is irrelevant. The liberty and power to judge plays a major role.

As everyone does or should know very well, we cannot pass physical nature from ourselves to others, we can only project our own sensations as ‘sense-data’ — the idea that something (in the surrounding environment) affects us or causes X. We expect others can “feel” the same way or “see” or “sense” the “controlling presences” (often, even without quite knowing them ourselves).

The meaning in this sense-data is gathered up in the symbols we use to project the idea that causes sensation X. Others have to ‘get’ or apprehend the idea that produces sensation X.  To ‘have meaning’ is to be capable of causing sensation X to arise. Any useful sign must indicate a physical procedure: the forces and conditions that characterize the extent (limits and relevance) of objects in respect to a perceptible position or location and relevant extent of sensation X that a Speaker S desires to be produced in a Listener L.

Plainly, what is called the idea (here) is the position and power — of the particular configuration of being, forces and conditions — that produces sensation X and causes the anticipated reaction in an individual. The problem today is that the meaning of ideas, — the bearing of such forces and conditions — can be confusing, tacit, vague or ambiguous; hidden behind a plethora of speculative, metaphorical or subjective references projected using ordinary speech-Acts A.

Now let us turn our sights onto that ‘physical procedure’ and characterize the forces and conditions involved in the creation of meaning and the production of significance. A focal interpretation of such forces of production P and conditions of existence R is at-hand.

The formulation that follows derives from Adi’s theory of semantics, where the abstract objects of Adi’s metalanguage objectify natural operations, forces and conditions. These sets of objects, defined below in mathematical terms, construct a conceptual polar coordinate system given folks share a proprioceptive sense of being (a body in motion, oriented in space and time).

While a skeptic might accept a claim that humans are specs on a rock hurtling through space, being a body in motion in space and time is only slightly more abstract and ‘being human’ claims little more. It claims the need for knowing one’s position or location, power and relevant extent, in respect to other states and objects in the same dimension. Adi’s arrangement interprets the limits to the natural system of objects, forces and states present to interpersonal experience from a proprioceptive point or value.

Computationally, any sequence, function, or sum of a series (such as a series of sounds or phonemes, i.e., signs) can be determined to be progressively approaching or receding from this point or value, i.e.; its bearings can be determined.  If meaning is determined to be the property of something existing, said or done to impact one’s sensations  — as it appears to be — this functionality appears critical to predicting significance or pertinence and relevance.

It has been difficult for most people to understand how the positions of arbitrary objects and vague forces and conditions can be characterized or calculated from language. Many linguists quickly dismiss the whole idea as radical, incomprehensible or impossible, out of hand. It does not make them ‘right’.

Language is widely considered to be like a map of the territory of reality.  People use maps to get and set their bearings. People use language to navigate the world of other people and their opinions, along with other objects, things and feelings. Now that you have been introduced to this point of view, I urge the reader to think critically about what follows in connection with the examples that are included at the end of this characterization of Adi’s semantic objects.

While these forces and conditions are taken to be axiomatic, the implications can be barely perceptible. So I will first characterize the sets of (real) forces and conditions emanating from or impinging on the senses.Then I will present Adi’s semantic matrix where, essentially, thought and action, theory and practice, meet. The intersections of the matrix are overlaid with examples of legitimate workaday representations. Here first are the objects and sets comprising Adi’s semantic metalanguage; focused on the semantics of creativity (the ability to create):

Based upon semantic findings from a study of Classical Arabic, we assume there exists a changeless and universal content to life, a set of creative forces P, necessary to the body of conception, order and change in life:

P= { p(i) | i = 1, 2, 3 } =  {assignment, manifestation, containment}.

Supervening on these forces are a symmetrical set G of psychosomatic states: G={self,others}, symbolizing unity and plurality, and; a symmetrical set T of biophysical states: T={open,closed}, symbolizing propagation and restriction. When the objects of these sets are crossed, they reveal a fixed (and rich) set of conditions R that marshal the forces P into elementary (and evolutionary) processes or procedures:

R = T x G = { r(j) | j = 1 to 4 }                                                                                   =  {(closed, self),(open, self),(closed, others),(open, others)}.

The objects organized by ‘self’ and ‘others’ are seen as categorical beings objectifying engagement conditions present at all human and social events (wherever these entities are in relevant configurations in the same dimension). The states ‘open’ and ‘closed’ also organize categorical beings. Instantiations of these states objectify boundary conditions. Some may associate these categorical beings with Whitehead’s “controlling presences”. A natural symmetry holds between these objects and conditions R and objects organized by them. Symmetry is found at the root of life itself.

The former conditions objectify natural bonds formed from sensations of attraction and engagement.  This asserts nothing more than that the bare abstractions ‘self’ and ‘others’ stripped of any other associations yet afford a (concrete) sense of attraction and engagement (with unity and plurality) necessary to the formation of bonds.  The latter conditions afford a sense of the scope and constraint of present boundaries (e.g., the scope of space, distance and the constraint of time).

In essence, there are two-sides to each state of being influencing the bonds and organizing the bodies in motion or flux and present at any event.  The intersection of the conditions R with the set of forces P objectifies the valence of binding, unifying and organizing significant objects, forces and conditions into procedural states of being.

The selection and formulation of physical procedures — composed in respect to R of P — determines the type of polarity in the relationships R that ensue; whether applying or acting on the creative force of nature as implied by words and language. Adi derived four perceptible types of orientations from the crossing of boundary and engagement conditions. The valence of relationships R affords a sense of choice or bias; giving direction to, or unfolding: inward, outward, or being jointly or disjointly engaged.

