A living neologist.

reply to post by Wifibrains

I agree, and disagree. Seeing someone else do it is boring and never hits the spot. The response to my thread is testimony to this. But to me it's is exciting, cool, and revealing. Maybe that's how it is supposed to be. Personal.

It could be the scroll in your signature if you wanted it to be.

A plane prototype that crashes and burns a second after take off is very anticlimactic, I agree. In order for something to be exciting, it has to offer a benefit - either with its success or its failure. From where I'm sitting, yours did neither. It would appear I am not alone in this sentiment.

So here's my advice: if you're truly insistent on being a neologist, then either succeed...or fail with style. Give us something to learn from your efforts, something we didn't expect. You failed to surprise us with this thread, and that's why it's boring.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm not insistent on being a neologist I'm playing the role of being a neologist. I don't have a lable that defines me, (that way i can be what i want) i do have a name that defines me. I did a interpretation of It when I was playing at being a neologist. That was great fun and revealing too, and showed it does work..... For me.

Thanks for reading, AI and WS. You guys are great teachers/testers.....

See you in the next one.

*Lone ranger rides of into sunset...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Rosha

 

What good is making a discovery if you never recognize the flaws of your discovery? You will enter a state of perpetual failure, having never made the effort to compensate for the mistakes you have already made.

This is a very critical lesson to learn.

Define flawed?
The perspective applies where it does, and wont where it can't. A square peg cant fit into a round hole..and if the attachment state of mind is a round hole then this way of seeing things is a square peg...it requires non attachment to see it.

The OP simply shared a different perspective - a different way of seeing a thing. That's it. To me, the fact it wasn't reliant on a computer model to provide the new perspective was meaningful to me. I read no statement of faith, scientific declaration, no doctrinal message or pontification on its application.Just an invitation to see if I could see what he saw too. I replied honestly. I do see what he saw in the same manner he saw it.

In this sense it's not _what_ was interpreted, its how and once you have the knack of seeing the how, THEN its time to explore where or 'where else' it can apply or be useful. It's the same with bible codes really...all 'woooo' and mysterious until you realize the same els skip principle applies equally and is equally revealing of hidden message threads in Tom Sawyer as it does in the Torah.

Like crosswords though. practice makes perfect. When you first begin cross wording you cant see words for noise, or have difficulty viewing them inside the grids and so, you can only see the easiest view of the grid that there is to see. Then, after time and practice, turning your head sidewards, the process of 'seeing' the grid in varied ways becomes the new norm and applying your mind to seeing word structure in a new way..you suddenly breeze through them and need more challenges.

Tennyson spoke of seeing the world in a new light, the bible speaks of seeing 'with new eyes' etc...and that can be as simple as something I experienced - I discovered a new and otherwise obvious feature in a painting I'd had for nearly 20yrs - to simply reading and thinking about things from a new perspective. This isn't school...no one has to rise to anyone's demands for 'proof'...its not a process of adjudication but rather, one of discovery.

It is what it is and when you see it..you'll get it and until then, absence of evidence - for you - is not proof of non existence for all. That you can't see it , isn't a judgment about you yet you have reacted very defensively. Maybe you did see the OPs perspective too?
If you are uncomfortable with seeing or not seeing, that's your discomfort to manage. Self sooth...don't expect others to do that work for you..if you need proof go find it. Seeing is proof..for me in this case as once I saw, I understood.



Ro

reply to post by Rosha


My argument is that Wifi's technique is a very poor one. He provided one example. One. And the only reason the results came out as they did is because he changed the results outside of the procedure. It's no different from claiming you can start fires with your mind, then using a lighter to get the flame going.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Rosha

 

My argument is that Wifi's technique is a very poor one. He provided one example. One. And the only reason the results came out as they did is because he changed the results outside of the procedure. It's no different from claiming you can start fires with your mind, then using a lighter to get the flame going.

Then that assessment its yours to own. He is not required to act on it or even accept it.That he has alluded to utilizing you as an external tester of his personal hypothesis, is a respect being shown not an invitation to adjudicate his discovery....imo of course.

All is see is he removed punctuation from a common and easily acceptable definition and discovered something, I see him here exploring that discovery outwardly. What you see is your responsibility and from my perspective, there is no need to project that onto others. Doing that is an attribution error - as no one is obliged to adopt your view, anymore than Wifi's.

