Quote:
|
Originally Posted by weareunity
hello organic born. Being reminded by your post that defining can also be confining if not confusing, "description" would have been a better word to have used rather than "definition" in my post above to which you have replied.
That the act of defining can--in some circumstances--be confining if not confusing should not, I think, mean abandoning the process of defining or rejecting definitions. I am pondering here,--thinking not aloud but in print-- that in circumstances when definition is used in the sense of a description arrived at by thought of that which is the product of thought, then no confusion or confinement need necessarily accompany such definition. In circumstances where a description is needed of that which is not the product of thought then perhaps we would be better advised to simply drop the term "definition" and use the term "description". ( As above) indicating that we recognise that our knowledge arrived at by thought may be insufficient to be definitive.
Bit clumsy all this, needs more work. It seems a bit pedantic. I am sure those with more ability will put it better. It is quite possible that, as is often the case, those with more ability have already done so--or rejected such pondering as rubbish.
It further occurs to me there is also one kind of in between circumstance which results from the use of words and terminology. For though it is the case that words and terminology are the product of thought, they are themselves simply conveyances of meaning, and may be attempts to convey meaning of that which is not the product of human thought.This does indeed present a dilemma.
In such circumstances perceiving certainties as stepping stones may be helpful. Good wishes. petex
|
one of the problems is that some people like to obscure the actual meanings, others like to be mischievious little monkeys. And meanwhile the base meaning for everything is so enshrouded in places we don't want to go that noone will even consider looking upon it! But that aside even if you go the scientific route and try to correlate direct meanings between the map and reality you are beset with things like 99% of your meanings came from studying the relationships between other meanings; an absurdly small amount came by actually observing the terrain. So how the heck are you supposed to make an accurate model of what the words are in relation to the terrain, when you are only looking at the relationships between one word and another? ISn't that kind of like trying to make a map of the ocean by measuring the distance between each individual wave? People don't see how far afield you can get with that... or rather how far afield we have gotten.
When someone promotes something like my computer was built using scientific principles in a manufacturing environment and I should be reverent about all the good things that come of science and technology, the first thing that comes up for me is, if I want to verify that all this works the way scientists tell me I should be able to verify it, I don't have the training or access to appropriate equipment or even enough time in my life to verify all the things that have to be verified in any practical way. Let alone the desire to actually do it! So it might as well be magic for all I could care.... it is very much an 'elite' thing which a plebian like me isn't allow entry to regardless. But really, noone comprehends it in its entirety as it requires a lot of people working in tandem to keep it afloat. But still the thing that might stop me from choosing an alternate meaning is that then I won't be singing the same song as everyone else.