Want $10,000?

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:40 pm

Wow, that first post was awesome, Roberston... I'm 'watching and learning'. The second post seems like kind of a leap, though (besides maybe the 'music expresses the mind' part).

= a) I'm not sure why this is here, exactly. Why does the narrator need to establish the two parts of the mind?


To express that words are not adequate to express 'the whole' of mind -- only a certain aspect of it. It is also just to confuse us and trick us.

I think I figured out the irony is equating words with music, and then saying we're not bound by words 'cause we can express mind in wordless music.

I thought words WERE music (by this author's reasoning, anyway)!

Geez... boooooo.... hiiissssss....
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Dr. Krankenkopf » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:55 pm

deleted
Last edited by Dr. Krankenkopf on Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Krankenkopf
BANNED
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:02 pm

Postby WDW » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:20 pm

Dr. Krankenkopf wrote:Is thought possible without some form of language?


I would think so, for example, cave art in Paleolithic times...where image triggered thought, not language.
WDW
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Dr. Krankenkopf » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:52 am

deleted
Last edited by Dr. Krankenkopf on Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Krankenkopf
BANNED
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:02 pm

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:57 am

I think I figured out the irony is equating words with music, and then saying we're not bound by words 'cause we can express mind in wordless music.


I need to be more specific -- the author doesn't just say that we aren't bound by words (that much is true, and there is not really any irony in what I've said so far) -- the author goes further and says words may be inadequate. If words = music, then they are equivalent (in 'adequacy to express emotion') to classical music -- the reverse is true for expressing 'cognition' (assuming I used the appropriate form of the word).

The rational & Irrational is expressed by means of a combination of logical or illogical structure and words (signifiers) with meaning attached.


Replace "words" with "musical scores" (or whatever). *giggles* Lots of wordless classical music has a "story" in it, meaning in it, to the trained (I said trained, not educated) ear. You could say it is rich with wordless signifiers. It is logical in the mathematical sense -- even if it appears patternless.

oh bla bla bla I'm just pissed that PoR hasn't "revealed all" yet...
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:25 am

Dr. K and WDW--

re language and thought --

apparently I could think without talking or I wouldn't have remembered being bathed in the sink, or learning to pull myself forward on my belly by my arms and supporting my upper body on my two litte hands/arms... wouldn't have remembered how wonderful the warm water felt pouring down my head, being held in my mother's large hands... the awesome experience of seeing things from this higher perspective whenever I wanted to... now that I could lift myself up on my hands... all before I could talk... when developmental psychologists (for the bathing aspect) say babies are supposed to 'forget' everything... I remember physical sensations/feelings, and what I saw -- you don't need language for that.

Words are not the only way to communicate. If we had no mind/thought before language, it would be impossible to learn language.

Does the language we learn effect how we think? Sure, I won't argue against that.

Here's another way to say it -- if we were not first thinking about something, we would never name it -- would never give it a word. So language preceeds thought, for sure. In order for the very first word to come into existence, someone had to be thinking about the thing they were about to name.
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Pinnacle of Reason » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:31 am

The truth is finally here...




































http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi ... p?t=142883

I did not know what I was talking about. all those who replied knows what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me what I was talking about.

this thread is not meant to be a prank. my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer. there is alot of rubbish in philosophy, I often compare it to a junkyard. when the text is ambiguous and not well explained like my post, there is no point trying to figure out what it means, because I myself do not know what it means.

Anyway, thanks for the posts.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Chapter 11 Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
User avatar
Pinnacle of Reason
BANNED
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:21 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby Uniqor » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:59 am

I did not know what I was talking about.


Consider altering the tense of that? btw, you do realise that Pureasonist's last post wasn't really aimed at complimenting you, no? Probably not...
Uniqor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:52 pm

Postby my real name » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:37 am

Pinnacle of Reason wrote:I did not know what I was talking about. all those who replied knows what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me what I was talking about.

this thread is not meant to be a prank. my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer. there is alot of rubbish in philosophy, I often compare it to a junkyard. when the text is ambiguous and not well explained like my post, there is no point trying to figure out what it means, because I myself do not know what it means.

Anyway, thanks for the posts.


You know, Hegel, it is said, said that even he didn't understand his own Philosophy. But I guess Marx and Kierkegaard did understand it, as they commented on it.

mrn
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:24 am

I did not know what I was talking about. all those who replied knows what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me what I was talking about.

this thread is not meant to be a prank. my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer. there is alot of rubbish in philosophy, I often compare it to a junkyard. when the text is ambiguous and not well explained like my post, there is no point trying to figure out what it means, because I myself do not know what it means.

Anyway, thanks for the posts.


Oh... so you wrote the "below text".

You'd be surprised, PoR -- "nonsense" speaks a thousand words... and never lies, either... :lol:

And I might point out -- you did not specify "Explain what the below text means to Pinnacle of Reason (me)." Did you expect folks to read your mind, or give their own interpretation of what it meant? -- the former is impossible.

You never had 10k, anyway, workin' at a grocery store (if I remember correctly)...

In conclusion... [ groan ] -- but thanks, that was still interesting.
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:39 am

PoR wrote:

When we speak a language, we speak using voices. We communicate by means of sound, which is nonsense.

If we equate language with nonsense, and say nonsense is identical to language. Then doesn't our mind speak nonsense?

Is it fair to say, since we express our Mind by means of Nonsense, that Mind is Nonsense?

The human mind has two distinct faculties. 1)Rational & Irrational, 2) arational & emotional

1) The rational & Irrational is expressed by means of a combination of logical or illogical structure and words (signifiers) with meaning attached.

2) The arational & emotional is not adequately expressed by words, but by feelings, which can be expressed in classical nonsense.

So, in the beginning. The mind preceeds language and nonsense. Mind is not language. Language is a component of the mind. Our mind is not bound by words, because our mind can also be expressed using classical nonsense.
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Pinnacle of Reason » Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:04 am

somenewname

people like you should be at an online shopping forum. I only worked in that grocery shop on the weekends during my university years at Australia's TOP university. now I have graduated and I am working part-time at an equity analysis firm, specialising in stock and option pricing. and how do you know how much people who work at grocery stores gets paid, some get paid even more than you would ever earn. this 25 yr old gets 90k. while you are slaving off somewhere... you are truely pathetic, narrow mind, unworthy even of contempt.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Chapter 11 Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
User avatar
Pinnacle of Reason
BANNED
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:21 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:37 am

I don't care about your money (or your college, or your job), I care about your word. Like I said, I don't need no stinking money... 'cause it isn't important to me, and I don't want it to be.

Like it says in some book somewhere: Let your 'yes' be 'yes', and your 'no' be 'no'. Don't make promises... and if you must... don't make promises you can't or don't intend to keep.

while you are slaving off somewhere...


Nothin' wrong with actually earning one's keep. :wink:

you are truely pathetic, narrow mind, unworthy even of contempt.


yeesh... what happened to the "go and sin no more" part?
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Pinnacle of Reason » Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:41 am

I wrote that in response to "You never had 10k, anyway, workin' at a grocery store (if I remember correctly)... "

some ppl working there are really nice, then there are the nasty ones.

I made a promise, and I have kept the promise. just solve the paradox and I'll pay you.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Chapter 11 Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
User avatar
Pinnacle of Reason
BANNED
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:21 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:30 am

I wrote that in response to "You never had 10k, anyway, workin' at a grocery store (if I remember correctly)...


I wrote my response knowing that. I remembered your job because of the "nasty" people you were complaining about that you worked with at the store.

some ppl working there are really nice, then there are the nasty ones.


I agree... the same is true everywhere... people you can get along with... people who rub you the wrong way, so you avoid them...

I made a promise, and I have kept the promise. just solve the paradox and I'll pay you.


I thought you already "revealed all" -- I thought I already said "I don't need no stinking money"? Perhaps you are referring to new stuff, here:

I did not know A) what I was talking about. all those who replied knows B) what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know C) what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me D) what I was talking about.


And, I repeat: Did you expect folks to read your mind, or give their own interpretation of what it meant? -- the former is impossible.

All instances, A, B, C, and D of "what I was talking about" are identical, no?

So, you're saying, if you didn't even know what you were talking about, then no one else could have known -- the only way they could have gotten it "right" is if they would have said "I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you -- it is nonsense... rubbish, I tell you... throw it to the junkyard!" And -- if that's the only "right" response, then requesting they explain the unexplainable turns 10k into the "unpayable". The question here is: how can you say "all those who replied knows[/size] B) what I was talking about" if it is not possible for them to know it? It must have been possible -- not to read your mind (for which you did not ask)... but to give their interpretation. And you said "all" who replied -- so, I'm assuming, you meant "know" in a subjective sense -- they each had their own interpretation.

my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer. there is alot of rubbish in philosophy, I often compare it to a junkyard. when the text is ambiguous and not well explained like my post, there is no point trying to figure out what it means, because I myself do not know what it means.


If you didn't know what you were talking about, how did you come up with it? Some spirit guide took control of your typing hands?

Or maybe by "I didn't know" you meant something like "I was not claiming certainty." I don't see how that prevents anyone from explaining what you /meant/, or what they /think/ you meant, however.

Plus -- why not try to derive an answer to questions which haven't been answered? The answered ones are already... answered (the fun there is in proving the answer "inadequate" and adding something new to the considerations...).
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Sagesound » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:15 pm

Pinnacle of Reason wrote:The truth is finally here...


So, you've revealed the truth that you are a lying hack. You are nothing more than a cloud of contradiction. Allow me to elaborate.

I did not know what I was talking about. all those who replied knows what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me what I was talking about.


So you say this...and yet, you said this at the begining of the thread:

PoR wrote:You haven't explained all the aspects of the quote. Explain line by line.


PoR wrote:If it doesn't make sense, how do I know what it means? which is a precondition for payment.


You deliberately forced us to follow certain rules that would cause us to automatically be wrong no matter what we said. You therefore are a bullshitter.


my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer.


...and yet you demanded an answer - so you demanded that people be foolish in order to fulfill your requirement for the $10,000.



Anyway, thanks for the posts.


WTF? You conned people just to make posts for a bullshit thread of yours? What's next PoR? Are you going to proclaim that Doc S is your saviour and that you would still call yourself a close-minded Christian?
I know the truth about ILP.
Sagesound
Sagaciously Auditorial
 
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:28 am

Re: Want $10,000?

Postby north » Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:59 am

Pinnacle of Reason wrote:If anyone can explain what the below text means, I'll pay him/her $10,000

When we speak a language, we speak using voices. We communicate by means of sound, which is music.


i find this a rather loose interpretation of music but tones are used in voices. tones are used in music.

If we equate language with music, and say music is identical to language. Then doesn't our mind speak music?


in a abstract way , yes. music and language can be considered the same but language does not have a rythm nor the struture of music. but language does have structure within it.

Is it fair to say, since we express our Mind by means of Music, that Mind is Music?


to a point but one then must DEFINE musical structure to ALLOW language to be considered music. which means that music can of course a subjective structure. which then ALLOWS language to become a musical form.

The human mind has two distinct faculties. 1)Rational & Irrational, 2)Arational

1) The rational & Irrational is expressed by means of a combination of logical or illogical structure and words (signifiers) with meaning attached.


the rational and irrational can be expressed as ACTIONS of the being as well.

2) The arational or emotional is not adequately expressed by words, but by feelings, which can be expressed in classical music.


true, classical music can a precise way of expressing these feelings but at the same time can be abstract way of doing so. which leads to an open interpretation of this music. rather than the preciseness that one would have wanted of the music, towards ones feelings.

So, in the beginning. The mind preceeds language and music.


true

Mind is not language.


agreed. language is the essence of the development of mind(suppress the energy of mind, its want to break out of the confines of brain/mind, thoughts begin to distort)

Language is a component of the mind.


actually i think that language(in what ever form this takes. the worlds languages?) is the developement of mind

Our mind is not bound by words, because our mind can also be expressed using classical music.


true. however to get the precise meaning of what the mind whats to express is in language(words must be used) because music although this is a form of language, is too open to interpretation and is not defined enough in its meaning. and therefore can lead to misunderstandings and/or distortions of ones true meaning
north
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Canada

Postby north » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:06 am

Pinnacle of Reason wrote:The truth is finally here...




































http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi ... p?t=142883

I did not know what I was talking about. all those who replied knows what I was talking about so got it wrong. those who do not know what I was talking about do not get the money either because I asked them to tell me what I was talking about.

this thread is not meant to be a prank. my intention is to show people that often people just talk nonsense, it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer. there is alot of rubbish in philosophy, I often compare it to a junkyard. when the text is ambiguous and not well explained like my post, there is no point trying to figure out what it means, because I myself do not know what it means.

Anyway, thanks for the posts.


i gave it a whirl anyway :wink:
north
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Canada

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:25 pm

I was watching 'A Beautiful Mind' last night and early in the movie, John Nash utters the words "derivitave drivel" and it made me think of this thread. :D Like PoR was saying "it is foolish to try to derive an answer to questions the inventors themselves know no answer." However, PoR, if you were referring to the questions found in the original post, those seemed more like rhetorical questions, which are 'invented' with the author already knowing the answers... they are phrased as questions to 'lead/guide' the 'reader' to find the answers through their own thought processes -- i.o.w., they are 'invented' assuming the 'listener' will find the same answers as the speaker. I don't agree that you didn't know what you were talking about -- the questions asked do not point to that conclusion... and again, if you didn't know what it meant, how did you come up with it?

As far as what I was saying (why not try to derive an answer to questions which haven't been answered?) I think if somebody asks a question to which they don't know an answer, that question came from somewhere, not out of nowhere, and it is possible retrace its steps and take over where the questioner left off, especially if you can empathize with what was behind the question.

However, I agree with Nash's commenting on "derivitave drivel" -- it reminds me of the "sewing circle" that gossips and trades subjective observations about a particular individual's behavior or whatever and tries to draw conclusions that may be highly inaccurate. Either/both because I hate it, or/and I am too weird to be invited, I have managed to stay clear of the ILP sewing circle.
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

The Thoughts of Life

Postby Robertson » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:17 pm

Wow I've found this as an ironical answer to the early question once proposed for an answer in trade with #10,000. Now that the oblivous, stubborn, foolish answer has been released...I have come to, yes, more conclusions: mainly rejecting the author's ideas.

An idea, in this case a question, can be derived from centuries ago. One must come to the conclusion that they were not the first to propose the question. Of course, whomever proposed the question first, or in some cases, earlier, cannot be recorded for most likely the earliest proposer would not have logically done anything about it. I've come to this theory since the earliest must have been the most outdated of technology, 'n such. Anyways, I just wanted to clear this lil mishap up.

The second part to this theory is that there may never be an answer to a question. Anyone in their freshman year of high school learned (my experience--AP Biology) that the first rule of science is that every answer asks another question. Think about that, surely you remember that first day of school in your HS science course. Ah so inevitably, questions and answers (as in cause/effect) will eventually lead to an all-knowing power, and as Stephen Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time," we would know the "mind of God." My morals says that humans are a downgrade, a degenerative version of God's mind, so therefore we cannot reach his all-powering wisdom, therefore (I just love saying 'therefore') there must be paradoxes, contradictory theories, etc... This is where Morals lie, the differences of opinion about unanswerable questions. Now you're thinking, "how did we get from $10,000 to morals and the Mind of God?" Well that's philosophy fellas. :lol:




So in conclusion: questions that may end in paradoxes are not a waste of time, they divide our sophisticated cultures into many various and diverse customs, religions, governments, ideas, etc... Re-read above. It is a lil confusing. Please PM me for any praise, comments, or concerns.


P.S. I just completed my freshman year in High School.
"The king and the pawn, at the end of the game, go back into the same box."

"There are no whole truths. There are only half-truths, it is the belief of absolute truths that brings out the devil."

"why?"
Robertson
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:50 pm

Hm, well, I think you're doing better than me (as opposed to doing well for a young'n), Robertson! What got you interested in all this?

When I was saying you could retrace the steps of a question, I meant in the speaker's mind, not really the actual history of the question -- although, maybe you're touching on memes a wee bit -- questions use people to survive... questions survive in being asked... weird stuff like that. I think there can be an original question -- both in the sense that no one has ever asked it before, and in the sense that, the question is new to the one asking the question... the questioner is not aware of the question ever having been asked by anyone else.

One thing I regret about highschool science is that I took biology and chemistry instead of physics. GAHHHHH!!! Oh well, too late. I prob'ly wouldn't have even appreciated it back then, anyway. And now I can rattle off "kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species" whenever I feel like it! And even "dioxyrhibonucleic acid"!

Um... anywho, the whole point of my mentioning that was to say that "every answer asks another question" is not something I remember from science -- but it "resonates".

questions and answers (as in cause/effect) will eventually lead to an all-knowing power


I like how you equate questions and answers with cause and effect!!! They all lead me to the Unknown, however -- a great big question mark, if you will allow me to use that, um, 'mental picture'. I can't replace it with 'all-knowing power' -- to me that is a huge leap.

My morals says that humans are a downgrade, a degenerative version of God's mind


I once had a dream that mortality is to immortality like 'super' heroes (that did not become 'super' by some freak accident) are to normal people... (just like a more scientifically perfected form of existence... like mortality is like the "wheel" and immortality is like the "hypersonic jet plane" or something :lol: ) and that the experience of mortality was required in order to be able to later compare it with immortality, i.o.w., in order to /know/ and therefore be able to /appreciate/ immortality. But the immortal beings or the place they lived in did not seem "heavenly" (how would heaven and its inhabitants 'feel' if it were real?) to me -- they just seemed like fellow inhabitants of this universe -- but an aspect of the universe which we have not yet discovered. It was a freaky dream. The mind was immortal and could travel throughout the universe quickly through a medium like radio waves... which somehow connected all the minds together so that communication did not require 'talking' -- communication which would be impossible without first experience mortality and being able to 'remember' how communication used to occur -- immortal communication sort of was built on mortal communication -- took over where mortality left off, something like that.

I agree that language and science, like moral norms/values, are both subject to interpretation, which leads to a variety/diversity ... which is the spice of life, or something like that.

However, by "mind of God" it feels like you're saying there is either one truth/measure that separates the 'true' from the 'untrue' within those paradoxes -- or, that there is a common thread of truth among the paradoxes. I take "mind of God" out, I don't attempt to replace the big fat question mark with an answer..., I see that each way of seeing "the real" works for the "seer" for some logical/determined/action-reaction reason, and that the common thread between the ways of "seeing" is "the real" ... which is neither true or false... it just 'is'. I could change how I see this in the future, don't hold me to it.
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby Robertson » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:41 pm

Hmm... I like your thinking 'somenewname.'
Although I think you have your own personal version of what I presented. Thought in respect I, after your reply, would in fact change some of the tweaky details in my own.

I think I and somenewname have cleared most of this up. Anyone up for discussion?
"The king and the pawn, at the end of the game, go back into the same box."

"There are no whole truths. There are only half-truths, it is the belief of absolute truths that brings out the devil."

"why?"
Robertson
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Sheâ„¢ » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:48 am

oops, found it! disregard PM, PoR :-)

Pinnacle of Reason:

Your last communication to me (formerly known as “somenewname”) in this thread was for me to “just solve the paradox”. There are two ways to read that: 1) reveal the contradiction, or 2) take care of the contradiction. Here is an attempt at both:

1) Reveal the contradiction. The first claim (on the way to concluding that the mind is not bound by words) is that words are music (equating language, music, and mind):

When we speak a language, we speak using voices. We communicate by means of sound, which is music. {Note from She: the reasoning must assume that our only means of mind-expression is through spoken language… words… music.}

If we equate language with music, and say music is identical to language. Then doesn't our mind speak music?

Is it fair to say, since we express our Mind by means of Music, that Mind is Music?
-- PoR

The first claim is contradicted by a second claim that words are not music (downgrading language to a component of mind):

The human mind has two distinct faculties. 1) Rational & Irrational, 2) Arational

1) The rational & Irrational is expressed by means of a combination of logical or illogical structure and words (signifiers) with meaning attached.

2) The arational or emotional is not adequately expressed by words, but by feelings, which can be expressed in classical music. {Note from She: it had earlier been proposed that the spoken word, being sound, is music.}

. . . The mind precedes language and music. Mind is not language. Language is a component of the mind. {Note from She: it had earlier been proposed that mind, language, and music are equivalent.}
-- PoR

2) Take care of the contradiction. You can reach the conclusion that “Our mind (or, rather, the communication of thought/feeling) is not bound by words,” (PoR) without contradiction, by leaving out the discussion on whether or not words are music (matter of aesthetics), dropping the first claim that the mind is its communication (shown false by Imp early on in this thread), and instead focusing on all the different ways we can communicate our thoughts/feelings without using words (don’t even need to bother with whether ‘feeling’ is distinct from ‘thinking’, or whether the mind has faculties specifically for being irrational/arational).

Now that that’s settled, let me now propound a riddle to you, PoR and all of ILP, so that we might hot-potato-toss that $10-thou’ around a bit. Answer the riddle in the same “language” as it is written in the last quote of this post. Here is a hint: The solution between Joshua and Ruth can be judged. Whoever drops the potato is a rotten egg, which, translated, reads: Once you solve the $10k riddle, toss another one out there. Let’s see how long we can toss $10,000 around the imaginary halls of ILP. I can put it to good use if you would rather just declare me the winner – De’trop has my hubby’s e-mail (he does the finances, and would be delightfully surprised – ‘sides, the ol’ man deserves it, after what I put him through the last five years).

Back to not being bound by words -- if I remember correctly, you (PoR) are a Christian, no? This might be of interest to you, as it relates to the “wordness” of the Word. It is an excerpt of a paper by James Patrick Holding titled “Sonship and Separation: The Bible and the Mormon Idea of the Relation between Father and Son” last found at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html (5/24/01). If the link is no longer current, just go to http://www.tektonics.org and perform a search for the title of the paper. JP does not support the Mormon view (although there are points of agreement), just to be clear.

We speak of Christ as the “Word” of God, God’s “speech” in living form. In Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern thought, words were not merely sounds or letters on a page; words were things that “had an independent existence and which actually did things.” [10] Throughout the Old Testament and in the Jewish intertestamental Wisdom literature, the power of God’s spoken word is emphasized (Ps. 33:6, 107:20; Is. 55:11; Jer. 23:29; 2 Esd. 6:38; Wisdom 9:1). “Judaism understood God’s Word to have almost autonomous powers and substance once spoken; to be, in fact, ‘a concrete reality, a veritable cause.’” [11] But a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive. A word was defined as “an articulate unit of thought, capable of intelligible utterance.” [12] […]

We therefore agree with Blomberg’s distinction which notes Christ’s functional subordination (just as our words and speech are subordinate to ourselves) along with his ontological equality (just as our words represent our authority and our essential nature). This is the framework within which traditional Christian Trinitarianism operates. [14]
– JP Holding (not a Mormon, just to clarify). Among other books, John chapter 1 talks about Jesus being the Word. If you didn’t know that, you should really check it out.

Next, I need to do a follow-up with Robertson : Up in the thread a bit, you said,
Ah so inevitably, questions and answers (as in cause/effect) will eventually lead to an all-knowing power, and as Stephen Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time," we would know the "mind of God."
I replied, “I like how you equate questions and answers with cause and effect!!! They all lead me to the Unknown, however -- a great big question mark, if you will allow me to use that, um, 'mental picture'. I can't replace it with 'all-knowing power',” – I can now. I hope you still or soon can. (Stephen Hawking is kinda interesting… I read a tiny bit of his stuff a few years back… may get back into it if time allows.)

I apologize to everyone reading this (for we are all impressionable), for all the bad seeds I sowed (sp?) while at ILP (and elsewhere) – I hope none of them take root (that God wipes your memory clean of them)… or that they (my bad seeds) are all uprooted and good seeds grow in their place. I trust that God’s got it covered.

$10k Riddle (rules and hints imbedded in this post):

”Ays av shi iosil koni tanishemj sa
ios,
Omz ays av shi tslamj koni tanishemj
twiis.”


Grace and peace to you. Note: All biblical quote(s) are from Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible.
Why is there something rather than nothing?

Do you know the Answer?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com
User avatar
Sheâ„¢
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:31 am

Postby gemty » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:18 am

he got us again. Why do we respond...

I thought he was leaving anyways.

None of you were going to get 10 grand. You will never get 10 grand from little Himmler
User avatar
gemty
Thinker
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:39 am
Location: parts unknown

Re: Want $10,000?

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:44 pm

I could use $10,000 for school, but I know that's an unreasonable expectation at this late date, lol.

But today it occurred to me Nietzsche had the Dionysian and Apollonian mixed up, because music is the most ordered thing you can do, and dreaming the most wild. I mean. Can you put the math of dreams on sheet music? No. You can't.

However, music and language are similar because you can symbolize both, and speak both with the vocal chords.

And Nietzsche didn't understand there are three spheres, not two. And you can say a LOT about them, because it shows up again, and again, and again.

Find me on Facebook and look at my profile pictures that have the three spheres in them. Work in progress. Show me the money lol.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users