Definitions

[Cyperium]

First of all, (Q); This is not meant as a counter-attack to your thread (though your thread woke my concern).

This is what I want to express.

We shouldn't define everything. Some things are best kept as it is. When we define it we may change the meaning of the word. Sooner or later only God will know the true meaning.

I'm expressing a concern here, I feel that maybe we start to go away from the teachings of life itself, and learn by definitions we ourselves have made.

Maybe we shouldn't do that, or at least let ourselves be taught by life - even if we by definitions know what to look for (that is - if the definition expressed it in a way that was similar to what it really was).

We experiance a truth greater than us. We are constantly trying to understand it, label it, and define it. Why not let it be what it is?

I understand that people want to explore (I want that too) and that people have (allways) had a need to label things (if not for communicating purpouses). But maybe we should stop there and don't go into definitions, cause we can't be sure that maybe some have found another meaning of the word.

Or if we need to make definitions, that we at least are open to the possibility that reality may show us the truth behind the definition.


Ok, this may be a good advice - even if you agree with my concern or not:
Maybe we should use definitions as a map. Not more, not less. But a map to show us what to look for, or a clue if you want.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

sorry cyperium, but it's part of human nature, to want to progress and better ourselves.
we cant continue to live in the dark ages, we need to learn to advance to become more enlightened.
not hide in a room, and say I must abide by my gods wishes, I must stick my head in the sand and it will all go away. and all will be right, with the world, as god wanted it.
(anyway if god is omnipotent, Omniscient then he new we would change the definitions of words.)
sorry we have to live in the real world and better our future's, they change things all the time, it's part of life.( in northern greece, the word for cucumber is rude, but in the south, it just means cucumber.)such is life.

 

[(Q)]

We shouldn't define everything. Some things are best kept as it is.

This is the same line of reasoning that would have us all living in caves, running and hiding from the sound of thunder and grunting at one another with really bad breath.

Sooner or later only God will know the true meaning.

You can't prop up one assertion with another.

But maybe we should stop there and don't go into definitions, cause we can't be sure that maybe some have found another meaning of the word.

That's fine, let them stand on the world stage and enlighten us all. If good, we'll add it to the lexicon. Problem solved.

Why not let it be what it is?

Are we to merely sit back and allow the unknown to remain so?

If you knew an unknown would benefit mankind, would you still adjudicate it to remain unknown?

Or if we need to make definitions, that we at least are open to the possibility that reality may show us the truth behind the definition. Maybe we should use definitions as a map. Not more, not less. But a map to show us what to look for, or a clue if you want.

It is reality that we want to define in order to better understand it. And without definition, we are lost in trying to effectively communicate our understanding.

 

[Godless]

We shouldn't define everything

Then we would truly be lost.

Some things are best kept as it is.

If we would have done this we would still be under the "Geocentric theory", believe that the earht is the midle of the universe and the sun revolves around earth.

I feel that maybe we start to go away from the teachings of life itself

Life does not teach, one learns upon observation and identification. However you rather not identify, just leave things as they appear. (rationalize)

We experiance a truth greater than us

No you don't that's dellusional, you have no greater experience only a denial of your consciousness, you want the easy answers, you search in vain for outomatic knowledge without searching for it, and IDENTIFYING it.

We are constantly trying to understand it, label it, and define it. Why not let it be what it is?

Because what it is, (whatever you mean) must have an identity, it has to be defined, it has to be learnt, it has to be discovered, if we lived by your simpleton logic we wouldn't have the things we have today, we would still be dwelling in caves, or mud huts.

I understand that people want to explore (I want that too) and that people have (allways) had a need to label things (if not for communicating purpouses). But maybe we should stop there and don't go into definitions, cause we can't be sure that maybe some have found another meaning of the word.

Words are defined by the context matter of your writing. If one didn't understand the words, then one can't possibly understand the context. This why all words need identification. Even if it has several meanings, it's defined by the context.

Godless.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

Unless people can mutually agree on how things are defined then effective communication cannot exist. You cannot unilaterally decide what something means and expect others to acquiesce to your non-existent authority.

 

[Cyperium]

sorry cyperium, but it's part of human nature, to want to progress and better ourselves.

