GENIUS FORUMS

This has occured to me a number of times over the years. Recently coming back to the board has, for me, only reiterated the necessity and primacy of correct definition in philosophical enquiry.

The issues and the logical operations involved are usually very simple and uncomplicated but incorrect definition of terms, more often than not, invalidates the process from the word go. That's why, in asking these simple questions, their simple answers so often become muddied, producing supposed contradiction and seeming infinite regress. The prime candidate here, by way of example, is the tendency to define intuitively i.e. the self and things exist inherently - and all the problems that flow therefrom. Then there's suspect number two, philosophical relativism and the inconsistencies this self-contradictory definition entail.

Correct definition is the first and most important step in consitent philosophical enquiry. Get this part right and the whole process becomes so much more simple, completely sidestepping the needless tangents those with flawed definitions might become stuck in for long periods in trying to reconcile the seeming contradictions they uncover. Without these meaningless and downright wasteful avenues of exploration, the path of enquiry can become startlingly straight, obvious, fast and easy, as opposed to meandering, obscure, painstakingly slow and excruciatingly hard.

This dictionary will obviously be a labourious and time consuming endeavour but it might well be the most worthwhile philosophical book ever written. It will negate much of the needless repetition of themes and challenges that arise around here when a person identifies an apparent contradiction simply because they don't understand the definitional big picture involved in the ideas here. It will be a good test of the consistency of the ideas here as any inconsistency will soon be identified by our ever-present crop of clever contrarians - looking to expose others' mistakes to show that they must be more intelligent than the mistaken - as well as the more earnest enquirer too. It will also be a most edifying process for those involved on a long-term basis here as a larger and larger consistent universe of philosophical discourse is defined and redefined and the simplicity of the big picture becomes more and more apparent. It'll even be interesting, identifying ever more terms which beg correct definition and making sure said definition is consistent with every single other definition without exception. I'm really only touching on the benefits this process could have here.

So, luckily for me, that's my bit done. I'd say this is a task for sages so sticky this topic or start your own but get to it people. It's a big challenge but now it's been identified, I know you won't be able to ignore it.

2 months ago a member of our board, Ryan, had this same idea. His Essential Definitions thread never really took off though.

You might find the discussions and attempts at definition on that thread to be a source of inspiration to get this thread going.

Here are the terms people wanted defined on that thread:


1. Ego

2. Emotion

3. Imagination

4. Psychological attachment

5. Rational

I think the problem with the idea is that the problem isn't that people don't know particular definitions, it's that they don't know how to arrive at their own definitions consciously and are enslaved by their language. If they weren't slaves to words, then they would be more discriminating about others' words and introducing a new definition to them wouldn't be a problem.

The problem could also be more about laziness: that people don't really seek very much to discover what someone else is talking about. Many philosophical ideas are very specific and therefore difficult to communicate because all of the aspects have to be understood together before the correct idea is arrived at.

Another thing is that introducing a new definition to a word can raise a lot of doubts in someone's mind (femininity = unconsciousness anyone?), so there would probably have to be some pretty elaborate justifications of some of the definitions. That's not really a problem, though, I don't guess.

Matt Gregory wrote:I think the problem with the idea is that the problem isn't that people don't know particular definitions, it's that they don't know how to arrive at their own definitions consciously and are enslaved by their language. If they weren't slaves to words, then they would be more discriminating about others' words and introducing a new definition to them wouldn't be a problem.

I'm very much in agreement with this. People need to learn how to think, not what to think.

It's merely the leaf of a greater disease when people don't know the necessary definitions. The root of disagreement I think is largely due to people not exercising their powers of perception with much subtlety, depth and vastness. Instead, their minds are tethered to and confused by frozen fragments of models, definitions, words, explanations which leave them little flexibility to further visualize and make further progress on their own initiative. The problem is that they aren't using their right brains, visualizing the meaning of words spatially and fluidly, and instead are content to become and/or remain atrophied by rigid over simplified models and explanations.

Lately I've come to understand more clearly and greater appreciate why Q, R, and S (as I've heard them each say in their own way more than once) assert that many modern admirers of science are at essence no different from bigoted believers in religion.

Both types prefer to over simplify reality by subscribing to scientific explanations for why phenomena is the way it is, without actually perceiving for themselves the reasons why scientists had originally postulated these hypotheses, not to mention, the remaining mysteries and problems which remain to be resolved in the field.

These types are easily contented with limited explanations, they are quick to believe what they read, and are just as quick to cling to shallow solutions based on the limited bit they think they know. They want reality to be nice and small and easy. They have little passion for finding out the remaining problems and blind spots in any given field, failing to come to an awareness, on their own initiative, as to why it is there are remaining problems and blind spots in the relevant field.

However, that's not to say that I don't think this thread has the potential to be a place for people to thrash it out and experience/undergo the definition making process. But I think debate about the meaning and value of words and terms is what philosophizing is generally is about, and that, really, there is no way of being clear about any general word, scientific concept or philosophical problem unless you've considered them in all in relationship to each other, as this points to a phenomenal reality that is ultimately undivided.

That being said, I personally have a great deal of work to do.

A quote I read the other day resonates well with all of this:

Philosophy becomes poetry and science imagination, in the enthusiasm of genius.

Feeding people your manufactured definitions is more likely to discourage their potential for genius.

the revelationary and predictive possibilities of a personal or universal symbolic language have never yet been rationally probed( though there seem to be a general agreement in the artworld with what they call the IATC-code(though this may not be the true name), on the structure of language.it is only teached in secret organisations. I once came in contact with someone of the inner circle but because I had upset the particular person with not agreeing on various of her ideas ,which she held superior, I ended up on the black list of the organisation) or exploited, either as from mind to mind or from our own mind. and when I(as Ego) question yhe mind, what mind is it? absolute, submind or mind of our own? answers are only given when the correct language is used via inspiration or automatic means. mind is absolute articulation: the nearer we simulate, the more expressive...
through the shaky structure of language has evolved a quasi-automatic jugglery of words in a jungle of indiscrete meanings and loose tergiversated grammalogues: forcing us to rely on crudities and colloquialisms for one-to-one meanings or qualify almost any word we use.a simple sentence may be self-contradictory

bert wrote:the revelationary and predictive possibilities of a personal or universal symbolic language have never yet been rationally probed( though there seem to be a general agreement in the artworld with what they call the IATC-code(though this may not be the true name), on the structure of language.it is only teached in secret organisations.

Are you talking about something like loglan?

no,I don't think so.
I have seen interpretational fragments,when you aren't an insider there is nothing logical about it .

it start off with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

if you don't know how to read a clock, you don't know what time it is....