A Grand Unified Theory of Semantics

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language. Not many people study linguistics theory and just assume the words they are using mean a whole lot more than what they actually do.

There is a fascinating idea with regards to categories of dialectics called "Unity of opposites". The most basics of physical experience is the equation Time = mass - Energy. Without having opposites (mass and Energy) with some form of tension (the subtraction part of the equation) then you would not be able to experience time. All meaning in language comes from some form of a unity of opposites.

"This divine Logos, or law of the universe, centers around the idea of eternal flux, that things within the universe are constantly changing. Heraclitus explains this flux by examining the unity of opposites. It can be found that all things undergo transformations so that they may become their opposites. That which is hot will inevitably become cold. Every life is guaranteed death and with each death, there can be found new life."

Unity of Opposites



Here's a fantastic video on lessons of non-duality:



Without duality you do not exist. The map is not the territory. But most people live in the map and do not experience the territory.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Atheism is not a belief system. The absence of something is NOT something. The absence of something IS nothing.

Technically, no. I would agree if you said agnosticism is not a belief system, agnostic literally means "no knowledge" or "without knowledge." So an agnostic has no belief or opinion either way.

But atheism is the specific belief that there is no God. And since it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of a God or gods, it can only be a belief.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't really understand how this 'unity of opposites' applies to Semantics.

Your quote does 'announce' a Logos; but it is reffering to 'a teaching' not language.

This idea of unity is pretty universal, Lao Tzu, proclaimed it in the 6th century BC as well but it is an absolute concept rather then a relative one.

By that I mean, that while it is true that all things are One (the absolute in aggregate and more specifically); in the case of a specific spectrum (i.e. hot/cold; top/bottom; left/right) we can only physically experience one aspect of these dualities at a time and while we may intellectually understand 'the unity and hence can only response to 'life' on that relative basis.

This mental masturbation while very intertaining provides little practical value to living at the corner of here and now.

Yes - this is used as a rationale for 'doublespeak' (war is peace, peace is war), it only confuses communication.

I'd like to hear your take on how this applies to Semantics/Language.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I take issue with your first sentence.

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language.

My understanding of nature is through sight, smell, sound and touch...semantics may also be heard from nature, but we do not necessarily make logical meaning from it; as in ignoring it in favour of furthering our own needs, therefore making it mute.

My understanding of myself is through sight, sound, touch, finding my reality and truth through evidence and logic, and transcendence (exceeding self-imposed limitations)...few select words needed, such as 'ohm'.

My understanding of us/you is through sight, sound, touch, non-verbal elements of communication, and verbal elements, which can be a toss up of meanings and logic. Verbal elements of communication for the purpose of relaying one's reality and/or conviction or opinion can be derailed easily when emotions and biases, rather than a pure desire and a nurtured ability to learn from each others reference points, are at the forefront.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dfnj2015

Atheism is not a belief system. The absence of something is NOT something. The absence of something IS nothing.

Technically, no. I would agree if you said agnosticism is not a belief system, agnostic literally means "no knowledge" or "without knowledge." So an agnostic has no belief or opinion either way.

But atheism is the specific belief that there is no God. And since it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of a God or gods, it can only be a belief.

That was a cut-n-paste error from another post. I removed it after I saw it.

Just so you know you are absolutely wrong to believe, "atheism is the specific belief that there is no God"

I think the people from the American Atheist Association are more qualified to define what atheism means than you are:

What is atheism?

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion."

I cannot prove an elephant will never fly some day. I can't prove monkeys will never fly out of your butt. You can't prove a negative. To say there is "no God" requires evidence and proof. No atheist is stupid enough to make this claim. But theists surely are!!!

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't really understand how this 'unity of opposites' applies to Semantics.

You cannot understand up without understanding what down means. And you have to experience what it means to be in the middle. Otherwise, your idea of up and down is meaningless.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: dfnj2015

I take issue with your first sentence.

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language.

My understanding of nature is through sight, smell, sound and touch...semantics may also be heard from nature, but we do not necessarily make logical meaning from it; as in ignoring it in favour of furthering our own needs, therefore making it mute.

It's very simple. Words are not the reality they represent. Words are like a map. No matter how much detail is on the map the experience of reality is always far richer than the map. It's like saying the word "reality" is reality. It's not. When we use the word reality is always has limitations associated with it.

It's like going to McDonalds and seeing the pretty picture on the menu and then ordering it. When you sit down at the table and open up your container, there's a miniature Jabba the Hutt protein blob staring back at you that looks nothing like the picture. When you bite into your Jabba you think about picture. But reality is never as perfect as our picture of it.

Heraclitus idea of flux as a Universal law is profound if it were slightly rewritten to use terms in modern physics as opposed to Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water mythology.

It's interesting that from an observer's point of view (non-Euclidean) distance equals time. The farther away something is from you, the farther back in time it is.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Then they have literally mis-defined and/or mis-identified themselves as atheists. It means what it means.
What that describes is agnosticism.

And we might as well add mis-appropriated the word as well, since it pretty much denies/erases true atheists who do believe there are no gods. Oh wait! You just did:

No atheist is stupid enough to make this claim.

Of course they do! You've been on ATS too long not to know that...

I see the promise of an intriguing title quickly devolved into another battle of semantics.
So much for Unified - much less Grand Unified. Too bad.
Ah, the promise was unfulfilled, yet the trip worth it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Love is evol spell it backwards, I will show you!

In the beginning was the word.

What defines a word.

It's vibration.

Uni Verse

Jesus and Lucifer are both the morning star.

Nice thread!

Words, words, words:

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't really understand how this 'unity of opposites' applies to Semantics.

You cannot understand up without understanding what down means. And you have to experience what it means to be in the middle. Otherwise, your idea of up and down is meaningless.

You are describing 'concepts' not language. My original question stands.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: dfnj2015

I take issue with your first sentence.

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language.

My understanding of nature is through sight, smell, sound and touch...semantics may also be heard from nature, but we do not necessarily make logical meaning from it; as in ignoring it in favour of furthering our own needs, therefore making it mute.

It's very simple. Words are not the reality they represent. Words are like a map. No matter how much detail is on the map the experience of reality is always far richer than the map. It's like saying the word "reality" is reality. It's not. When we use the word reality is always has limitations associated with it.

It's like going to McDonalds and seeing the pretty picture on the menu and then ordering it. When you sit down at the table and open up your container, there's a miniature Jabba the Hutt protein blob staring back at you that looks nothing like the picture. When you bite into your Jabba you think about picture. But reality is never as perfect as our picture of it.

Heraclitus idea of flux as a Universal law is profound if it were slightly rewritten to use terms in modern physics as opposed to Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water mythology.

A reference to modern physics:

apeironcentre.org...

And the subject, Hericlitus' Logos, of Semantics from google definitions:

se·man·tics /səˈman(t)iks/ Learn to pronounce noun the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics,
which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics,
which studies the cognitive structure of meaning. the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: dfnj2015

I take issue with your first sentence.

Our understanding of nature and ourselves is bounded by the limitations of our human language.

My understanding of nature is through sight, smell, sound and touch...semantics may also be heard from nature, but we do not necessarily make logical meaning from it; as in ignoring it in favour of furthering our own needs, therefore making it mute.

It's very simple. Words are not the reality they represent. Words are like a map. No matter how much detail is on the map the experience of reality is always far richer than the map. It's like saying the word "reality" is reality. It's not. When we use the word reality is always has limitations associated with it.

It's like going to McDonalds and seeing the pretty picture on the menu and then ordering it. When you sit down at the table and open up your container, there's a miniature Jabba the Hutt protein blob staring back at you that looks nothing like the picture. When you bite into your Jabba you think about picture. But reality is never as perfect as our picture of it.

Heraclitus idea of flux as a Universal law is profound if it were slightly rewritten to use terms in modern physics as opposed to Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water mythology.

Shared meaning is required for communication between individuals and yes, shared meaning is constantly evolving (flux) but without a sense of shared meaning communication devolves into chaos. Chaos may be the same, in the Hericlitian sense, but in practical matters is is destructive, which in abosolute Hericitian terms would mean the same as creatiion.

Hence the father of doublespeak.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You don't need communication to have meaning.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Equilibrium of chaos and order is the key. Flucutate back and forth. Too much of either isn't beneficial, any extremity toward one state or the other can stunt growth.

The 2nd video implies most people sit in order and never move beyong the lines ito chaos.

leolady

a reply to: dfnj2015

Bruh, quit playin. That's all literally semantics. You are explicitly arguing to change the sentence from "the belief that there are no gods" to "a lack of belief that there are gods".

Which is, IMHO, just silly. What is a belief? It simply a viewpoint, something that you take as true. A belief is something that, if someone were to make a statement, you would with no evidence agree with them.

You take it as true there are no gods. If someone claims there are no gods, you will agree with them, despite having no evidence. Therefore, you believe that there are no gods.

If you simply had a lack of belief, then, as Boadicia pointed out, you would not be atheistic, but Agnostic.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Sounds a lot like Saussure's Semiotics, regarding the "sign" and the "signified"
and all that.

Albeit in this case something only exists in opposition to what is around it.

For example (using men's deodernts/perfumes), English Blazer only exists in a space between Old Spice (cheaper) and David Beckham (more expensive).

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: FyreByrd

You don't need communication to have meaning.

As an isolated individual, no. But in order to function in society, shared meaning is required.