I understand that, but I'm not talking about the scientific progress, I'm talking about people to people.

we cant continue to live in the dark ages, we need to learn to advance to become more enlightened.

Same as before, I'm not talking about scientific progress.

not hide in a room, and say I must abide by my gods wishes, I must stick my head in the sand and it will all go away. and all will be right, with the world, as god wanted it.

God doesn't want you to stick your head in the sand, He wants you to see the light (if anything), follow what you believe is good (honestly) and for you to not be afraid cause love is not afraid, and fear is not in Gods nature.

(anyway if god is omnipotent, Omniscient then he new we would change the definitions of words.)

Of course He knew. He knows everything.

sorry we have to live in the real world and better our future's, they change things all the time, it's part of life.( in northern greece, the word for cucumber is rude, but in the south, it just means cucumber.)such is life.

"such is life": it's your life, don't give up.

Remember; I didn't say that scientific progress is wrong (but you shouldn't take it so personal, it's not your progress (though you can learn from it and get progress from it).

I didn't say that making words for things are wrong either. But I did say that maybe we should stop there. If we have the words, then let everyone find the meaning of it (the words are used by so many that they can see what the meaning is eventually anyway), but if it's better to define them, then do - but don't use the definition as the ground of your understanding, use the definition as a map to find the real meaning (in REALITY).

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

Unless people can mutually agree on how things are defined then effective communication cannot exist. You cannot unilaterally decide what something means and expect others to acquiesce to your non-existent authority.

I agree to some sense.

That people mutually agree on how things are defined, doesn't mean that they sat round a table and discussed it (at the beginning), they probably had a experiance of something and all (or some) of them thought of the experiance and needed a word for it.

When I was a child, and I didn't have a word for a certain experiance, then I became very frustrated, hasn't this happened to anyone else of you?

I've heard psychology talk about it (probably on discovery channel, or it was in my psychology class, I'm not sure). This frustration is very hard to endure, you simply need something to describe it with.

I didn't invent any word for it though, but I was VERY reliefed when I understood that there WAS a word for it and I learned it, NOT by definition but by experiance.

Kids the age of 3 (three!) know about 1500 words! Do you really think they learned it by definition?

Also, I've read that kids understanding develop earlier than the ability to make words, thus they probably know the meaning of MANY words before they are able to put words to them.

However, I can understand that definitions might be needed for foreigners and people with development problems, but when someone ask you for the meaning of a certain word, then you should tell them by experiance, at least I think it's better for them.

I also don't think it's good to give definitions of words to children by a dictionary. I think it's better that you try to understand where he is in life, and try to give your own words of the definition, using words that you think he understand. You have been a child too.

Also, people are alot more stable than you might think, it doesn't matter if you give a partly wrong definition. But don't make it a habit, and if you discover that you have given the wrong definition then tell him about it, or use other ways to tell him about it (use the word often when it apply, for example). People will eventually learn the real definition anyway - if it is a common word. But if the word isn't that common, then you probably need a dictionary anyway

 

[Cyperium]

We shouldn't define everything. Some things are best kept as it is.

This is the same line of reasoning that would have us all living in caves, running and hiding from the sound of thunder and grunting at one another with really bad breath.

I think there must have been some progress before they even could describe one word using other words.

Sooner or later only God will know the true meaning.

You can't prop up one assertion with another.

Well, it's as much a way of saying. But I think it describes what I wanted to say.

But maybe we should stop there and don't go into definitions, cause we can't be sure that maybe some have found another meaning of the word.

That's fine, let them stand on the world stage and enlighten us all. If good, we'll add it to the lexicon. Problem solved.

Some meanings are without words. And some words take away the meaning.

Why not let it be what it is?

Are we to merely sit back and allow the unknown to remain so?

If you knew an unknown would benefit mankind, would you still adjudicate it to remain unknown?

Is it unknown just because you don't make definitions? Surely you don't have to define the words you know, to actually know them and understand their meaning?

Science has made new words - sure - but you could still know the meaning without the definition, even in science.

Or if we need to make definitions, that we at least are open to the possibility that reality may show us the truth behind the definition. Maybe we should use definitions as a map. Not more, not less. But a map to show us what to look for, or a clue if you want.

