|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 21, 2022 20:17:41 GMT
What is sense imho?
Firstly, let's give some definitions. The meaning is this:
"x means y" is the same as "instead of x you can put y"
Then some additions:
if "x means y" is the same as "y means x", then "x is a synonym for y"
What is context?
"x means y if/when z", here "z is context"
Some additions:
if "x means y in any z", then "x means y" is some kind of a law or a tautology
Ok, it's time to try to get closer to find what the sense is:
"x means y if/when z, because s", here "s" is the sense
Make a note, it's not just statistics that from a set of {x,y,z} a certain state of affairs {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks}, but rather an attempt to explain the reason why {x,y,z,s}, so {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks, f(x,y,z)}.
What's that f(x) means? This is an attempt to find an explanation to that understanding, a philosophical one.
Let's describe a couple of such:
1. f(x,y,z) – there's a form and we somehow grasp it and call it "dog" labeling it as "a barking pet" when "talk about it in a daily life". So, "the form" is one of reasons
2. f(x,y,z) – that was something like a setup, and things appeared to be that such material biological no-feathers organisms walking two legs called "people" interacting with each other in communications started calling four leg barking creatures "dogs".
The thing is that if we've got the setup, we cannot speak about sense, because it's senseless. This mean that only some "additional reasons" systems allow such a thing as the sense to be present.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:31:27 GMT
What is sense imho? Firstly, let's give some definitions. The meaning is this: "x means y" is the same as "instead of x you can put y" Then some additions: if "x means y" is the same as "y means x", then "x is a synonym for y" What is context? "x means y if/when z", here "z is context" Some additions: if "x means y in any z", then "x means y" is some kind of a law or a tautology Ok, it's time to try to get closer to find what the sense is: "x means y if/when z, because s", here "s" is the sense Make a note, it's not just statistics that from a set of {x,y,z} a certain state of affairs {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks}, but rather an attempt to explain the reason why {x,y,z,s}, so {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks, f(x,y,z)}. What's that f(x) means? This is an attempt to find an explanation to that understanding, a philosophical one. Let's describe a couple of such: 1. f(x,y,z) – there's a form and we somehow grasp it and call it "dog" labeling it as "a barking pet" when "talk about it in a daily life". So, "the form" is one of reasons 2. f(x,y,z) – that was something like a setup, and things appeared to be that such material biological no-feathers organisms walking two legs called "people" interacting with each other in communications started calling four leg barking creatures "dogs". The thing is that if we've got the setup, we cannot speak about sense, because it's senseless. This mean that only some "additional reasons" systems allow such a thing as the sense to be present. In saying that speaking about sense is senseless we are applying negative boundaries to sense, ie what sense is not, thus we are speaking about sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 7:59:12 GMT
What is sense imho? Firstly, let's give some definitions. The meaning is this: "x means y" is the same as "instead of x you can put y" Then some additions: if "x means y" is the same as "y means x", then "x is a synonym for y" What is context? "x means y if/when z", here "z is context" Some additions: if "x means y in any z", then "x means y" is some kind of a law or a tautology Ok, it's time to try to get closer to find what the sense is: "x means y if/when z, because s", here "s" is the sense Make a note, it's not just statistics that from a set of {x,y,z} a certain state of affairs {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks}, but rather an attempt to explain the reason why {x,y,z,s}, so {dog, a barking pet, people's daily talks, f(x,y,z)}. What's that f(x) means? This is an attempt to find an explanation to that understanding, a philosophical one. Let's describe a couple of such: 1. f(x,y,z) – there's a form and we somehow grasp it and call it "dog" labeling it as "a barking pet" when "talk about it in a daily life". So, "the form" is one of reasons 2. f(x,y,z) – that was something like a setup, and things appeared to be that such material biological no-feathers organisms walking two legs called "people" interacting with each other in communications started calling four leg barking creatures "dogs". The thing is that if we've got the setup, we cannot speak about sense, because it's senseless. This mean that only some "additional reasons" systems allow such a thing as the sense to be present. In saying that speaking about sense is senseless we are applying negative boundaries to sense, ie what sense is not, thus we are speaking about sense. Speaking about the sense is senseless? The sense is a technical word. Some doesn't accept the sense to be something; they say the sense is kinda "a form". Instead they're using the word "meaning". A usage of a word can be taken as an action done for different purposes or points. If one explains the usage of a particular word he's explaining its meaning. If a certain word has different meanings this is a case of homonymic usage of them, but only if the background events and the things of the background are different objects. This last one case of homonymy has to demonstrate better why the sense or something similar to this is required. Indeed, if "x means y" whenever else is happening, then "x = y". But if a¹ → "x means y¹", and a² → "x means y², ..., if an → "x means yn"... so {a¹, a², ..., an} – is some z which can be taken as the sense. I haven't been spoken about the sense in a negative sense, and as you may see we've got something from it. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2022 23:10:09 GMT
In saying that speaking about sense is senseless we are applying negative boundaries to sense, ie what sense is not, thus we are speaking about sense. Speaking about the sense is senseless? The sense is a technical word. Some doesn't accept the sense to be something; they say the sense is kinda "a form". Instead they're using the word "meaning". A usage of a word can be taken as an action done for different purposes or points. If one explains the usage of a particular word he's explaining its meaning. If a certain word has different meanings this is a case of homonymic usage of them, but only if the background events and the things of the background are different objects. This last one case of homonymy has to demonstrate better why the sense or something similar to this is required. Indeed, if "x means y" whenever else is happening, then "x = y". But if a¹ → "x means y¹", and a² → "x means y², ..., if an → "x means yn"... so {a¹, a², ..., an} – is some z which can be taken as the sense. I haven't been spoken about the sense in a negative sense, and as you may see we've got something from it. You said "....we cannot speak about sense because it is senseless". Talking about what sense is not requires sensing negative boundaries (what it is not). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2022 20:54:14 GMT
Speaking about the sense is senseless? The sense is a technical word. Some doesn't accept the sense to be something; they say the sense is kinda "a form". Instead they're using the word "meaning". A usage of a word can be taken as an action done for different purposes or points. If one explains the usage of a particular word he's explaining its meaning. If a certain word has different meanings this is a case of homonymic usage of them, but only if the background events and the things of the background are different objects. This last one case of homonymy has to demonstrate better why the sense or something similar to this is required. Indeed, if "x means y" whenever else is happening, then "x = y". But if a¹ → "x means y¹", and a² → "x means y², ..., if an → "x means yn"... so {a¹, a², ..., an} – is some z which can be taken as the sense. I haven't been spoken about the sense in a negative sense, and as you may see we've got something from it. You said "....we cannot speak about sense because it is senseless". Talking about what sense is not requires sensing negative boundaries (what it is not). I would like to explain, I might be wrong using the word sense or the others strictly as I am think about it. I mean sometimes it might be happening for me to use the wrong term since not being a native English speaker. So, I'd like to correct it: the sense above means not to hear, to see, to taste, to touch, to sniff, etc, but to have an additional property to the meaning. In other words, a phrase may have a meaning, and a sense. According to Frege, a concept or a phrase may have sense, i.e. to be completed or formed. Like this: The Sun shines brightly (sense), Shines the brightly Sun (senseless). And the meaning is something to be this one: The Sun shines brightly in Ukraine today (it's false, however it has the meaning of "false"), The Sun is having roasted bicycle now (it's meaningless; could we put the value here? - no). |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 27, 2022 21:28:38 GMT
You said "....we cannot speak about sense because it is senseless". Talking about what sense is not requires sensing negative boundaries (what it is not). I would like to explain, I might be wrong using the word sense or the others strictly as I am think about it. I mean sometimes it might be happening for me to use the wrong term since not being a native English speaker. So, I'd like to correct it: the sense above means not to hear, to see, to taste, to touch, to sniff, etc, but to have an additional property to the meaning. In other words, a phrase may have a meaning, and a sense. According to Frege, a concept or a phrase may have sense, i.e. to be completed or formed. Like this: The Sun shines brightly (sense), Shines the brightly Sun (senseless). And the meaning is something to be this one: The Sun shines brightly in Ukraine today (it's false, however it has the meaning of "false"), The Sun is having roasted bicycle now (it's meaningless; could we put the value here? - no). 1. "Shines the brightly sun"= "The shining of the bright sun". 2. "The sun is having roasted bicycle now"= "The sun is shining on the hot bicycle". 3. Poetry is the unorthodox use of words to convey meaning; this unorthodox use of words necessitates that the words at first glance may appear senseless, but sense underlies that which has nonsense as nonsense requires conflicting things which are sensed. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 28, 2022 15:36:19 GMT
I would like to explain, I might be wrong using the word sense or the others strictly as I am think about it. I mean sometimes it might be happening for me to use the wrong term since not being a native English speaker. So, I'd like to correct it: the sense above means not to hear, to see, to taste, to touch, to sniff, etc, but to have an additional property to the meaning. In other words, a phrase may have a meaning, and a sense. According to Frege, a concept or a phrase may have sense, i.e. to be completed or formed. Like this: The Sun shines brightly (sense), Shines the brightly Sun (senseless). And the meaning is something to be this one: The Sun shines brightly in Ukraine today (it's false, however it has the meaning of "false"), The Sun is having roasted bicycle now (it's meaningless; could we put the value here? - no). 1. "Shines the brightly sun"= "The shining of the bright sun". 2. "The sun is having roasted bicycle now"= "The sun is shining on the hot bicycle". 3. Poetry is the unorthodox use of words to convey meaning; this unorthodox use of words necessitates that the words at first glance may appear senseless, but sense underlies that which has nonsense as nonsense requires conflicting things which are sensed. Okay, this is very helpful thought for me. Thanks. What do you think, is it possible to violate the poetry or metaphysics? Like, you know: a. There's possible to violate poetry b. There's possible to violate metaphysics To (a) I would say: this is violation of the poetry logic, however, if poetry has logic it's no more logical. To (b) I'd say: if some metaphysics lacks arguments it is not what it is. At the same time, how metaphysics would bring arguments not having them already?? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 21:50:39 GMT
1. "Shines the brightly sun"= "The shining of the bright sun". 2. "The sun is having roasted bicycle now"= "The sun is shining on the hot bicycle". 3. Poetry is the unorthodox use of words to convey meaning; this unorthodox use of words necessitates that the words at first glance may appear senseless, but sense underlies that which has nonsense as nonsense requires conflicting things which are sensed. Okay, this is very helpful thought for me. Thanks. What do you think, is it possible to violate the poetry or metaphysics? Like, you know: a. There's possible to violate poetry b. There's possible to violate metaphysics To (a) I would say: this is violation of the poetry logic, however, if poetry has logic it's no more logical. To (b) I'd say: if some metaphysics lacks arguments it is not what it is. At the same time, how metaphysics would bring arguments not having them already?? Any violation of poetry or metaphysics would have a poetry or metaphysics about said violation thus a self referential cycle occurs. |
|