The elementary processes, ‘Assignment’, ‘Manifestation’, and ‘Containment’, comprising the set of physical forces P within our dominion, are easily recognized as the creative forces of change when transformed into physical procedures and participatory acts of assigning, manifesting and containing; a capability to change the future in accordance with the conditions of existence R, described above.

Each speaker S marshals these forces and conditions in order to educe (to develop or bring out the latency of X, i.e., the potential of) the idea. The syntactic arrangement of consonant sounds encode symbolic processes that project the physical processes bearing on X.  It is here that there is harmonious agreement (semantics) or fidelity (or not).

Consequent to this view, a speaker S should (naturally) choose words and use language (speech-acts) A in such a way as to designate those physical forces P and (identify) the objects, states and relationships R that bear upon (or will have relevance and bearing to) Speaker S or Listener L or both S and L –from an objective point of view that S and L can and do share.  This prediction was tested by constructing a conceptual search engine (commercialized as Readware) that transforms arbitrary sequences of text and inquiries into values according to this theory. The search engine showed outstanding performance in tests that measure relevance, recall and precision in text retrieval programs. It also passed reading aptitude tests.

The results show that we can indeed construct a general point of view that thereafter predicts relevance and significance in matters presented to that objective viewpoint, one that can be readily implemented in computer logic.  A proprioceptive point of view proves to be an objective point of view; a view that is psychologically sensible to both S and L and that includes a sense of the internal unity of self-awareness and the external plurality of others, as well as a sense of the states of propagation and restriction, as categorical beings in and of themselves.  See the table below for examples.

The logic of the esthesic-side (aesthetic) understanding of language is explained as follows: in order to educe sensation X Listener (/reader) L filters the idea from within the projected sense-data –while decoding speech-act A.  If the idea is apprehended, its meaning is represented by the bearing of the forces of P and R to X; in which case we say that the meaning is induced in L, i.e., it causes the intended sensation X to actually or figuratively occur to L (i.e., appear to represent or symbolize a relevant form of physical power or influence). In such a case the idea and its meaning can/will cause sensation X to occur.  See the examples in the table below:

The Semantic Matrix of Creative Praxis

(the idea of conception)

Read Full Post »

Here is my post about defining words as the molecular building blocks in the creation and meaning of ideas. However, considering the confusion caused by the term semantics and the unwanted association to linguistics and the semantic web, I think I have to first provide a theory explaining how people correlate and interpret their interpersonal reality: The semantics of semiosis in the interdependent reality of being human, i.e.: the semantics of our humanity.

There is a Representational Theory of Mind (RTM) that is a controversial though sensible and practical theory taken up by many but not all computer scientists and AI engineers. I wish to take up and raise the power of this theory. RTM (cf. Field 1978, 37; Fodor 1987, 17). Fodor and Field developed this representational theory of thought out of Fodor’s Language of Thought Hypothesis (cf. Foder, 1975) and this goes back to James (1890). The theory recognizes thoughts as actions paraphrased thus:

For each biological or psychological act (inference/intention/disposition/resolution, etc.) A, one recognizes and partakes of (commits to) a distinct (i.e. a dedicated) physical affordance R to operate on one or more physical processes selected by subject S. S Acts to influence, or by influence of experience E or (to partake of) process P.

Logically, S bears a relation R to experience E and to physical process P.

Experience with this logical formula induces a cenoscopic type of knowledge that comes from the systematic realization of predictable consequences. These are implied by the way the first-order logic takes “reality” in its aspect to the induction or deduction of such logical relations. The scare quotes around “reality” are needed. Really! The subject S bearing the relation R has a limited range of experience E contending with undefined, yet potential actions or constraints R on one or more indefinite processes P of which one must partake to make an interpretation or create an idea.

A problem arises because whether any variable introduced into this logic actually coincides or correlates with life or with any particularly objective reality is not really questioned by those who apply the logic. This is where human beings and direct experience isn’t of much avail. If one does not know which humanistic affordance offers the most advantage and which humanistic process P to select, or is to be selected, to create a sustainable idea or manifest a suitable and realistic humane thought, how can any idea be measured against any other?

While RTM makes sense, being inductive of cenoscopic knowledge, followers have so far failed to identify the distinct sort of physical affordance R that humanity shares, that a subject S commits to, or; the operations, objects or functions subject S recognizes to act on or interpret their experience E. They have failed to properly characterize any process P in which subject S partakes to create ideas. There is folk-psychological doctrine and there is talk about beliefs – that is the sum of it. Since its inception: neither, the author’s of the theory of RTM proper nor proponents of the doctrines that have embraced it, has been successful in helping adherents identify key objects, operations, procedures and processes.

In his Essay on Human Understanding (1823/1963, p. 174), Locke (1690) wrote:

“All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts.”

From my perspective as a layman, I can see that modern computer and social sciences and philosophy have failed humanity in two of the three divisions of science. The RTM referenced above is science of the second division: what man ought to do as a rational voluntary agent to attain one’s own ends (whatsoever they may be). Because there is no focused definition of humanism, the actions of the agent are not committed to being humane, or even rational, at all. Without a requirement for humanity, whatever rationality exists arises from either irrational desire or rage; neither is appealing nor cultured. It seems to me that, in the case of raising the culture of human understanding, the first commitment one must make is to the humanity from whence biophysical affordance R emerges and rationality follows.

