Page 1 of 2

### Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 17 Feb 2015 23:40
Often one hears the question, what does a dream mean, what does a character in a dream means. What do words mean. So, I will expound a bit on the mechanics of meaning.

To understand that there are two, and only two fundamental branches of reasoning, of language, let us examine a simple definition.

Definition: A thing is any material, or difference, in some shape, limit or form.

As some ancients pointed out, but is ignored, is this means that a thing is composed of 2 elements, its form and its material. It also means that a thing is defined in terms of these elements. Thus, the name of a thing is equal to the combination of the names of its elements, material and form.
It also means that there are two distinct naming conventions in Logic. The subject naming convention, which names a thing directly, and a Predicate naming convention which names that thing by the combination of the names of its elements.

The definition also means something else. That there are two fundamental branches of reasoning, Logic and Analogic. If one starts with form, the material must be added to make the thing called that language. For example, in common grammar, the material difference is the abstractions named by the elements. i.e. as Aristotle pointed out, reasoning starts with induction and induction is impossible without sense perception.

So logics start with form, which we call letters and combinations of letters, but they do not actually become words until the commensurate analogs are associated with the names of what can be predicated of that name. So, when we ask for meaning of a logical statement, we are asking what analog component do I need to understand you, so that we are both making one and the same thing. In other words, is there an experience in my own memory that is similar enough to yours that I can associate with a name in order to communicate.

Analogic starts with material difference. One simply adds shape to the analog material. Like the geometric figure, or the figures in your dreamscape. When we ask for meaning of an analog communication, we are asking how to parse it into boundaries, be those boundaries points and lines in geometry, or into words of a logic system.

There is something else we learn from the definition of a thing. Neither material or form can be defined, they must be learned from experience. Definition is the preservation of the naming conventions by equating one with the other, the Subject Naming Convention to the Predicate Naming Convention.
Secondly, predicates are not things in relation to the thing defined, they are elements.
The definition demonstrates the principles of predication. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot predicate of a predicate. One cannot say that space bends or that time slows down, not without demonstrating complete lack of linguistic ability. So much for Einstein.

So, when we ask for meaning from logic, we are seeking the analog component of the language. When we are asking for meaning from an analog language, like lucid dreams, we are looking for the logical component. Just like the definition of any thing we need both in either language to actually make a thing called understanding.

This also has a very functional application. One can use either language to time lock a communication. What was said will not be understood until such a time as the required conjugate part of that language is functionally resident in a mind. Thus, by metaphor, one can predicate things, which they do not know was said, until the event actually takes place. This is one way to prove that one is communicated to in the lucid dream state. The source of the communication knew the outcome, but the material was not resident in our own mind at the time. We are not different from ourselves.
One of the most famously time locked communications is what is called The Judeo-Christian Scripture. It plainly states in a number of places that it is sealed to man's understanding until a certain time in history. In other words, until man has evolved commensurate linguistic ability. Since the mind takes the past in order to predicate and make a future, the demonstration with the Book is simply beautiful.

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 18 Feb 2015 10:05
Next time you get a haircut, ask the barber not to take so much off the top.

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 18 Feb 2015 20:08
LMAO!

[ Post made via Android ]

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 23 May 2015 06:56
To understand that there are two, and only two fundamental branches of reasoning, of language, let us examine a simple definition...So, when we ask for meaning from logic, we are seeking the analog component of the language. When we are asking for meaning from an analog language, like lucid dreams, we are looking for the logical component. Just like the definition of any thing we need both in either language to actually make a thing called understanding...The definition also means something else. That there are two fundamental branches of reasoning, Logic and Analogic. If one starts with form, the material must be added to make the thing called that language. For example, in common grammar, the material difference is the abstractions named by the elements. i.e. as Aristotle pointed out, reasoning starts with induction and induction is impossible without sense perception.

All three of these points are wrong! Starting with Aristotle is always a good way to destroy ones ability to reason properly and then ending with secret messages from scripture is a good way to destroy ones rationality completely. Logic has always been divided to to two types for very sound reasons - inductive and deductive. These two compliment each other and really can't be separated; but a useful rule of thumb is that inductive reason is mainly good for knowing the material world, while inductive for knowing philosophy and psychology. It's starting with Aristotle and his materialism that has created the silly and nonsensical gibberish that is the "science" of psychology.

The internal world is not composed of things or matter. when one tries to "measure" and "observe" anything internal as if it's a material object one will fail completely and spew only irrational smeg that has no truth at all in it, equally if one tries to understand the external material world with only deductive logic one will spew forth again only smeg that one needs to clean up; but being irrational can't.

Logic of either variety starts with emotion, as intelligence and rationality are emotions and how well anyone can reason depends upon how well they incarnate these emotions or can summon them consciously into experience. Unlike the material world where one can never experience all of it or know all of it, the internal world is complete. Every human mind has an emotional matrix that contains every other possible human mind and one may understand others because one can be inspired by their character or call it into ones moods and experience it without induction of any kind at all. All philosophy is merely the competition between competing states of mind. Reasoning about the material world is never separate from the reasoner as their personality will color both their observations and analysis of them. One must be able to reach beyond one's own mind and see sensual data from different perspectives - one needs an hypothesis tree to really inductively reason and such trees like all creativity originate in deductive reasoning.

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 23 May 2015 10:46
Well, at least what you aver makes more sense, Snaggle. Quite an insightful post and I like the kind of transcendence you speak of at the end. Is this why dreams can helps us to be creative and why we are sometimes urged to 'think outside the box'? And yes, I would agree that most psychology is hypothetical and not always on the mark.

[ Post made via Android ]

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 23 May 2015 15:48
Whenever I read Philosopher8659 I think of what Bertrand Russell said: "When people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Is that unfair?

[ Post made via iPhone ]

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 23 May 2015 18:26
It's fair.

[ Post made via Android ]

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 24 May 2015 03:59
Philosopher8659 is never here any more, still he's an intelligent Neo-scholastic, though both scholastics and Neo-scholastics are just apologists for Catholocism and are more than a bit irrational, but no more so than Scientistics.

Well, at least what you aver makes more sense, Snaggle. Quite an insightful post and I like the kind of transcendence you speak of at the end. Is this why dreams can helps us to be creative and why we are sometimes urged to 'think outside the box'? And yes, I would agree that most psychology is hypothetical and not always on the mark.

The greater creativity of dreams really stems from one being closer to real consciousness as opposed to normal consciousness. There are many consciousnesses working all the time doing independent: thinking; observing and imagining. Normal consciousness is an illusion, though one is never separated from ones real consciousness. When one is brainstorming the flood of original ideas one has suddenly popping into ones head are from those other consciousnesses subordinate to one's normal consciousness that one perceives. I've been in that real consciousness when it's not hidden. The human consciousness is greater than almost anyone imagines much greater that the 90-99% some claim. If you had ever experienced it directly Summerland you would know that all human beings are masterpieces whether of god or nature and you would lol at the tranhumanism movement.

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 03 Sep 2015 22:10
Nature has the potential to create far better 'masterpieces' ― beings who exceed in all areas ― because that is possible in reality, however unlikely; instead, mediocrity is rife. Why? Because we live in an impersonal universe. As Richard Dawkins would metaphorically put it, we are products of a 'blind watchmaker'.

If 'real consciousness' is hidden [from experience], by the way, then it's not really consciousness ― I believe the word you're looking for is 'subconscious' or, more aptly named, the 'unconscious mind'.

Consciousness is simply the irreducible awareness ― no more, no less ― and cannot possibly be described as an illusion. (One can say that the self, as the ego that identifies with conceptions for the sake of a meaningful narrative, is an illusion ― but not consciousness itself, however it arises in the brain, because the seeming is exactly what it is.)

Consciousness is simply what it is like to be something. How or why this should be [in brains, as far as we can tell] is still, unfortunately (for those of us who want to know), a real mystery.

[ Post made via Android ]

### Re: Mechanics of Meaning.

Posted: 05 Sep 2015 23:54