Human Intelligence amplification Management

[Renato]

HIAM - Human Intelliegence Amplification Management

For matter of clarity I will say the following:

TIME IS NOT COMPOSED OF DIVISIBLE 'NOWS', THEREFORE THE 'NOW' IS INDIVISIBLE, NO MORE INDIVISIBLE THAN IS ANY OTHER MAGNITUDE (OF TIME).

The NOW is an "instant" where logically, all creatures, all is created, is living in the instant-NOW.
For a single moment you have a -perfect- synchronization among all living creatures (atoms, electron and fermions included) but then, even if the NOW is a logical-perfect-moment-of-life, where all occurrences have the universal common factor of "being alive" at the same time (concurrently) -then, at that precise moment, because of the uniqueness and identity of the semantemes you have "the idea of the substance" therefore INSPIRATION.

The flash.
In fact human mind will not move without being enlightened.
This comes first and it is "Conditio Sine Qua Non."
Then the miracle of the "go-ahead" kicks in the living matter.
Just at the moment of the perfect synchronization. Then at that moment the "premises and conclusions" of Aristotle, like the wave of the ocean, engender "THE NEXT" causing the process of -moving-ahead-: life.
And this intermeshing between the NOW and THE NEXT is the miracle of the moving matter, i.e. of the process of living.
How can anyone with sanity can dismount Aristotle in the movement of "premises and conclusion"?
How can anyone can dismount the inspirational Satori of Zen?
How can anyone can dismount that coherency is of critical importance?
A mind without inspiration, and a quality of coherency in thinking given by premises-and-conclusions is dead.
Inspiration and coherency are of critical necessity.
Zen and Aristotle are unassailable, but, I am sure that INSANITY will prove Zen and Aristotle wrong.
This is the reason why it is called "insanity".
Insanity is the mental ability of a logical rationale where a rose will be proven to be a cat.
By distorting the foundation of TIME, Quantum Mechanic and the mathematical Relativists are foolishly reversing the unassailable milestones of human thinking.

On a personal note I would like to say that in the concept of synchronization
where is the mental perfection of Aristotle this perfection also implies -unity-.
Unity by sharing the same commonality: a moment of living. A moment of life.
Unity by sharing the same fate of being alive in that particular synchronized moment.
Unity because we all are alive simoultaneously in one moment.
And this "unity" is given because love brings the state or quality of being one; singleness.
How could anyone not understand that God is perfection and love.
Perfection and love at the same time. At the same time,i.e. concurrently, i.e. simultaneously.
Do these words ring something?

 

[Renato]

For matter of clarity I will say the following:

TIME IS NOT COMPOSED OF DIVISIBLE 'NOWS', THEREFORE THE 'NOW' IS
INDIVISIBLE, NO MORE INDIVISIBLE THAN IS ANY OTHER MAGNITUDE OF TIME.

The NOW is an "instant" where logically, all creatures, all is created, is living in the instant-NOW.
For a single moment you have a -perfect- synchronization among all living creatures (atoms,
electron and fermions included) but then, even if the NOW is a logical-perfect-moment-of-life,
where all occurrences have the universal common factor of "being alive" at the same time
(concurrently) -then, at that precise moment, because of the uniqueness and identity of the
semantemes you have "the idea of the substance" therefore INSPIRATION.

The flash.

In fact human mind will not move without being enlightened. This is first "condition sine qua
non"
Then the miracle of the "go-ahead" kicks in the living, just in the moment of the "perfect
synchronization" then at that moment "premises and conclusions" (the NEXT) cause the
process of moving ahead (LIFE) and this intermeshing between the NOW and the NEXT is the
miracle of the process of living.
How can anyone with sanity can dismount Aristotle in the movement of "premises and
conclusion"?
How can anyone can dismount the Satori (inspiration) of Zen?
How can anyone can dismount that coherency is of critical importance.
A mind without inspiration, and a quality of coherency, given by premises-and-conclusions is
DEAD!
Inspiration and coherency are of critical necessity.
Zen and Aristotle are unassailable! but, I am sure that INSANITY will prove both wrong.
This is the reason why it is called "insanity".
Insanity is the mental ability of a -logical- rationale where a rose will be proven to be a cat.
By distorting the foundation of TIME Quantum Mechanics and the mathematical Relativists are.
reversing the unassailable milestones of human thinking.

On a personal note I would like to say that if you don't understand "perfection" in the
concept of synchronization which is also implies -unity-.
Unity by sharing the same commonality (life.
Unity by sharing the same fate of being alive in that particular moment.
Unity because we all are alive simoultaneously in one moment.
And where UNITY is given because of love which brings unity.
How could you not understand that God is perfection and love at the same time?........at the same
time, concurrently, simultaneously......does these words ring something?

 

[Renato]

Dear The Devil Inside,
The joke is truly humorous. However when you say:"... *slips into "preacher" mode*..., ... *slips out of "preacher" mode* ... in reality means that you are about to deal with theological issues and then you stop.
Theology is the highest form of mathematics therefore it is not that much of a joke. I think.

 

[Renato]

I rivisited my article and included the grammar suggested by SnakeLord.
I remain appreciative and cherish his/her wisdom but I also perceive SnakeLord's spiritual darkness. Especially when the understanding approaches the issues of TIME, inspiration, creativity and coherency as activities entitled by enlightened minds.
Unfortunately one of the problem I created, I think, is the fact that I keep merging announcements of a knowledge that is ahead therefore undisclosed to all of you.
Therefore these concepts affect my attempt to communicate and obviously create a resiliency in the reader mind.
Why SnakeLord should dismiss my article all together?
SnakeLord is a typical example of a high professionalism frozen in acridity.
I think.
However I remain thankful for his/her efforts.
R. L. P.

 

[spidergoat]

I too am thankful for your efforts, Renato. If the reaction is negative, it's because in spite of valuing coherency, I have seldom read anything more incoherent, but nice try.

This is a cardinal point of science which erroneously now debates the possibly to modify TIME and SPACE by stretching it or shrinking it.

They not only debate it, the idea that space gets distorted by gravity is being tested by experiment right now. Even if it was just an idea, is it so erroneous to investigate (not debate) such a possibility?

Therefore, for the reason that milestones posed by Plato and Aristotle in human thinking are reversed by science, conclusions based on these false premises bring to arbitrary unsound conclusions.

Name the milestones posed by Plato and Aristotle, please. Name the false premises of science, and the unsound conclusions.

I am not a preacher but an hardcore scientist.

I'm not sure how you can do science without accepting the premise of the existence of time. Do you never make measurements of time?

The issue of "human intelligence" is quite vast and affects Mankind in all aspects of life.

So true.

 

[Renato]

HIAM - Human Intelliegence Amplification Management

Spidergoat,
You hit the essence of the issue at the core, at the very center, right on the nail.
Your sentence:" I'm not sure how you can do science without accepting the premise of the existence of
time."
Science took a direction were it seems a deliberated act to be blind to how the "perception of the
information comes into being.
Therefore, unfortunately current science is blind to the inquiry on how human intelligence produces
information.
I support the position that all experiences. All of them, including the scientific ones are retained and
elaborated in the mind. And this element able to engender the information is indicated as
"human intelligence". Therefore, within an intelligence process of thinking coherence becomes the most
important factor.
Mind before becomes computational is emotional and all experiences are retained emotionally.
This mental emotion makes ability to compute.
Measurements despite the fact that they are of critical importance they are NOT a natural phenomena.
Measurements are useful for computation but only self-serving to human survival.
However measurements are conventions. They are like the taxation system, like the value of a monetary
currency and they are like the postal service. Calendar time is a convention.
Opposite to conventions human intelligence is not a convention but a natural phenomena which present in
any man and women brain therefore by itself, human intelligence has more significance then any
man-made-agreements.

As I tried to illustrate TIME is only synchronization and sequence. Which the following thought is fully
applicable: "logically, If the occurrence of two events happens at one precise moment, they are said to be synchronized."
We cannot alter the meaning of synchronization because we would be changing or even opposing the definition of it.

Sequence is "order." And "sequence" per SE , means a universal order which all living matter lives by.

An "order" of occurrence is seen during the employment of logical process based on "premises-and-conclusions."

TIME and sequence cannot be compressed or shrunk down, like many "new" theories would like to prove nowadays.

The essence of TIME is the perfection which would be found in the contemporaneity of the instant-NOW of two (or more) element sharing that precise logical moment .

Synchronization is the "perfect" relation of an occurrence shared by two entity therefore is a "relation" between the two.

Furthermore space, or empty spaces, are only abstract concepts and they do not exist in reality.
Space is in existence only in relation to what changes within the space itself. But then this is the dynamic motion given by premises-and-conclusion.
And now we hear from science that space gets distorted by gravity?
SUBSTANCE cannot exist without FORM, this definition is an old milestone, old as mankind.

SUBSTANCE and FORM must merge and make a whole. They merge one into the other to engender tangibility.

Gravity by itself cannot be conceived alone, isolated, by itself. Gravity needs a book, or a stone or the Newtonian apple, i'e' some corporeal substance to be in existence in order to be "gravity." So is space.

Space does not means an empty space doing nothing but it means the "change of something"; where this "something", which goes from "A" to "B."

The distance between A and B is "space" but without a "traveler" in it, space is taken by current science like an empty non-embodied entity.

Concepts like gravity without nothing to push and empty nothingnesses are therefore another clerical abstraction of the impersonal scientific mind.

How can science waste useful concern making tests on two unsubstantiated types of FORMS which are also claimed to be in relation with eachother.

Are we talking about a script for Hollywood, meant to be a science-fiction movie, or serious thinking?

What else, time, space and gravity would be without an intelligent understanding of them?

Or, are time, space and gravity becoming just a political tool used for persuasion, given to the buffalo-masses to justify unnecessary expenditures of money redirected in futile scientific programs.
Buffalos which already historically demonstrated "ready" to believe without discernment, almost anything thet whichcrafting propagate?
However I remain thankful for your contribution.

R.L.P.

PS: Plato, Aristotle, Zen, Lavoisier pose unassailable and unquestionable milestones for the foundation of human thinking propelled by love, inspiration, creativity, coherency, commitment and professionalism .

A while ago I wrote an essay on Antoine Lavoisier. It is posted in some web-site out there in the Internet. Launch Google and type my name in it, i.e. Renato L. Porchetta, you will find the essay.
It will be revealing, enjoy it.

A final comment: what a twist for current science would be if the physiological location of human intelligent would be demonstrate to be cohabitant with phisiology in a relation of FORM and SUBSTANCE. But then if human intelligence itself in order to engender coherency would be propelled by another psychological element indicated as "spirituality" it would be quite revolutionary.
In this case by mentioning that coherency would be depending on "spirituality" we would have some scientist up in arms.
I am sure of it. They would claim that God is not "something" which put love in the human mind but many scientist will rebel to the idea by saying and proving that the sentiment of love doesn't even exist.###

 

[Ophiolite]

A. I shall make a second attempt at explaining a point. In my original post I stated
"This does not match my perception of reality."

Now, you claim to have knowledge of semantics. Semantics is about meaning. One aspect of semantics involves extracting the underlying meaning from a sentence or phrase, or paragraph. I was therefore surprised that you could not do this with my sentence quoted above. I thought you would have realised that this quote is a polite way of saying "I think you are talking crap".

B. You say

All I wish is to provide a better tool for living

. This is an admirable goal. I do not see how you hope to achieve it unless you learn to write intelligibly, or use an editor who can make sense of what appears to be nonsense. Example:

Therefore these concepts affect my attempt to communicate and obviously create a resiliency in the reader mind.
In what way is it obvious?
Resiliency: The ability to rebound from a disturbance; the ability to thrive, mature, and increase competence in the face of adverse circumstances.
Huh? It is gobbledeegook.

Here is another one..

Be informed that semantics is the only way to augment coherency which is a critical universal element

Please try to explain this in simple words.