It is reality that we want to define in order to better understand it. And without definition, we are lost in trying to effectively communicate our understanding.

You seem to think that humans get lost without definitions? They have their understanding of the word, and they see that most people understand it too by the way they use the word. Look at these words, do they all need to be defined for you to understand them?

Defining words are alot harder than to understand them. And we learn better by experiance than by definitions.

I can agree that some words (that are hard) may need definitions though. Specially in science.

 

[Sirius83]

All words must have a definiton. It's because they can all be defined as representing something or meaning something that you can even understand this post. Everything has a definition.

 

[Cyperium]

All words must have a definiton. It's because they can all be defined as representing something or meaning something that you can even understand this post. Everything has a definition.

Yes, words have meaning, but you don't have to define every word to understand them, the definition comes when we must explain a word to someone else, in our own heads we allready know the meaning of the word, and probably haven't learned it by definition but by experiance (and how that word is used by other people - in context).

Sure we can explain a apple ("define" it) but it will never come as close to the truth as actually experiance and seeing the real apple.

I guess that is the difference between experiance and definition.

 

[(Q)]

If someone shows you an apple and you never saw one before, would you know it was an apple based on the experience of seeing an apple? Or does someone have to tell you that it is an apple?

In other words, the word 'apple' has already been defined and if the definition is not made clear to you, there is no way you can tell an apple even if its right in front of you.

 

[audible]

Q your banging your head against a wall, you are not going to get though to her, the ostrich with it's head in the sand comes to mind.

 

[Cyperium]

If someone shows you an apple and you never saw one before, would you know it was an apple based on the experience of seeing an apple? Or does someone have to tell you that it is an apple?

In other words, the word 'apple' has already been defined and if the definition is not made clear to you, there is no way you can tell an apple even if its right in front of you.

You are, of course, right!

I have to know the word before I can know the word.

That's the word.

The word should get meaning by experiance, and not by definitions though.

If someone told me, this is a apple: "it's green, roundish, and have a thing sticking out of the top of it, and a bush below it", "and oh, it can be red too".

Then I would get confused, I would have a weird image if anyone told me about apples.

I could use that image to actually know what's a apple when I see one, but I shouldn't use the image that I got from definitions, but the image that I got from experiance.

Every word has it's source.

Maybe I should tell you that I mean words that describes some property of reality, I don't mean (for example) the word "the" cause that doesn't have that much significance in "reality".

I hope you get what I mean; like feelings, objects...and so on (couldn't really think of anything else right now).

They all have a source in reality, and the experiance could be known before the word. Love is a example of that, it really can't be described other than it is experianced. I think most human beings have felt love, and they should have felt loved before they knew the word for it.

You can't "teach" someone, using definitions, about love. But you could give them clues as to what it is, by telling them in what situations they may have felt loved, maybe in some extent you could teach them how it feels like, but one that hasn't felt love, will not start feeling love just because you tell them what it feels like.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? I don't think I'm totally off track.

 

[Cyperium]

Q your banging your head against a wall, you are not going to get though to her, the ostrich with it's head in the sand comes to mind.

You shouldn't judge so quickly, I understand what he said.

What made you think I was a woman?

 

[Sirius83]

But from your experience, you now have a definition of what it is in your head. A definition can be found both by observed fact and inferences. Whether you learn what an apple is by having someone tell you what an apple is, or by seeing it for yourself, it is still a definition.

Learning the definition through experience doesn't make it any less of a definition. One is worded, one is laid out in your mind. They're both still definitions because they explain what something is so you can recognise it. It really doesn't matter if the definition is worded or not.

 

[Cyperium]

But from your experience, you now have a definition of what it is in your head. A definition can be found both by observed fact and inferences. Whether you learn what an apple is by having someone tell you what an apple is, or by seeing it for yourself, it is still a definition.

Learning the definition through experience doesn't make it any less of a definition. One is worded, one is laid out in your mind. They're both still definitions because they explain what something is so you can recognise it. It really doesn't matter if the definition is worded or not.

Well, I mean definition as worded definition.

By experiance I mean, "self-experiance". What I'm concerned about here, is that some people seem to trust definitions instead of experiance, instead of using definitions as a "map" to show them the experiance that is meant by the definition.