And as for your example..it is a mater of fact that mind can and does light fires. Mind is what decides it needs a fire, mind intentionally motivates the limbs to move, mind determines the function of the lighter and its usefulness and then mind instructs the body to function in a manner that lights the fire with the lighter..so the statement " I can make fire with my mind" is correct..its just not convenient for you to think of it that way.

If it were ' I can make fire using only my mind and not my body or any other extraneous tool'; then you would be correct. Words..matter. How they form..matter. How you choose to use and view them - in line with the accepted norm or not, is your inherent right to choose. If its not a right..then mind is imprisoned rather than aided by tools such as dictionaries etc..

My friend and I, debating partners of some 20 years, had this argument all the time about the use of words..he was stalwart on the need to use them as defined and "commonly accepted' - years ago..today he 'gets it'..that every sound and syllable every mental construct or image a picture forms in a mind is different, is interpreted uniquely by the individual perceiving it. Outward proof of that is already available in mind studies and statistical psychology, you don't need more evidence. We do have a collective set of definitions we bring together in dictionaries, and a collective way of defining when definition is needed for communication and interconnection with others, but we are not bound by those definitions any more than the need to wear clothing in public defines what people will wear. Now when we debate we pick a dictionary and only use those terms, definitions and embrace a neutral process of defining - for ease and to stop fights - but we do so by agreement, a choice. That choice doesn't mean those tools are somehow 'more real' than our own personal interpretations and ways of defining...just more useful at that time.

meh..to each their own.


Ro

reply to post by Rosha


I strongly disagree that we can take a word and freely use/define it, outside of it's normal context, and still be viewed as using the term correctly.

Take, for example, the world "biology".

If I were to define the word biology as anything other than the study of living organisms my definition would be inherently wrong. Why? Because the term biology has an etymological origin among the terms bios, meaning "living organisms", and logia meaning "the study of". The word biology cannot mean "the scent of rain on dry earth" anymore than the term petrichor can mean "the study of living organisms".

The reason why this is all important is because WiFi is asking us to reassess how we look at words, their definitions, and usage. Of course, we could merely ignore this thread and just move on with life, but, by putting their theory in a public forum WiFi has entered an unspoken agreement that others' are welcomed to, and encouraged to, respond with questions and inquiries.

In this case, our question happens to be: "does this work with all words, or did you find a single example, and think it just magically applies everywhere else?"

As for the "burden of proof", it is in fact on WiFi's shoulders, as WiFi has made the claim that a word's definition is a "spell" which can be broken by removing punctuation and creating a run-on sentence/pa-ra-graph. It is WiFi's job to prove they have discovered something more than a one-time event / fluke.

The fact that WiFi considers "proving" their claim to be an offense against them is actually quite telling. Why would someone be so against proving their claim, if their theory is airtight?


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wifibrains


Dictionaries are concerned with usage, and use a democratic scale to determine official meanings. A normal dictionary defines words according to how many times a word is used, and of those instances, which shade of meaning is used the most.

The word 'living' is used mostly in introductory biology texts.

A really top level work of theory or philosophy will always define its important words or concepts, and maintain those definitions consistently through out its exposition or exploration.

Most English writing is taught as training in rhetoric, (aka advertising, demagoguery, persuasion etc.) and tries to use the vaguest and most wide ranging definitions in order not to dissuade anyone in the audience.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I did not say I could be done with all words, so do not need to proove that it can. I did it once and you guys want more... At least 15 more. That's greedy and I could say that you guys are getting hooked. Just kidding. Lol

This is about using free will to look at words how I choose to find "my own" truths. I'm not trying to proove anything. It's only part of a personal journey.... Shared. It's ok to do this in private, and I can see why the problems have araised, is simply because of a lack of explanation and understanding on what i AM achieving.

Unless you have come with me down this road, you will not have seen the things I've seen and without seeing those things that make everything else make sense, you would have to use a little of your own imagination.

I am only sharing these to plant seeds from my flowers of life. Not many, if any, will sprout, I'm aware of that. But any ones that do, could keep on growing forever.

Wi-fi

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
I strongly disagree that we can take a word and freely use/define it, outside of it's normal context, and still be viewed as using the term correctly.

Ok.

Correctly by whose definition and by what authority?

Why?

Take, for example, the world "biology".

Yes..this is all perfectly reasonable and rational...however, could you please define "living' - define "life' for me. Not so easy. Also, I placed the word " petrichor" into the modern dictionary and unless I alter one letter, I cant find a definition of it there at all..does this mean the term is fallacious, or that it has no meaning to you? Does it exist at all?