 

[Renato]

State College January 11, 2005
Ophiolite
First of all I must thank you for your additional "mental" contribution to the issue of HIAM.
Let me say that the process of understanding is emotional and among many active-agents,
understanding is characterized by "inviting" or "opposing". And because of this "invitation" if
the educational experience is positive it enhances spiritual growth.
The process of understanding is depending on many factors combined dynamically together
however the most important are two. They emerge during the process of understanding and they
are the ability to love and the ability to hate.
Hatred and anger freezes mind therefore negative feelings and -opposing- energies cause, perhaps
just momentarily, a state of stop and even retardation in same cases. And in this particular
circumstance understanding indicated as a-state-of-the-mind is prevented.
Semantics is not an "extraction" which seems to suggest to pull from the outside inwardly.
Semantics is an emotional sentiment which conduces to an ability of being inspired which in turn
gives the ability of creating new meanings.
Any composition is like a mosaic where each new meanings links with homogenous logic its parts
all according to a pre-established objective or vision of the artist.

And all the "fragments of consciousness" linked together are conducive to the best harmonious
logical possible whole which in turn, if successfully, it should have an emotional impact on the
recipient. The degree to which this quality is exercised is the ability to link the spirituality of a
composer, for example to the audience. I call this capability "efficiency of the art."

Coherency, primarily, is the -way-, i.e. the quality of semantics.
And it represents the effect of the creative, intuitive and inspirational ability to find the "personal",
free and arbitrary logical justifications within of a rationale; any rationale.

These concepts of "significance" illustrated here are universal and they are common to all causes.

Contrary to human expectations, in many cases, a logical process is not conceived generously
freehanded and round out during a first attempt. Quite the contrary. At times, good logic is a
painful laborious mental effort which is also, in my view, the responsibility of the artist, of the
composer of the teacher, the communicator etc. to be coherent.

Furthermore, if one individual would think that inspiration and creativity are the elements able to
propel the mind with a purpose in mind to accomplish "harmony", the next is the sentiment in
play is love. The love of doing.

However love is not recognized by science as an active element human element hosted by the
human mind therefore science is not concerned in bringing forth the reasons why the absence of
love makes so many individuals around the world out of their mind.
At times I feel that the betterment of weaponry and a money-making-scheme is the only aim of
science and I feel sadness and compassion for this foolish direction.
This direction in my personal view is suicidal thinking.

On the other hand a logical process is an inspired matter.
Logic conduces to perfection. And perfection is the manifestation of the orderly system under
which, universally, all matter moves.

It should not be disagreement on the fact that the harmony, perfection, order and symmetry are
the ideal end-result of "something" conventionally labeled as GOD.

I think that, we humans, aim and perceive trough small windows what is claimed to be a whole
perfection and the frame of the windows is our awareness.
Speaking of being human beings we must realize that some days are better then others.
And all of us suffer, for different good reasons, our own personal limitation.
However going back to your issue which reads :" "This does not match my perception of reality."
Ophiolite should try to have perception of an internal semantic rather than an external one
All I can say is, that if you do not perceive your reality according to the highest possible form of
an internal perfection perhaps you should expand the frame of the window, i.e. awareness of the
Self. (I perceive my thinking therefore I am-Descartes 1596-1650)
It seems obvious to me that if we would improve our thinking we would improve the Self.
This is done by the by-product of semantics which is spiritual growth.
During the workshops I conducted I witnessed how the awareness of the individual increases
during the effort of significance.
Simply because, significance, in general is the way chosen by the scholar to signify therefore
"significance" is within him/her.
Let me try this:"Semantics is our own significance in freedom."

All branches of human knowledge including all arts and sciences illustrate one direction:
the perfection of laws. Perfection is the conclusive aim of significance and, therefore, semantics
is the ability to signify according to this "perfection."

Unfortunately this philosophical direction at times is distorted by practicality and the type of
pragmatism that try to cash-in causes the corrupted attempt of capitalizing, patronizing and causes
in many cases the attempt to dominate others. (coerce)

However I am certain that the house of God is not within the end results deriving by scientific
experimentations which are external, i.e. outside the "Same-Self". And because externally
perceived, the scientific experimentations can be manipulated according to self-serving criteria.

But I am confident enough to state that the geographical location of the residence of what is
intended "GOD" is not "out-there" but within human intelligence which, according to how we
love signifying, we humans are able to have a vision of our own divine significance.