Computer, cognitive and social sciences, particularly linguistics and natural language engineering have failed humanity in both the first and second divisions of science. They have not developed ideoscopic knowledge of the nature of things, or of objects as they are in themselves, in their relations, and their manner of operation. They have not developed ideoscopic knowledge of what man himself, or woman herself, ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of a humane end. Finally and thirdly because they have failed to attain to an articulation of ideoscopic knowledge of both divisions one and two, the knowledge being communicated is cenoscopic knowledge, which; while it may often be necessary as excogitated minutia, is grossly insufficient and inadequate to formulating a workable theory of thought and a complete knowledge of both the first and second divisions of science.

Ideoscopic knowledge is knowledge that cannot be arrived at or verified without experimentation –like knowing how to swim, for example. We have ideoscopic knowledge of swimming that is shareable. You can verify this claim by looking up the definition of “to swim” or Google define: swim for the WordNet definition. Then look up the definition of the verb “fly” or Google define: fly. You may notice the difference. Many of us do have ideoscopic knowledge of the states of swimming and flying.

In the case of flying; that ideoscopic knowledge has not yet been attained or recognized by the scientists at Google or by the WordNet authority at Princeton University, and therefore, it is not being communicated. In the area of the humanity of thought and thinking, ideoscopic knowledge has to do with the humanistic use of signs and the correlative distinctions humans make or create between objects and things within the semiotic process, or semosis, carried out in a human mind.

Introducing a Semiotic Theory of Thought:

Mental processing, thinking in particular, takes the form of a triadic system of (supervening) power with relations between a) things (in the lebenwelt; in life) and b) objects in one’s own peculiar objective reality (one’s umwelt). In linguistics, words are signs of things that presuppose objects. According to the RTM, we have a) the subject or signifier S, and; b) the signified, that being the object signified or presupposed of existential sense data E, and; c) the supervening power (process) P and relationships R to which each of us, as human beings, commit ourselves in order to attain to the imputed cause, judgment or interpretation of creation as experienced by S.

That is the static view with experience resting on judgment; here is the dynamic view:

The domain of experience clearly has the potential to become interpreted. The powerful and dynamic relations of this system can be formalized (represented) as an algebraic formula – a recipe – taking creative power P as the main ingredient (the referent) to psychological processes of objectification and condensation. The subject S (the signifying processor) partakes of (selects from) the process P of creation, the distinct ability and specific affordance R necessary to distinguish and symbolize existential findings – the things of E (of the lebenwelt, such as P and R and things (sensible sights, sounds) in and among themselves) as objects — in a world of experience (umwelt) — and; in a state of being (the signified), subject to human being or human signification.

Therewith are the means by which the things and appearances of the outer life, outside self-existence, (lebenwelt) are objectified and condensed into the true and correlative objects of the world of experience (umwelt) by way of the functions (operations) in the domain and range of perception, creativity, imagination and cognitive activity (of one’s innenwelt). The formulable essence enveloping the three dimensions of one’s personal though objective reality is a semantic field of thought whereby thoughts are a function f of the interpretive system enformed by the process P of creation, hastened, constrained or halted, as needs be, by the affordance or potential of action according to the selection or choice of relationship R.

So, in the sense that every act of S bears R to E and partakes of P; we propose these commitments:

f ( P x R ): We define P and R according to Adi’s theory of semantics, whereby:

There is a universal set of psychosomatic objects: G={self,other}, with a potential for engagement and attraction;

there is a universal set of biophysiological objects: T={open,closed}, a potential for inhibition and boundary, and;

therefore:

R = T x G = { r(j) | j = 1 to 4 } =

{(closed, self),(open, self),(closed, others),(open, others)}, and;

there is process P to creation, whereby;

P= { p(i) | i = 1, 2, 3 } = {assignment, manifestation, containment}

The large scale distribution of ideas depends on ideoscopic knowledge of and command over this subtle and creative process or power P of creation: the ability to compare and confer status being part of the creative power of thought, e.g., A=A. Plato knew this. He railed against people to think for themselves. Each person has the power and authority to assign a value (e.g., equality); both command of the process P of creation and the liberty to exercise this ability, together with a mental and linguistic aptitude to manifest or create such an assignment for oneself.

Over the century of the self, people have lost their power and misplaced their values, now, kings and governments vie to be the only authority with the power to confer status. Click the link and watch the videos for an uncommon look at how human thirst for happiness has been used against you to rob you of your humanity.  The people who have given up or have lost their humanity to the false powers have misplaced values as well.  When people restore their humanity they will find the power they need to confer the status of being humane.

Below is a matrix (PxR) that symbolizes the variable functions of a sign system (English) as a unified semiotic field – derived from these definitions. Each cell has an atomic weight (not shown). In this table, each cell is an atomic unity that generates a state of thought; expanding in time and space. It shows the confluence of power and conditions generating the peculiar essence to each listed word/idea. Words can be defined as the molecular building blocks of a language – the molecular particulates needed to construct ideas. All ideas are themselves dependent upon the power P of creation and the potentiality of the relationships R that people have and are committed to. Speech acts are signs of that commitment.

At the top: the objects self and other symbolize psychosomatic relationships that afford a set of engagement conditions. The objects open and closed symbolize physical relationships that afford a set of boundary conditions. Together, they form a universal affordance, formalizing biophysiological boundary and engagement conditions. These relationships R embody the separation of the objects in space time; open and closed, self and other, in the various types of interdependently unifying configurations. They represent natural relationships R by symbolizing the valence of biophysiological influences on life; such as the fact that opposites attract and inhibitors inhibit among other interesting features of objects, things and their states of being.

Semiotic Field of Thought

This table demonstrates how the process P of creation (defined as a power set and listed vertically down the left-hand column) is objectified and expressed as the initial conditions in the creation or formation of objects in the world of experience; such as those listed. This biophysiological and psychosomatic potential orients the function f of each speech act, each word; the selected affordance determines the input function, domain and range for one’s own judgment. Consider the making or breaking of bonds in the ideas that are symbolized by the two symmetrical columns in the right-side of this matrix.

As you may surmise, the phonetic alphabet is in itself a physical symbol system (albeit one comprised of atomic particulates) that symbolizes and condenses these powers and conditions into the range of one’s own composure; the affordance of which is pragmatically acquired while learning motor and social skills.  Yet, because modern philosophy has failed to develop just this sort of ideoscopic knowledge, the connection is not pointed by instruction and demonstration, it is left to the imagination of each succeeding generation of children.  Many older children often miss the connection and thereby lack grounded concepts.  This creates adults with many doubts and few anchors in their world of experience.

As a basis for a language like English, anyone can now see how this system evolves coherent states of being that we already know about (and routinely refer to). Any word in existence, from any language, can potentially refute this theory. Because every term of every language can be defined in this way, there have been plenty of chances produced. Falsification is a property of a valid scientific theory. So, I invite others to try and refute this theory, I welcome their attention and trial.

Please let me know, with your comments, how it goes.  Until someone does refute this theory, let us regain our humanity and insist on humanism in all science:  the belief in a thinking human being that is capable of partaking of the power of creation: A human being who knows what creative power is, and becomes a willing participator, thereby (in that ideoscopic knowledge), in the process of creation.  Let him or her then be one of those human beings that attends to hastening and accommodating rather than obstructing and destroying the creative process for the Good of our humanity.

Read Full Post »

I know I said in my last post that I would continue with some examples of the molecular structure of signs, I have decided to postpone that demonstration.

I do this because a fellow empiricist sent me Rudolf Carnap’s paper “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” available here, all but accusing me of violating the basic principles of empiricism and leading back to a metaphysical ontology of the Platonic kind.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In later conversation, my friend assured me that he was not accusing me, however, he did mistake the subject matter of my semantics from within a framework of linguistic (lexical or functional) semantics. It occurred to me that others are doing that as well.

It is difficult to speak about any sort of meaning in any context because much of modern society, including societies of professionals, have been covertly driven to and infected by mediocracy.

Google was the flag bearer of mediocracy onto the Internet when they further distorted the value of quantity over quality and pursued their business plan of monopolizing content irrespective of any judgments over any sort of quality, such as: harmlessness, lawfulness, fit, utility, relevance, truthfulness, trust, etc.  Why did Google announce “they would do no evil”?  (NOTE:  This is not intended as defamatory, rather, it is stated as a matter of fact.) The announcement means that the object called evil was presupposed in the mind of the speaker.  This speaks to the process of semosis and to the fact that all public signs presuppose their objects.

Young people who expect to succeed in the future had better abandon any ideological, nominalist, secular or doctrinal and linguistic presuppositions they have about semantics and learn about semiosis.  That is best done by viewing a video skit that is the very best introduction I have ever come across in my thirty years of practice.  I dare say I could have not done a better job than John Deely in explaining this subject matter: the subject matter of semiotics.  The video is in five parts for easier viewing.  One should listen to all five in order to form complete picture of semiotics and what it is semiosis is all about (at least in the sense that I have come to know it and what I have in mind when I refer to objectivity, meaning, relevance, semantic objects and structures, truth, etc.).

Here is the introduction and part one.

A sign, as ordinarily understood, is simply something that suggests the presence or existence of something else, a perceptible indication of something not immediately apparent. What’s so difficult about that? Why should that require the development of a whole new perspective on reality and experience, as so-called “semiotics”, as the study of the way signs works, claims? This video, a dialogue between a semiotician and a proponent of “realist” philosophy, addresses directly the question of what is the difference semiotics makes for our understanding of what is a sign. (by John Deely)

Read Full Post »

In this post I will try to demonstrate  the semantics of identity in the context of “identity theft” –explaining why “identity theft” exists and why it is so absurd.  The reason is not very complex, so the understanding of it is within anyone’s capacity.  There are at least three perspectives considered below.

There is of course the personal and victimized perspective.  I shall refer to this as the victim’s perspective for the people are undoubtedly victimized by “identity theft”.  And there is another perspective mainly shared by political, banking and lending institutions, and big business.  The perspective of these stakeholders is the institutional perspective and it is shared by these establishments.  The third perspective is that of the skeptic and the critical thinker –not that all skeptics are critical thinkers and vice-versa.

To understand  the semantics of identity one must first understand that thinking is inseparable from doing.

In addition to the fact that there are at least two perspectives to any identity there are at least two ways of intersecting these active perspectives.   To understand the semantics, we can look at a static state of affairs –as we often must– and to do so, we freeze a situation for retrospective analysis.

There is also a way of seeing what is happening as a dynamic interrelated set of entities, objects and processes, because, as a matter of fact, everything is always moving and in motion.  One side is not independent of the other, each is an aspect of a single object or entity.   There is then, a static aspect to identity and a dynamic aspect to identity.

I am sure most readers would take all that as rather abstract so let’s try to make it more concrete at the risk of sounding a little absurd in the face of reality.  Recall now that the institutional establishments have invented the phrase “identity theft”, and that such establishments have a stake in controlling one’s identity.  Now theft of course, means that something, usually property, is stolen by somebody else, so we can dispense with further discussion of that part of the phrase.  The rest of the phrase implies that it is one’s own identity being stolen.

Let’s examine that; beginning with personal identity as this is the case we all know best.  For all our intents and purposes, the proper name of an identity is one such (relatively) static aspect of identity. A proper name has its own semantics.  A proper name is a label and sometimes a handle for an identity.

A label is meaningful for separating things, for calling people and for tracking, that is; a proper name is meaningful in the context of labeling things for distribution, segregation, control and similar purposes.  Now, notice that we are no longer talking about identity. Here, now, we are talking about the utility of proper names.  Now this fact –a seemingly innocuous switch of subject– seems very important to me. Particularly as many people are victims of “identity theft” these days.

It is here that the skeptic might be thinking that all this is absurd and that it matters not what name is used for any purpose. Identity theft, for example, does not have to mean that one’s identity is being stolen some skeptic may say.  To that I would respond that words and names are often convenient labels but it does not make them true or correct labels.  For the labels to be determined to be true, one must be able to examine the case and its implications in order to come to an agreement as to whether it is a true or correct application of the label.

If you are following me, you will resolve after due consideration, that “identity theft” is not a true description of what is happening in such a state of affairs and within the surrounding cloud of circumstances.  If you are a victim of so-called “identity theft” What is being stolen is not your identity or even your proper name –because many people share the same proper name– what is being stolen is data or “information” linked to your occupational being here (and all about your participation in an economy).

Now, it matters only whether some property of the victim is being stolen or whether property of the establishment is being stolen or otherwise  misappropriated.

Your credit cards and wallet and bank account numbers and passwords in your possession are your property, but your credit history files are not your property.  The data in your credit history file is stored on computers that are not your own. The files and computers belong to the bureaucratic and institutional establishments. The data inside these files are fully intended and designed to provide information about you and to further segregate and classify you.

Now almost everyone has heard of the situation referred to by calling it “identity theft”. That actually means that someone has broken into your credit history and related files and is illegally using the information there to impersonate you.

By calling it “identity theft” instead a high-tech crime of “data hacking” and theft of “information”, bankers and big business retailers and other lenders are able to make it your problem. e.g., as if your “identity” is being stolen. Though it is not your identity being stolen. Why is their data and systems being hacked your problem and not their problem?  Shouldn’t they be held accountable?  Is it because “they have the power” and you do not?  If that is what you think; that answers why it is your problem.

Understand that it is the actual digital files and information that they –the institutional establishment– created about you that is being misappropriated.  The files and information are not your property. Because they are not your property, why should you be required to ensure the safety and security of these files? Why aren’t they held accountable for their own property and for the damage they do to your reputation?  The answer is simple.  You do not realize your own power and you do not exercise your will to object and to push back against the establishment when it goes wrong-headed.

Therefore your elected officials with legal power over the institutional establishment allow them to do it. Electing new politicians cannot help you, if you are not thinking correctly.  The new politicians will allow it too. For one, they will say: It has always been that way.  The real or true reason though, is: It is allowed because the semantics are unclear.  The semantics are unclear because the labels are being used in a confusing way.  The consequence of confusion is more confusion.  A consequence is the effect of taking an action, so that is to say that wrong-headed actions are taken.  In the wake of confusion, lucrative deals come more readily than when things are more settled.

The semantics of identity is assignment.  Assignment is an elementary semantic process.  What does it take to make an assignment?  What are you doing when you make an assignment?  Creating theories and concepts about the way things appear and their implications is a part of critical thinking.

In the case that I tried to frame above, the issue is identify theft.  So, we must question our assumptions about identity and what it is.  Without semantics –that is, without basic symbolic knowledge of the original cause and the interrelationship of identity to the wholesome and unified awareness, one might accept that an identity is only a name, label, or some nomenclature that we use in language and in talking about people and other things.

Critical thinking requires one to be clear and precise about their concepts.

So my concept of identity converges to the assignment of a name or label in order to identify the object or process occurring to the awareness.  The semantics of identity is assignment.  This is to say, quite objectively, that an occurrence that appears to have an identity (such as the appearance of the computer before you) is such identity only because we have assigned it the name “computer”.  Identity is a symptom of the assignment we make.  What does it take to make an assignment?  What are you doing when you make an assignment?  You are using your authority and free will to do something.  Framing and answering such questions is a part of critical thinking.

If you are a parent, ask yourself, who or what gave you the authority to assign your child a name –their identity.  No kingdom or government regulates such a thing.  If you are not a parent , ask yourself, what gives you the authority to call something good or bad — to pass judgement by association –by naming or referring to something substantive of a thing.  What power or right gives you, or me for that matter, the authority to call the computer a computer and not a calculator or some other name?

The semantics of identity is assignment.  An assignment confers rights to being.  When you make an assignment, what you are doing, is that you are conferring rights.  Thinking is inseparable from doing.

Whether it is done subconsciously, preconsciously or consciously, because it  is a matter of implication and consequence, and because it is held almost entirely within the realm of the mind and within the “processes of thinking”, until it becomes a matter of fact or consequence, most people tend not to even notice that they are exercising their own personal authority.  You exercise your authority to make an assignment while making any decision that is involved in creating or affirming any identity. This is done by conferring upon it, its right to identity.   Think of it… what power! What Grace?

Your right to identity along with your proper name — was conferred upon you by your parents. No one can take that away.  In fact, if you want to change your name, you need a judge to grant that right for good reason.  Why do you give into the ruse that your identity is being stolen –so easily?  Because the bankers and lenders say so?

Your parents give you your name, but your own self-identity arises from that perfect union and nurture from which your being here unfolds. Your rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a birthright.  Does it make you happy that the institutional establishment has taking over control of your life and liberty and that they have abrogated your own power and property of self-identity and used it for their own profit?

If you do not like that reasoning, try this:  If you are a victim of so-called identity theft, then you have apparently nothing more to lose.  Why not go to court and point out to the judge that your identity is quite intact and that it was the lender’s data files that were hacked and stolen and that has created havoc in your life along with financial ruin.  Now of course, you cannot do this if you are careless with your own property:  your files, data and information.  In this, case you must suffer the consequences of being careless, unthinking and out of touch with what is happening around you.

I am not a lawyer.   Perhaps one will comment. I believe if you are careful and the theft is not of your own property– i.e., your identity or your wallet or card or something else in your care and possession, then you have a case for judicial review.  If your judge concurs that it is indeed a credit or banking system or file being hacked, causing in its wake irreparable harm that you can document, the judge may rule that the banker or creditor is a fault for not protecting the information in the first place.

Disclosing one’s private information, whether intentionally or not, is a crime that should carry hefty penalties as a multiple of the damage that is inflicted on the victim. Now don’t you agree after all, that we should all think more carefully and critically about the way words are used?

Read Full Post »

It has been some time since my last post and not much has changed with semantic technology except that business slowed for many.  Tom Adi and I have been busy with pending publications, one of which was announced here.  That article has all the details of the algorithms and information technology that were  derived from Tom Adi’s original research

For those that are interested in reading that peer-reviewed article, this post and the links provided here will provide you a framework for understanding the cognitive and semantic theory that is introduced and presented in detail there.  I think it might be hard for database programmers and systems engineers to follow because they are familiar with data reduced by some kind of independent and reductive determinism, such as with a statistical or intentional model.  This involves neither of those techniques.  This implies there is something to learn.

The original research and the unifying  processes described here are used to characterize the determinate elements and operations of an otherwise indeterminate situation.  Characterizing the determinate elements and operations of a situation is part of the scientific process of discovery.  Discovering and characterizing such elements and operations has the character of a learning process and not that of an ideology (the body of ideas reflecting modern-day logical deduction and reductive determinism common of the Internet computing culture).

We were not trying to understand or create data or knowledge or information processing models, except as we conceptualized how to create experiments, test and implement text analytic systems of understanding.  Tom Adi is a computer scientist though his original research and our decades of work together was squarely aimed at understanding how the human mind identifies and interprets the determinate elements of salience while reading expressions from messages and texts.  This is certainly something a human mind does: read and interpret stuff about the world around them.

Understanding the human mind is important to researchers and scientists.  New scientific findings suggest that cognitive skills are activated from outside of individuals, outside of their independent minds and away from their independent being.  This understanding gleaned from studies of apes and children in learning situations, sheds additional light on why computers are unable to intelligently learn from AI models, by reason of logical patterns, by statistics or by other models of intentional semantics.

This Nova program series about Ape Genius, highlights studies of a variety of primates, including humans.  The research focuses on the capability to learn, to respond to reward and gesture, and on experiments that measure cognitive and intelligent task mastery.

This research points out that a big difference between the other primates and humans is found in the capacity to teach.  Humans differ from other apes in that human children are taught and may even anticipate being taught. Researchers found what they called a magic Triangle, the social situation where a student and a teacher are focused upon a substantive object. They see this as the key to why this world is not the Planet of the Apes, instead of it being the domain of human beings as it is.

A similar sort of thing happens when a reader focuses attention onto an instructive piece of writing as this post may be found to be, that is:  the same forces and influences come into play as those that exist between an independent teacher, a student and a substantive object (or subject) of attention: the Triangle –here between author, reader and the subject of the post.

This Triangle exists in logic and in the conventional functionality involved in all interpersonal communications including film media.  Consider the reference to the planet of the apes above.  I am invoking the Triangle to put the focus of attention on the semiotic of the film: that we could just as well be digging termites from mounds in the jungle, if we did not already realize that we have this capacity to recognize the conceptual interdependence between teaching, learning and the substance of existence– from its semiotic character. To bring this out of one’s subconscious mind means one must bring the substance of the concept to the attention and into the mind and struggle to hold and absorb it –that is the capacity to recognize existing interdependency.

In fact, while one can readily separate everything in their world into emotion, feelings, knowledge, beliefs, desires, demons, angles, tools, material goods and artifacts and what have you, there are two possibilities of the existence of such things.  There is the stuff of the conception and the stuff of physical matter.  Any sensuous impression or perception falls into the extension of the conception or into the extension of physical matter.  We can write that any thing belongs to either the physical substance S of their existence or to a conception C of that existence, that conscious being as it is, is cognizant that there is a material equivalence between them (has a prior knowledge that there is interdependency between the physical and conceptual substance of existence).

And I should further define it here as that unified being: a Triangle of interdependently conscious understanding Ui working on a system comprised of physical substance S and of the conception C or Ui[S,C] where the conception of existence C is materially equivalent to the physical substance of existence S in a logical sense (C<==>S). The implication (meaning) is that the conception C is true only when the substance S is true otherwise the conception C is false (in a logical sense).

In a material sense, there is a transformation of substantive and salient impressions into a conception of that substance.  The transformation can be seen as a cognitive learning process. One can conceive of that transformation as part of one’s intelligence or cognitive processes, though because it is a biological system, its operations, elements and processes appear to have a relative structure very much like the metabolic elements, operations and processes where molecules are transformed into metabolites according to the combined structure of determinate elements and the needs of the organism.

