misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

Kuresu has continued to challenge my pointing out that 'theory' and 'theology' are essentially the same discipline and undeniably tied to the term 'theo'.I would like to start a thread, beggining with this issue, but not limited to this particular debate.This would be a great 'misc thread' for any debate about the etymology and semantics of words.---------------------------------Kuresu, you've challenged me to take a far more in depth look at this issue than I was interested in; but I thank you. It was a worthy task. And though I am not a linguistical authority, I think I've done my homework. I would be interseted in getting an opinion on this matter from Arachnophilia. Anyone seen him around?So, 'theo' 'theory' 'theology' it is...Though you are correct about the origin of the word 'theory' having it's roots partially in the Greek theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see" you are unfortunately neglecting the morphology of the word. Yours is a semantical argument that actually cuts the primary English (and greek) meaning of the term out from under it. It is understandable really, as the concepts surrounding the term and it's usage are interwoven.I want to focus on the Greek meaning, because one derivitive (‘) is the equivalent of the Latin meaning.I almost don't know where to begin, but what may be particularly worthy of first mention is the way Wikipedia unveils the etymology: ( Theory - Wikipedia )But if we go to a Greek-English dictionary we find that '' translates as follows: ( http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon )It appears that wikipedia is giving incomplete information on this particular etymology. The two greek words are very simmilar and overlap in terms of conceptual application. It is some form of lexeme that also changes perspective. One relating to 'the view' of a sight, and the other surrounding the 'contemplation and study' of it critically.Merriam-Websters unfolds the etymology by including that which wikipedia left out, namely the greek 'theoria' in addition to the Latin; notice that the Latin is from the Greek. ( Theory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )And if we take into consideration the root meaning of the term (cutting out all modern morpholgy and etymology) we find the following with respect to 'thea' vs. 'theo' in the greek: ( http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/grkol-2-R.html )So the Greek 'theoria' chiefly demonstrates the 'contemplation and (not or) view of the God's'. Reminds me of Stephen Hawking making some comment about trying to figure God out. That is what theorizing is...So Kuresu, regardless of whether one uses the word 'theo' or 'thea', it is in fact, rooted in the concept of God. From there, the morphology and etymology begins. And we do not seperate the morphological and etymological applications of the term from the term itself. The lexeme is undeniable. If 'theo' is simply 'spectating' or 'a view' as you are attempting to maintain, then where does the 'emperical or logical quality' come in?It comes in by keeping in mind the logical and contemplative aspects of the lexeme, in addition to it's aspect of simple observation.Furthermore, any confusion surrounding God's gender (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. The fact is, that 'theo' and 'thea' both constitute the concept (or conception) of diety. In the case of Greek 'theo' and it's modern English extension 'theology', this link to deity is clear to everyone. I am confident, that it is now clear and beyond dispute... that the Greek ['thea'] and it's modern English extension ['theory'] also point to the observation and contemplation of diety, albeit the feminine posture.As I said before, a difference in relationship between the 'theology' of God, and the 'theory' of some aspect of reality, is purely one of contemplating reality's ultimate nature, be it living and relational or simply an indifferent material force.What is certain, is that in spite of any difference in form, they do not amount to a total or practical difference; rather, they are different forms of the same lexeme. Both represent an abstract construct or methodology thought and expected to be logical, consistent, reflective, and illuminating of reality. To focus on the latin ('a view' + 'to see') aspect of the morphology of the word 'theory' is to deny the Greek ('contemplation, speculation, theoretics, theory, view theoria') meaning of the term which captures better the english meaning of the word.It is also certain that our theory (or theology) of God (or reality) is accompanied, or used in conjunction with, concepts that are akin to sight, viewing, seeing and watching; as in a theatre or show. Hence the morphology of the lexeme; incorporating the many characteristics that flow from such a contemplative and significant term know as 'theo'.'Theory', like 'theology', is a word with theistic roots and tied inexorably to the concept of the ultimate reality irrespective of it's actual nature. All philosophcal constructs or mathematical postulates of reality are the same in this regard. It matters not if they are 'theistic', 'atheisict', pantheistic, agnostic, secular, etc. All take a position on the concept of the supreme, or ultimate reality, assuming it to be true and real regardless of whether they choose to address the 'whole' or 'ultimate scope' of reality, either by saying that we cannot know what God (or reality) is; or by saying that this current world (and understanding of it) is the only knowledge or understanding worthy of consideration and any 'ultimate scope' or wider theory is unpractical or irrelevant. They've still addressed 'the issue', by ultimately giving their own postulate or theory (philosophy) of life and reality.And yes... God is synonymous with reality: ( God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )As John said, 'In the beginning was the Word...'Why do we insist upon twisting it?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Enjoy!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thanks... and thanks for doing all the work to keep things running. I appriciated it more when it was down...Guess that makes me a boot-licker? How about promoting the topic?

Hi Rob,I am willing to put this in Coffee House. I am hoping to keep things more on topic by allowing you the appropriate place to hash things out.I would prefer if the topic wasn't a continuation of the talk with kuresu, and maybe I can coerce you into removing those references, and just presenting the word 'theory' as the first word for 'study'. You don't have to put all your eggs in the first basket you find. I will wait for your final changes, and give the other admins a chance to protest. Edited by Adminastasia, : No reason given.

I agree, great call, Adminastasia. Too much in this basket, for sure. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

I get the impression that people think I am impatient and prideful or something... I might need some time. This week is very busy at work. I already have 18 hrs in and it's only monday. And next week is a longa awaited family vacation.But your suggestion is realistic. It's has become far too personal between Kuresu and I. I accept responsibility for that ,since it seems to happen with everyone and not just him. I'll do my part...Just give me a couple weeks. I might get it done this week...

How's this Adminastasia?'theo' 'theory' 'theology'Round 1I am trying to make the case that the word 'Thoery' has the same meaning as 'theology' because of it's etymological roots.I want to focus on the Greek meaning, because one derivitive (‘) is the equivalent of the Latin meaning. ( http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon ) ( Theory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster ) ( http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/grkol-2-R.html )Regardless of whether one uses the word 'theo' or 'thea', it is in fact, rooted in the concept of God. From there, the morphology and etymology begins. And we do not seperate the morphological and etymological applications of the term from the term itself. The lexeme is undeniable. If 'theo' is simply 'spectating' or 'a view' as you are attempting to maintain, then where does the 'emperical or logical quality' come in?What is it that we are viewing?It comes in by keeping in mind the logical (Logos / reason) and contemplative aspects of the lexeme, in addition to it's aspect of simple observation. We cannot seperate the viewing from what it is that is being viewed. And in the sense of the sciences we are viewing reality.As I said before, a difference in relationship between the 'theology' of God, and the 'theory' of some aspect of reality, is purely one of contemplating reality's ultimate nature, be it living and relational or simply an indifferent material force.What is certain, is that in spite of any difference in form, they do not amount to a total or practical difference; rather, they are different forms of the same lexeme. Both represent an abstract construct or methodology thought and expected to be logical, consistent, reflective, and illuminating of reality. To focus on the latin ('a view' + 'to see') aspect of the morphology of the word 'theory' is to deny the Greek ('contemplation, speculation, theoretics, theory, view theoria') meaning of the term which captures better the english meaning of the word.It is also certain that our theory (or theology) of God (or reality) is accompanied, or used in conjunction with, concepts that are akin to sight, viewing, seeing and watching; as in a theatre or show. Hence the morphology of the lexeme; incorporating the many characteristics that flow from such a contemplative and significant term know as 'theo'.'Theory', like 'theology', is a word with theistic roots and tied inexorably to the concept of the ultimate reality irrespective of it's actual nature. All philosophcal constructs or mathematical postulates of reality are the same in this regard. It matters not if they are 'theistic', 'atheisict', pantheistic, agnostic, secular, etc. All take a position on the concept of the supreme, or ultimate reality, assuming it to be true and real regardless of whether they choose to address the 'whole' or 'ultimate scope' of reality, either by saying that we cannot know what God (or reality) is; or by saying that this current world (and understanding of it) is the only knowledge or understanding worthy of consideration and any 'ultimate scope' or wider theory is unpractical or irrelevant. They've still addressed 'the issue', by ultimately giving their own postulate or theory (philosophy) of life and reality.And yes... God is synonymous with reality:
Main Entry: 1 god
Pronunciation: 'gd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:
( God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )In a previous thread ( http://EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA -->EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA), Kuresu provided a link that makes this plain: etymology of theory | orgtheory.netIt follows:

Dear Rob, it is far too long.You don't have to write everything at once. Mention that you want to discuss the word 'theory', and let the trial begin. All the evidence does not need to be presented in the opening statement.I don't care how personal things are with kuresu, but the point is that anyone reading a thread for the first time should be able to follow the train of thought without past references to people who may or may not still be here. A thread should not be contingent upon one person's participation, and if it is, it should be a GD. I don't want this to be a GD, it is not worth it. I would only be willing to do one thread for random semantics in Coffee House.I want to give you one exemption before your vacation, and promote, but I really think we could do without the 'God is reality' etc., and stick to the first few sentences.ABE; OK, I am doing it just this once as is, since others seem willing to participate.Edited by Adminastasia, : No reason given.

Thread copied to the misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory thread in the Coffee House forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.