I am not saying that we are GOD but all of us are ambassadors of the divine flame of "perfection".
Nothing new after all.
The Indians descending from the Tamil people salute eachother saying:"Namaste."

Therefore if we would recognize this small flame within, which is our own intelligence, semantics
is the mouth piece, the pipe which we could use to blow more oxygen on the flame, which in turn
could become a fire, a brush-fire, a vulcan, a star or a galaxy or an entire constellation of
galaxies.
There is not limit to human intelligence. I think.
I would like to thank Ophiolite's concern once more time ###

 

[Renato]

Hiam

I just received from the Internet a flash indicating that
"Black holes may deform space and time."
I cannot agree more with this scientific claim and I totally agree with this "persuasive" standing of current science.
In fact I also support, similarly and precisely to what science is claiming to day, and that is when, there is a hole in thinking, perhaps big as a "Black Hole" which
in reasoning is called " missing coherency" all is deformed in the mind of the observer.
My position includes the way of how science perceives nowadays the galactic sky which, thinking of of how "Black Holes" are logically explained, it makes me think of Swiss cheese.
There is some good and bad in these current weird scientific claims:
I don't like madness (yack) but I like Swiss cheese. (yammy)

 

[Starman]

Eventually this violence which is the action sprung from madness
will convince this type of individual to increase the challenge prevail on God's Perfection.

Just how many has you Perfect God Killed? Or are you refering to your God as the Perfect killer?

Then I also find as a secondary social effect, that in many cases these "misjudgements" are
part of an architecture or an orchestration to re_direct sums of monies to self-serving
programs in the direction of the supremacy of a market..

How dare you say these things about George Bush.

I also witness that many corrupted scientific claims aim at marketing rather than the
deepening of the truth of knowledge. Quantum Mechanics is a typical example of this...

I get it your Omish.

Half of the truth is not the whole truth therefore the promise of a "WHOLE" fails and it
remains that half of the truth is a lie....

"Half of the truth" isn't that the definition of Christianity

We withness the attempt of evolution as a theory attempting to identifying the origin of life.
This idea is foolish to start with.
Can we prevent men being fools? The answer to this question is:"no."
Men and Women are entitled to their own stupidity and madness as an experience which
is a springboard for corrections and learning. At times human madness seems unavoidable.

However, there are no origins and no ends to life simply because life is perpetual dynamic
motion. Perpetual means eternal and many individual don't like to accept the idea of
"something" being eternal because they know better and they are going to prevail in the
challenge to God's ETERNAL PERFECTION. ....

Ok that did it, pass the cynide coolade please.

"Can anyone support or promote peace, love and intelligence with anger and lying?"....

How can a man that weights 600 lbs say anything about self-controll?

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties
and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]

 

[Renato]

Sate College January 11, 2005
Dear Starman,
I think that basically I could agree with you, however I am convinced that all we have been
discussing here, so far, is a peek in deep science.
I am an universalist at heart and the understanding of science which in my opinion should be
justified by the process of intelligence bring us, here, in this forum to discuss some philosophical
aspects which is not pure-faith but it is the rational part theology.
My intention has never had the purpose to make religious propaganda in this forum where ecellent minds are contributing to it and I am adverse to the fact I could introduce religious labels or accept religious fanatism.
In general I can agree, somewhat, to a certain extent with Starman.
However we should discuss a universal spirituality based on scientific justifications rather than to prove that a particular religious faith could, or would be prevailing on others.
I am not either a politician nor a religious activist. I think that we should learn more from the knowledge supporting Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Protestantism etc.
However going back a bit to Starman's reply I found that Dr. Albert Einstein who seems taking a deviated position from the one taken by billions of people on earth who believe and feel deep in their heart something that is pointed as "spirituality."
In a ecumenical way I think all religions and science should support eachother.
And in particular reading what Einstein said that "no religious basis is necessary", Dr. Einstein is in confict even with himself. I think.
In fact Einstein by conceiving the formulation of "straneg" theories on Relativism he tried in these theories to reverse the normalcy of the direction of science which is coherent logic.
Looking at the popularity he got, I am sure that Dr. Einstein himself, even after death would not mind to become GOD.
The same God that he was denying.
In my opinion men and women have an intellect and they perceive themselves as intelligent beings. Therefore mankind will always look for rational reasons in order to justify the phenomena of being intelligent either trough science or trough religion.
According to Men and Woman religion is not a week dream easily to be neglected and useful for passification. Religion, like the Arts, like science like food is a critical need where a metaphysical significance is sought.
In most cases many have perception that "intelligence" is a "virtue", perhaps a skill, or a gift of love and for many others intelligence is an innate capability made of talent, aptitude, aptness faculty, genius, knack etc. But intelligent alone will not be sufficient. Religion always necessitates the physiology flesh in order to act. Physicalness and spirituality like FORM and SUBSTANCE cannot be separated.
However what I find interesting is that many of us rest on the idea that there is "something" out there which affects our daily existence and this something transcends substance, transcend physiology and physicalness and it perceived in a spiritual way.
That sense of spirituality for most of us is the good within. And the emotion, the sensation and the feeling of perceiving oneself as a good person promotes more good within others.
In some cases this "good" is without a corrupted opportunism therefore is pure. Being "good" it is not either pragmatic or materialistic. In fact, for these reasons I also support that "understanding" is not materialistic but understanding is a spiritual experience allowing "spiritual growth.".
Many would encourage the idea that the sentiment of love produce a higher awareness which is an energy useful to the human mind to reach a so called "spiritual levels" which in turn give to the individual higher awareness in perception.
I am sure that one day in the future religion would give the spiritual enlightenment to science and science will explain all.
And that day men and women would become made of the pure essence which GOD itself/himself is made of.
Thanks to Starman for his/her input and I would welcome more.

 

[Starman]

Sate College January 11, 2005

Thanks to Starman for his/her input and I would welcome more.

The facts are as follows:

1. All Religions are man made.

2. Humans are only products of their environment's and not much more in most cases.

3. There is an outstanding need for a new Religion based on Reality.

Often I have considered taking the monumental task of writing such a structure that would suffice. This would have great implications, it would join science with the spiritual and moral realm. It would be the equilivent of Relativity as to the impact it would have on man kind.

 

[Renato]

Hiam

State College 1/12/5
Starman,
Be informed that current science acts exactly the way you do.
Some scientist, especially those committed to Relativism and Quantum Mechanic have claims. And only claims.
These scientists arrogate -facts- for themselves but in reality the scientist do not want to discuss the premises to their conclusions.
Unfortunately in any logical process, universally, before to draw conclusions the validity of the premises are critical.
You should work on how you view the premises conducing to your final positions.
Claimed facts without logical justifications remain unsupported.
Therefore I read:
***************
The facts of Starman are as follows:
1.) All Religions are man made.
2.) Humans are only products of their environment's and not much more in most cases.
3.) There is an outstanding need for a new Religion based on Reality.

Often I have considered taking the monumental task of writing such a structure that would suffice.

This would have great implications, it would join science with the spiritual and moral realm.
It would be the equivalent of Relativity as to the impact it would have on man kind.
*********************
Comment:
Considering recent history my personal view is that Churches should not handle the Theology and the Philosophy of God any longer.
The Theologian and the Philosopher should only be in existence in academia and discuss science.
And science should not be left -alone- in the arrogance of producing religious knowledge but science should share knowledge with the theologian and the philosopher where all involved, together, would learn more.
R. L. P.

 

[Ophiolite]

Be informed that semantics is the only way to augment coherency which is a critical universal element

Ophiolite: "Please try to explain this in simple words".

renato replies in 1014 words, which are neither simple nor well structured.
renato appears to be using a definition of semantics unknown to this humble poster.
Renato, please, please, please: in simple, direct, unvarnished, concise English give me your definition of semantics.

 

[Renato]

HIAM - Human Intelliegence Amplification Management

Ophiolite,
Candidly. I admire your intelligence however but I cannot bent the truth for nobody.
The following is the description of semantics and I would use it even if you were my own daughter, wife, mother, father or son.

Incidentally, the reason why my written replies here are neither simple or well structured. The reason is that they are made impromptu, therefore spontaneous.
I am fully aware that I need editing and prof-reading.