In this way one can conceive of their cognitive system of conception [S,C] in the same way one conceives of their own Metabolic Repair system [M,R].  The purpose of the conception can then be seen as the innate capability to repair the substance of one’s own existence just as one’s own metabolism repairs their own body.  The implication is that we can repair this existence.

You have probably not heard of the human intelligence and the elements, operations and thematic relations of the cognitive processes being equated to the metabolism before.  This is because it is an original idea.  There are many implications of this projection of reality, which I trust the reader will bring to their mind as they consider what has been reported here. Most important is the significance and priority of interdependence over independence, though the realization of the unifying purpose of the conception is individually liberating.  It has the power we need to change the world in which we exist.  The prospect of unifying humanity against disorder and chaos is not as daunting when the natural interdependency of existence is considered.

Now it is important to everyone that their conception and their being here in this place we call the world, is unified and not schizophrenic– otherwise we will have chaos and misunderstanding. A schizophrenic existence is one where the elements of the existence are not only disjointed, they are disparate and even antagonistic. Because that is how people are today –disjointed, with disparate opinions and beliefs and antagonistic feelings– we have a serious situation that is in need of repair. Didn’t you know, people feel disconnected, even unaccountable.  There are reasons for this.

I will come back to the unifying processes of the unified conception, which is the conceptual part of meaning of conceptual interdependence, in the next post.  In this post I want to define the importance of the interdependence part and introduce the reader to the social influences that were invented to divert people from the power of their own autonomous reasoning, and instead keep them in line and under control as a whole– that will come down below.

Returning now to the interdependent structure; unlike intradependence which expresses the inward functionality of the elements of wholeness, the unifying processes and their orientation, the functions of interdependence must reach outward away from the self and towards others. Still, maybe a little surprisingly for some readers, these are unifying processes implementing a unifying process.  The implication is that reunification will be achieved in the end. Considering how far barely unified nations of people have advanced the race, it begs the question why we cannot achieve a unified world order in our lifetime.

There is a way, though before you can recognize it, you must first consider and acknowledge that there are extensions to functional and thematic relations as well as intensions to all social relations.  The extensions of the thematic relations between the self and others are called social or interpersonal and these situations and states of affairs are addressed by social interdependence theory.  Nouns and verbs and other descriptive and lexical elements of language and its grammatical conventions fall into these extensions as does knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc.

The intensions of the thematic relations are comprised of the elements, the boundaries and the engagement conditions enveloping and existing between the self and others and from within which motives are activated. These are addressed by conceptual interdependence theory which states that there are conceptually interdependent boundaries and engagement conditions that are uniformly projected (according to precedence and by way of an extended projection principle) onto the unifying and determinate elements underlying every state of affairs.

In this respect, it does not matter if the substance of that existence has physical or conceptual properties or attributes –as such properties and attributes are neither distinct nor separate.   What is of significant importance to the Triangle is the fulfillment of geometric points and angles in the construction of its structure: i.e.,  teaching/teacher and student each focusing attention onto a substantive object is a: conceptual structure.  This structure is the subject matter of Adi’s cognitive and semantic theory.

This conceptual structure can be understood from the ways a situational analysis is conducted according to social interdependence theory.  In their 2008 paper, Why We Need Interdependence Theory,  social psychologists Caryl E. Rusbult and Paul A. M. Van Lange, write in the abstract on social influence:

Interdependence theory identifies the most important characteristics of interpersonal situations via a comprehensive analysis of situation structure and describes the implications of structure for understanding intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. Situation structure matters because it is the interpersonal reality within which motives are activated, toward which cognition is oriented and around which interaction unfolds.

In a very similar fashion, the thematic relations of my conceptual interdependence theory (comprised of my interpretation of Adi’s cognitive and semantic theories) identifies the significant characteristics of the Triangle, that is; the interpersonal reality within which teaching and learning motives are activated, toward which cognition is oriented and around which interaction and representation (speech, reading, writing and arithmetic) unfolds.

These themes, unlike their extensions, are not linguistic, but are pre-linguistic, in their origins.  The necessary thematic relations are not given by nouns and verbs or other parts of speech. You can easily recognize the polar coordinates of pairs of adjectives like good or bad, fast and slow, pretty and ugly, yet such extensions of concepts have little to do with the inherent boundaries of conceptual interdependence except to demonstrate such interdependence in the existential objects and subjects they denote in their extension or reference.

The philosophy of language does not adequately account for the word structure, nor of the elements, operations or the interdependency of the thematic relations indicated by internal structure.  What does a noun have to do with activating and focusing the attention?  What primacy of the gestalt is captured by the verb?  If you go down that road, as many researchers have, all you end up with is shifting assumptions, nearly whimsical conventions and delusional though deductive relativism.

Because Information scientists depended on the faulty ideas of a few linguists, this explains why AI models are unable to learn on their own; the thematic relations identified by linguists with their various natural language and grammatical models are not the thematic relations we need for capturing conceptual, social or any other kind of interdependence outside the syntax of the sentence.

Yet –at the foundation of the understanding there are these thematic relations on which all teaching, language, communication, logic and mathematics continually revolve and from which ideas and thought arise.  I will get into them a little deeper in my next post. There I will take up the unity of being, the unity of the conception and the system of understanding the world as an anticipatory system Ui[S,C] introduced briefly above.

Here below I want to offer the reader this comprehensive treatment of the subject of social influence in the form a four part (four hour) BBC documentary series.  After watching this series, I trust you will agree with me that in order to keep from being duped by all those who would control our deepest emotions and desires; we must know the elements and operations that are used for that control so that we are able to recognize it and learn to avoid its effects when such control affects our own lives.