You do realize the OP was speaking of a different way of *perceiving* words and word strings yes? Not necessarily altering their base definition? In fact to comprehend what he intended to be comprehended, keeping the dictionary definition of the individual words was very important as it wasn't the individual definition of the individual words that changed in the removal of the punctuation...it was the INTENTION of the definition that did. The intention moved from one set of perimeters to another. Both, perceptions were valid and informing..but in a different way.

The reason why this is all important is because WiFi is asking us to reassess how we look at words, their definitions, and usage. Of course, we could merely ignore this thread and just move on with life, but, by putting their theory in a public forum WiFi has entered an unspoken agreement that others' are welcomed to, and encouraged to, respond with questions and inquiries.

Unspoken agreement? How can agreement be made if one is not aware one is entering into it let alone consciously making a decision to engage in it? He put it out there..that's all as far as I can tell.

Yes, he was asking ppl,for moment, to wriggle free from attachment and entrenchment in whatever perception of words and word structure they have in general, and to look at a string of words in a new way...like looking at it upside down and see something in a new light. I didn't see him ask you to *believe* his way was better than yours or to give your perceptions and ways of perceiving up at all..or to even judge the way..just to see it.

Where the problem with that? Didn't you love dead poets society too? What is so threatening you have reacted so defensively?

In this case, our question happens to be: "does this work with all words, or did you find a single example, and think it just magically applies everywhere else?"

Trust me, it wasn't magic..it was just a different view of the same set of words without the CONTROL of the format...hardly intimidating let alone magical. I didn't read anywhere where the op said it applied ' everywhere else'..only to that writing..maybe others if we explore other writings from this perceptual basis.
If I missed something..then I missed it..shrugs...but even so..it *might* apply..who knows? I don't. You don''t..lets go find out?

What he demonstrated was a way to free language from conformity...the previously occulted message, was like a message in a bottle - just because it didn't come by regular mail..didn't diminish its value or worth..in fact..the fact it was hidden and was so controlled by punctuation and then was freed, made that value all the more meaningful to me.

As for the "burden of proof", it is in fact on WiFi's shoulders, as WiFi has made the claim that a word's definition is a "spell" which can be broken by removing punctuation

And if it is a fluke does that make it any less meaningful? Life itself is a fluke of chemicals and electricity...are we somehow less because for two seconds we see with a different set of eyes or see a thing from a different form of perception? I saw no theory postulated either..no force. See how two people can see something so differently yet be reading the same thing?

As for spelling and Spells...I think you may have been watching too much harry potter.

Its a simple thing to understand when you consider that when we write a concept, thought or 'thing' into language what do we do ? We spell out the words using letters from the alphabet. We spell the word out and then we ascribe it to mean a particular ''thing'.
When we teach our kids, we do not only teach words, we teach how to perceive/imagine them. So when we teach our children ' what things are', we teach them first to SPELL words and in order to recall the words, we use images like a is for apple..b is for book...etc etc..and so impress on their minds a perceptual bias - a WAY of thinking about letters. Then we teach structure of sentences, then paragraphs and eventually..we teach them HOW to think it.

The image your mind generated by reading the word "tree" for example..owing to the spelling of the word tree, immediately conjures the mental image of a living organism about 20 ft high with roots in the ground, branches leaves bark etc etc.... How do you think that happened? Why cant the word tree conjure the image of a car instead? Who pointed at this tall leafy thing and said " tree" ? Who said a 'tree' was a 'tree' in the first place?

What we do not see on the surface when we read, is the imagery embedded in the word itself. We understand less, how that image and word came to be associated at all.

What we are left with as adults is the awareness that we couldn't have stopped that formation of word-image, as we were simply too young when taught it, but we can be aware that it was this process - of connecting the images to the words using letters in particular formation that 'cast the spell' on the word and caused to mean xyz.,

When you remove Hollywood and fear and personal bias, you can see that the exact meaning of that word - "spell" - means to BIND.

The word "spell" has a function, it is an adjective used to describe a process, and that process - its application and function - is to BIND things together.

In this case, it binds the image of a tree to the word tree and then to the arrangement of letters that make up that word. How you perceive that word, is chosen for you..by that spell/binding process.

Spells, bind. So to unspell, is simply to UNBIND.

No biggy...So he unbound some words..whats the problem?

Could it be your bias or individual perception of what certain words mean to you,like the word 'spell', has influenced how you perceived his words?

There was nothing hocus pocus or mystical about it imo..its just..what it is...and it applies where it applies.
In the paragraph in question, I saw a profound new insight streaming from such an otherwise easily dismissed definition. That's it..no murder on the dance floor..just a little piece of beauty being shared...and the real magic is that that beauty was there to see at all.


ymmv

Ro

reply to post by Rosha


Rosha i see you are understanding. What I do is not the study of new things, it's to study things in a new way. It works every time for me and gives answers or confirmations to previously unanswered questions that also pave the way for the direction in which it heads, I'm just along for the safari ride pointing and saying "look, a snake"

I have something for you guys that shows the way of thinking does work in the strange way it does, it came to me earlier. I've just got in, will get to it soon.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


I get that, I'm not trying to create a theory based on words. I'm not creating A theory. its philosophy being put into practice. Neology is the way for me to go for now till the next best thing comes along, it will allways be neo- something.(knew to me)

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by AfterInfinity

The magician has a young boy as an assistant a rope a sword, and a wicker basket, there are many people surrounding the magician. He shows the audience the empty basket and places it on the ground, he places the rope in the basket, then shakes a hand held tambourine. The rope rises about twenty feet straight up into the air, the boy climbs halfway up when the magician tells him to come down. 


The boy refuses and continues up to the top and disappears, the magician gets his sword and follows the boy up and he to disappears...It now gets freaky screams are heard and the boys decapitated body start to hit the ground. Then the magician comes back down with a bloody sword, and the rope collapses back into the basket, he collects the boys body parts and puts them into the same basket, utters a few words and the boy jumps up in a whole state. 


The audience are shocked and awed. 
After a few days that it took to develop the shots, the 10 year old boy takes the photos to his father, and there is no standing rope..no body parts...but what happened.? 

"The magician and the boy are the same person and it's a battle of the mind, and the young one wants to go up, in a dream. The boys mind stayed in the dream."

"Another analogy I got was that the boys mind was purposely fed to god by the magician......"

It sounds a bit more than mass hypnosis. The magic circle have a standing payment for anyone that can show them how the trick is done. Its considered one of the greatest tricks in magic.

"But no one could see it..... It's called religion, and the magician is a pope or priest."

The traditional one seems to be the boy climbing up the rope and disappearing at the top, and the magician going up to punish the boy. Do we have an incidence that could be understood to be real magic. Where reality has been reshaped by someone with a very rare talent."

A lot of money has been spent, especially in the Old soviet Union, the research and its conclusions have been so way out, they seem to have been put in the to hard basket. But one titbit was a "Wolf Messing" Portrayed in the book "PSI discoveries in the Soviet Union" as the psychic that Stalin tested. Who seemed to have the rare gift of changing peoples perception of what was reality. 

Wolf messing too funny ay AI

He escaped from Poland during the War, and After infinity wanted to test his ability.

Do you see it yet AI.

He was no simple stage performer. When he returned the money to the cashier with the blank piece of paper the cashier fell to the floor with a heart attack. 

Next Stalin challenged him to meet him in his Private Dachau but he had to evade the tight security, the grounds were filled with KGB and guards, he walked right through and went up to AI who was working at his desk. 

When asked how he'd done it he said he'd mentaly told everyone he was Baria the Chief of the KGB. So this is a fairly well documented man who could do some strange things.

Lol. 

From.... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wi-fi

Believe and try it.

The use of neologisms led me to find out my soul was black, dark, space, and is everywhere.

Did you read my gap, space.... Thread?

Another use neologism taught me that the use of neologisms can lead to aphasia that can lead to apoptosis and more.

Apoptosis (/ˌæpəˈtoʊsɪs/ or /ˌeɪpɔːpˈtoʊsɪs/)[2][3] is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms.[4] Biochemical events lead to characteristic cell changes (morphology) and death. These changes include blebbing, cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, and chromosomal DNA fragmentation.

Evolution? Out with the old in with the NEO!

I'm doing a controlled demolition, and revamp via neologism and rebuilding a new-NEO.

[The temporal lobes are involved in the retention of visual memories, processing sensory input, comprehending language, storing new memories, emotion, and deriving meaning]

I'm literally reshaping my mind. I know my soul is black so I need to destroy this underlying white matter....

[ the key deficits of receptive aphasia do not come from damage to Wernicke's area;[1] instead, most of the core difficulties are proposed to come from damage to the medial temporal lobe and underlying white matter.]

It sounds mad I know. This isn't a plan I have been following it is all revealed after the fact, and sometimes it seems I am creating the future.

Melanin means dark in Greek and there is a substance in the brain that is called nueromelanin?(spelling)that is also related to apoptosis. Apoptosis can can lead to atrophy. I thought that sounded like a trophy! And related it to a cup, filled it and drank.

That's what the story said anyway.

One last thing I just noticed that is another confirmation...

If you have read my threads you will know how I've been banging on about the feminine energy and how it's kept lock up in words and meanings,

Think about what I just wrote about apoptosis, related to neologisms, it's a key to this energy.

A pop to sis.

Lol.

PROOF IS EVERYWHERE. Let me know if you want more.



I'm a naughty boy. Lol.

Haha the making of naughty boy fits very nicely. I'm not sure how this is happening but it is.....

I don't know how I see it I just look and it's there...

The more I watch it the, the more I actualy see different things, I'm quite obsessed with it at the moment that it could actaully tie in with me and this thread, this video sets the scene.

Wesley helped to organise and form societies of Christians throughout Great Britain, North America and Ireland as small groups that developed intensive, personal accountability, discipleship and religious instruction among members. His great contribution was to appoint itinerant, unordained preachers who travelled widely to evangelise and care for people in the societies. Under Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social issues of the day, including the prison reform and abolitionism movements. Although he was not a systematic theologian, Wesley argued in favour of 'Christian perfection' and opposed Calvinism, notably the doctrine of predestination. He held that, in this life, Christians could come to a state in which the love of God "reigned supreme in their hearts", allowing them to attain a state of outward holiness. His evangelical theology was firmly grounded in sacramental theology and he continually insisted on means of grace as the manner by which God sanctifies and transforms the believer, encouraging people to experience Jesus Christ personally. Throughout his life Wesley remained within the Established Church and insisted that his movement was well within the bounds of the Anglican tradition.[4] His maverick use of church policy put him at odds with many within the Church of England, though toward the end of his life he was widely respected and referred to as "the best loved man in England."[5]

In the video it say the story started in the john Wesley hotel and looking at it the way I do the video told me to look up who John Wesley....

This is how things fit together through synchronisity and the story continues.....

Wesley helped to organise and form societies of Neology throughout Great Britain, North America and Ireland as small groups that developed intensive, personal accountability,

His great contribution was to appoint itinerant, thoughts including the prison reform and abolitionism movements.

Although he was not a systematic theory, His evangelical philosophy was firmly grounded in sacramental theology and he continually insisted on means of free will as the manner by which One sanctifies and transforms the believer, encouraging people to experience It personally.

Throughout his life Wesley remained within the Matrix and insisted that his movement was well within the bounds of the Anglican tradition.[4] His maverick use of word policy put him at odds with many within the forum, though toward the end of his thread he was widely respected and referred to as "the best loved man in England."[5]

She loves me. Lol

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Rosha

 

Rosha i see you are understanding. What I do is not the study of new things, it's to study things in a new way. It works every time for me and gives answers or confirmations to previously unanswered questions that also pave the way for the direction in which it heads, I'm just along for the safari ride pointing and saying "look, a snake"

I have something for you guys that shows the way of thinking does work in the strange way it does, it came to me earlier. I've just got in, will get to it soon.

I just offer this warning to you Wifi...that when you add meaning in one location, it can reduce it in other. Unbinding/seeing this way, can lead to a form of neurosis where suddenly " everything" has intense or hyper-meaning and you find yourself bombarded by even the simplest things and unable to extract yourself from that meaning, to distance yourself so you can evaluate it from other, just as important perspectives.
Like looking at a newspaper up close for so long that the words blur...and if you don't discipline yourself, you can find yourself being unable to read at all when you step away from the paper. You can change the way your 'eyes' function and unless you are acutely aware of how that occurs so you can reverse it, you may never regain normal vision. Which isn't important...until it is.

Sometimes..a cigar is just a cigar...and sometimes, distance is important..separation being as meaningful as proximity. Somethings you do have to just go along and pretend it is what it isn't....for sanity's sake...just so you can ' get along' and live in your skin in this world at this time.

reply to post by Rosha


Thanks, that sound like good advice.

It distances itself, and then comes back, again. I just flow with it when it comes. It doesn't even suprise me anymore, you learn to accept, it is what it is.

I can see how people do go nuts from the seeing, but that's only the ones who can't handle it. It's one of my favourite pass times.

Lol.

Informally Used as an intensive, i beat the living hell out of my opponent in the boxing match. (inside the square circle)

Words are deep.