Going back to the issue of semantic.
Perhaps there are many way to define semantics but let me try what follows.
It should be adequate for your intellectual level.

I would also like to clarify that I don't make these statements just to be a "stoker" or to introduce polemic with the purpose in mind of provoking or cause anger or rage.
An instigator is the one that announces issues to which the reaction to them would be the frustration of facing problems which would remain without solutions.
Semantics is a serious matter and brings solutions to men and women.
I do have experience that it can be grasped as soon an individual is able of abstractions. Even at pre teen age.
The experience of learning the foundation of semantics is rather direct and effective in a classroom - the narrative of its mental description is not.
However let's to give it a try.
Semantic is the most important knowledge need to mankind to engender significance. It includes Self-significance. And it could be described as follows.
However in any case the origin of semantics is composition, i.e. creating :
Okay let's to give a peek at the universal issue of composing and let's to call this issue at this time: "Schematic of composition."

Composition can be viewed as the progressive discovery made by the mind with the intent to disclose what the composer is willing to discover and during this "mental process" he/she acquires awareness on the nature of intended artistic message.

Composition applies universally to all human endeavors: music, literature, painting, theater, sculpturing, movie-making, science, sport, dancing, programming, planning, banking etc.

The reason of this statement is the fact that the foundation of composition is universal therefore common to all things.

On the other hand the teaching of composition is not the teaching of a standardization of how to code a particular branch of knowledge. But the purpose of composing is an intelligent mental activity which is discovery, but then, the combining of distinct parts (or elements) to form a whole. is another involvement of the mind which during this second stage is the molding of semantics.

This intermeshing must be done according to free arbitrary systemization conducive to harmony.

Then the writing of the coding would be a necessary output in order to record the complexity of the conceived logic in the composition.

Citing only two example among many others, let's to say that actually, mentioning the issue of music as an example of the activity of semantic, a composer before to deal with music-theory or equally similar, before the computer programmer deals with the writing computer-codes, the composer is someone that is able to feel by having sentiments and commitment to an arbitrary and personal perfection and order; he/she would then would be able to discover a particular system, which would engender an awareness of a progressive perfection of the conceived parts constituting the issue at hand.

In my case, composition, taken by itself, is the teaching how to love the doing of perfection, engendering orderly schemes where an orderly schemes, becomes systems taken by systematic arrangements.
This must be mentally conceived by the scholar.

When a scholar perceives an order, then a composition becomes a system and within such system a systematic way to proceed is also envisioned

.

And at the time when the composer perceives an orderly arrangement of the parts, he/she then proceeds to find systematically the interrelating sub-orders of the sub-meanings among the elements of the composition.

Formulating these premises (or sub-premises) and forming them in order to obtain higher conclusions is the activity of semantics which aims to the creation of meanings.

Semantics can be also seen as an attempt of fitting the conceived sub-meanings which gradually and progressively merge each other to independent others. And the physiological "sensation" of movement (motion) engenders orders higher level in the mind of the recipient audience.

A progressive crescendo of merging-meanings (premises-and-conclusions) becomes then final. So the logical "movement" can be thought when it reaches an end as a "global" meaning of the composition.

The progressive "sense" making, must give a dynamism energy of perfecting harmony which is movement and energy for the receiving mind.

This dynamic movement of making sense must be perceived harmoniously by the recipients of the Arts.

The interrelations among meanings must communicate coherency and homogeneity within the continuity of coherency.
Love, order, interrelations among meanings, the ability to catch and understand the characterization of single semantemes of deeper order, the ability to assign a role to the meanings is, among other things the involvement with the semantical process.

One could also say that a compositions is an aggregation of other compositions of relating meaning among each other.
Then, the activity of semantics is the "ability" to find "intelligently" logical inter-relations based on systemization of an arbitrary conceived mathematical orders.

Practically speaking a good logic engenders coherency which in turn radiates energy and spiritual energy for the mind.
Bad logic inspires no-one and cause psychological confusion and emotional trauma.

Reducing the concept. Watering it down we could assume that semantics is the mental work to find interrelation among meanings.

Considering the nature of human mind which acts in a mosaic thinking mode, a composer, for example, must face, while conceiving the mental work, the solution to the problem of finding logical continuity withing his composition which can become quite complex.
Simply because human mind is able of powerful emotions and complex mental schemes.
But the same composer can loose orientation therefore in this case he is doomed to lose control while facing his own ocean of knowledge that himself is inventing.
Then, metaphorically speaking HIAM, acts like the magnetic compass and set the reference useful not to lose control.

*** Word count 1014

 

[Ophiolite]

It is practically impossible to conduct a dialogue with you when you persist in unnecessary complexity. I wanted a simple definition of semantics: nothing more. From there we could have proceeded. I did not wish, and likely shall not read a re-hash of your arguments.
It is arguable that if you cannot define something in a handful of sentences, then you do not understand it.

Ophiolite,
Candidly. I admire your intelligence however but I cannot bent the truth for nobody.......
It should be adequate for your intellectual level.

Please don't patronise me. I am to old for that. If you are not patronising me, then be aware this stylistic habit of praising your correspondent is likely to be interpreted as such.

Incidentally, the reason why my written replies here are neither simple or well structured. The reason is that they are made impromptu, therefore spontaneous.

My replies are also impromptu. I do not see that as a reason for avoiding either structure or simplicity, or at least attempting to deliver them. Proof reading takes but a moment: I consider it a gesture of respect for those who take the time to read my posts. Sloppy writing equals sloppy thinking.

Therefore, I ask again, Renato, please, please, please: in simple, direct, unvarnished, concise English give me your definition of semantics.

 

[Renato]

Ophiolite,

You asked for 1014 words and you got 1014 words.

Now I will define semantics in one word.

Semantics is composition.

 

[Ophiolite]

I did not ask for 1014 words. I informed you that your previous post had contained 1014 words.
Did you not notice my use of tense?

Still, we are perhaps getting somewhere. Why have you chosen a defenition that is different explicitly and implcitly from any in common use? I see little correlation between composition and the study of meaning . Certainly one approach to semantics involves lexical decomposition, but that is the inverse of composition and is incomplete without componential analysis. Consequently, I am puzzled.

 

[Renato]

HIAM - Human Intelliegence Amplification Management

I see little correlation between composition and the study of meaning . Certainly one approach to semantics involves lexical decomposition, but that is the inverse of composition and is incomplete without componential analysis. Consequently, I am puzzled.

Ophiolite,
you are puzzled because your understanding of semantics is an historical one.
You mention

lexical decomposition

and then

inverse of composition,

and then

componential analysis

. All is true, however all is viewed clerically like a banker would look at a stack of currency bills.
I claim that semantics remained until now without a correct methodology.
The correct methodology brings to the explanation of how the mind works while composing meanings.
For your benefit I will say that the human mind creates meanings in a logical dimension characterized by two polarities:" Intention and Accomplishment."
And whatever happens there, in this logical-dimension, mind creates the systematic order from what, then the semantical process takes place.

One benefit given to the composer, the writer, the mathematician, the researcher, the editor, the movie-maker etc. is that the visualization of the logical process representing this logical-space engenders a higher coherency because more control is obtained on the complexity characterized by the intertwining of meanings created by the human thinking.

Therefore the end result of obtaining more coherency brings the individual to three distinctive benefits.

A.) Efficiency in semantical process

B.) More awareness of the process of significance and self-signification seen also as self-worth

C.) and the augumentation of the mental faculties in perceiving "perfection" because more "awareness" of perfection therefore more production of knowledge. Also more production of knowledge about him/herself.
"Know thyself-Delphi"

I referred the methodology as HIAM- Human Intelligence Amplification Management because it is an unescapable reality for those men and women of good will. And this "reality" I am referring to, is knowledge.
The scientific knowledge of how the intellect acts between "Aim and Target."

 

[Renato]

USPC- Universal Scientific Programming Control

I posted in Sciforums an understanding on Lavoisier dated November 16, 2002 - track it - It should help help the understanding of "perfection."
Especially if "perfection" is supported by the Father of the modern chemistry and scientifically speaking we go back to Paris, France 1790 (circa).