How we (the American culture) were drawn in to this present day reality, and how we are affected by powerful influences without even knowing it, is plainly portrayed in this BBC documentary. In light of present day economic circumstances it presents a chilling commentary on what got us here and it may be a harbinger of what is yet to come.

Each part is about one hour and I realize how difficult it is for some people to pay attention for more than a few minutes. But if you are less than one hundred years old, you will find much of this relevant and quite interesting. If you are socially and politically conscious, it will be even more worth the time it takes to watch, I promise.

The Century of the Self

* Century of the Self, Part I, Happiness Machines
* Century of the Self, Part II, The Engineering of Consent
* Century of the Self, Part III, There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed
* Century of the Self, Part IV, Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

After watching the series, ask yourself:  Can the American Self realize its interdependence after centuries of hard won independence? Chances are, you will be able to judge in your lifetime.  Leave your opinion as a comment here below.  I’ll be back within a few weeks with the followup post on the unity of being and the unity of the conception.

Read Full Post »

I have heard it said that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. The original line comes from Shakespeare’s famous play about Romeo and Juliet:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

According to scholars: Juliet, prevented from marrying Romeo by the feud between their families, complains that Romeo’s name is all that keeps him from her. Juliet’s lines before the quotation most often remembered, are:

“Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!”

She is certainly complaining that a name is no “part belonging to a man.” It is not part of the substance of being a man. Juliet is trying to make sense of her conflicted being– inflamed with her heart’s desire. Perhaps as part of her thinking about ways out of the conflict in which she is engaged, she reasons there is no particular cause that her man could not be called by another name. She pleads for another judgment supported with her famous argument that the “essence”, or “bare and particular substance” of a Rose is its sweet smell –that would remain if called by any other name– she continues in the following lines:

“So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.”

She concludes Romeo would still have that “dear perfection which he owes” were he not called Romeo. Finally she asks he forsake his name for her. This is not an easy thing she asks. Forsaking one’s name means forsaking one’s family, one’s ancestors and heritage and perhaps one’s fortune and inheritance. She does not offer to forsake her own name. That demonstrates a small and unavoidable, and also undeniable, part of the subjective obfuscation of the “dear perfection” which is the bare and particular substance of everything in existence.

Human culture is unique in our capabilities to name all the things that touch the existence and impinge on the experience whether or not such things have or show tangible form. Such is the distinctive character and aroma of the rose, the distinctive character and dear perfection of Romeo, for example. Other kinds that have brains, intentional states and awareness, do not confer, give or grant names to things and record them for their posterity.

This suggests that one owes all that adds to one’s own knowledge and character to that “dear perfection” -that Wisdom to which each of us may often appeal –that, that exists, remains and endures—beyond individual and subjective existence and experience– certainly beyond the names of things. For what might become of that presence we call a rose if no one person were ever around to experience its sweet aroma, to call it a rose; to cultivate and appreciate it—no one with any senses to thrill, existing or thinking?

The terms “thought,” “idea” and “belief” are just names for the “stuff” of that dear perfection that seems to flow into and out of each of us, just as the name of the rose is a handy moniker for the apparent salience of that unmistakable aroma and perfection sensed upon its appearance or recollection. These names are terminology we invent; to order, “slice up” and talk about the presence of “stuff” going on or happening in our heads, in our hearts and all around us, only because that same stuff is particular to everything that is going on or happening and it cannot otherwise be distinguished.

Therefore it is a distinguishing process, this conceptual, reflective thinking in which each of us engages. Thinking is something that each of us happens to do, though the stuff or substance that we take in as input to such awareness and cognition is nebulous and it is regularly deemed unclassifiable as it is channeled, consumed, recognized and altered into a product observed or otherwise output.

It is for one’s own self to distinguish for individual perspectives of that stuff can only be accorded a spontaneously occurring designation suited to the moment, to an aspect or to a function. It is wise to: Know thyself.  Yet, if we are to know it, however sophisticated the designation that is born of that special ideal, we ought not to mistake the cognition nor the designation of it  for substantive power of it –this power by which each of us are gently impelled and often rigidly compelled to register, resolve and to reason.

Shakespeare wrote:  “We are such stuff / As dreams are made on”

Dreams are a force on their own. The mind is made on that same sort of stuff. Though we cannot quite touch this powerful substance we cannot deny the forceful and influential effect the dreams of all humanity have had on our collective and individual awareness.  In order that we may dream a dream and think a thought, indeed, that we enjoy the inherent capacity to know a rose, we have this power to use, to do work;  to try and extract or separate some of that essence we call the rose– from its existence in that dear perfection in which it resides and from which all the world gets its share.

The Egyptians attributed such power and rudiments to Thoth, the early Greeks attributed the power to the Logos. Today, some call this Providence and many call this the power of knowledge.  The rose is not a lotus nor any other kind except that it is. The existence of names, terms and the pervasive use of language throughout the time of human civilization, supports the fact that there is present, common, and enduring value to that dear perfection empowering and diffusing every idea—the cumulative and dynamically incremental heritage of creaturely sharing in which each of us persistently partake and delight.

That there are rudiments derivable from such distinctly human qualities and that these are representative sign functions for the wisdom and thought also obtainable from the gamut of human languages, seems incredible…and but for Adi’s Semantic Theory we are indeed clueless, rudderless.  Many scientists, those skeptics called relativists, even professional linguists, resist the idea that the stuff of dear Perfection, the Logos behind all speech and every human word is indeed amenable, if not to definition, at least to utilitarian indication; and there is meaning enough in that for everyone’s pleasure.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »