Either way, does that truly match the authors meaning of the word?
Yes and not. Depends.Especially depends of precision author tries to explain his/her view.
Ritual like words might leed other way than predicted/believed. Practice could be repeated wrong way or misunderstood. Understanding is limited by abilities of those who learn.
Again key meme: Plato's cave. Look at Plato's cave idea (you not need in original),it represent truth about ideas perception. Are ideas primary or not - it is not matter in my view.
Plato's cave & ideas. Word,Ritual,Practice = reflections on wall. Understanding = seeing those reflections.
I've been really thinking about language recently so your thoughts are really helping me form my ideas, so thank you for your input.
Great example with Plato's cave. Your right, the authors meaning does rely on their precision. My point is do the words themselves help us see the reflections on the wall, or do experiences? I guess I am taking this at a more spiritual view point, which is really difficult to convey in words anyways without the experiences.
One word that comes to mind is communism, and I'm sort of thinking out loud here. You ask anyone to define communism and you'll get a thousand different definitions. For some, they are enticed by the idea that communism will bring equality to all (I know that's bullshit, but that's what people have told me), while others remember the millions of people that were killed in China and Russia and the failed communist societies of the past. You can read the same book, but everyone is going to have a different conclusion based on the experiences they have personally had.
My point is do the words themselves help us see the reflections on the wall, or do experiences?
Yes and no. Words are structural patterns for (limited to words capabilities) sharing of experiences. Shallow definition but
You can read the same book, but everyone is going to have a different conclusion based on the experiences they have personally had.
Individual minds and personality is whole structure. Words and contacting with other people - through language or experience is trying to share some part of structures you have. Whole structure "written in" mind cannot be shared as a whole, only shared as part.
Sharing experience and knowledge (by words or other means) is something like writing word/sentence in already written sentence/book. With working intelligent auto-correct protecting integrity of sentence/book (mind and personality cohesion - and even despite of that we are more or less crazy/unstable,more or less inconsistent as individuals !).
Pros:
We are different individuals not some one hive overmind. All of us matter,all of us are different - and it is evolutional advantage. (<-Compare evolutional level of species having 2 sexes to replicating "self-clonning" bacterias). And this is tip of icehole of advantages.
Cons:
We have different experiences and we are deemed to not fully understand each other as we are different. Unity is impossible.Full understanding - very hard if possible. Had I wrote icehole ? Well as well it could sometimes sunk us...
Yes and not. Depends.Especially depends of precision author tries to explain his/her view.
Ritual like words might leed other way than predicted/believed. Practice could be repeated wrong way or misunderstood. Understanding is limited by abilities of those who learn.
Again key meme: Plato's cave. Look at Plato's cave idea (you not need in original),it represent truth about ideas perception. Are ideas primary or not - it is not matter in my view.
Plato's cave & ideas. Word,Ritual,Practice = reflections on wall. Understanding = seeing those reflections.
I've been really thinking about language recently so your thoughts are really helping me form my ideas, so thank you for your input.
Great example with Plato's cave. Your right, the authors meaning does rely on their precision. My point is do the words themselves help us see the reflections on the wall, or do experiences? I guess I am taking this at a more spiritual view point, which is really difficult to convey in words anyways without the experiences.
One word that comes to mind is communism, and I'm sort of thinking out loud here. You ask anyone to define communism and you'll get a thousand different definitions. For some, they are enticed by the idea that communism will bring equality to all (I know that's bullshit, but that's what people have told me), while others remember the millions of people that were killed in China and Russia and the failed communist societies of the past. You can read the same book, but everyone is going to have a different conclusion based on the experiences they have personally had.
Yes and no. Words are structural patterns for (limited to words capabilities) sharing of experiences. Shallow definition but
Individual minds and personality is whole structure. Words and contacting with other people - through language or experience is trying to share some part of structures you have. Whole structure "written in" mind cannot be shared as a whole, only shared as part.
Sharing experience and knowledge (by words or other means) is something like writing word/sentence in already written sentence/book. With working intelligent auto-correct protecting integrity of sentence/book (mind and personality cohesion - and even despite of that we are more or less crazy/unstable,more or less inconsistent as individuals !).
Pros:
Cons: