misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

'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: Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

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?

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:

Arachnophilia:Is this a test of my knowledge of languges? I am very suprised by this criticism of yours. I don't think Wiki has conflated anything. These particular terms are indivisible.Consider: ( Homonym - Wikipedia )As you said yourself, "it appears that thea (to view) and thea (the feminine of theos) are merely homonyms."If 'thea' is the feminine of 'theos', how can they be homonyms? They have the same meaning (gods).Don't forget: Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Adminastasia: I appriciate your comments. I can only say that many of the arguments had already been evolving in the other threads. Mostly, Kuresu and I were both trying to get a handle on the reality of the etymology, and I think we began by grasping at straws. I had to really think about this one and not rely on my intuition alone. It was pretty puzzling for a few hours.As for the invoking of 'reality' and it's realtionship to God... it is an essential part of my argument. Without that connection, I have no case. And it is an essential point that is so very muched missed and taken for granted. That was Paul Davies whole point. Reason (logos) itself is exalted by faith. And I think we would all agree and rightly so.Perhaps now is a good time to re-insert that argument: All in all, thank you for promoting the topic. I don't mind laying all the cards out. If there is nothing left to be said, then we can not waste disk space on irrelevant debate. And alot of that was occuring as I raised the issue and tried to bring people's attention to the fact that 'theory' is essentially a 'seeing faith'. There was really only one objection. I'd like to be able to move on, set the precident here, and be able to point back to this precident if the question is raised again.In my opinion, the negative reaction to calling theory 'faith' is not because that is a false charge, but because it is based upon people's misconception that 'all faith' is blind faith.Some faith is blind. Not mine... and not that of the scientific community. Because ultimately, irrespective of experience and hard facts, we rely upon the only tool we have with which to make sense of life and it's many clues; that tool... is logic.

You are on to something Arachnophilia... but not the way you think, and it belongs in another thread.http://EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. -->EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea.

I am not a panthiest. I am a Christian...PaulK:Yes... very good!There is diversity. Just don't forget the unity. That's what 'university' means.As to your point... A narrower body of what?I've made this precise argument long before and it was ignored. You like to focus on one aspect of the whole show, so that you can wish away the others.If theory only means 'a view to see'. What is it you are looking at?If it means to contemplate, then what are you contemplating?A seperate section of reality?Is reality divided?

I saw that too...But it's not that simple... http://EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. -->EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea.

PaulK:Absolutely! Did I say otherwise?Law and fact is God (the supreme reality). Theory is simply a tentative 'speculation' (a possible view... your theory/ my theory) that may or may not turn out to coherently explain what we know is factual or lawful.PaulK: There are physical laws that are not in dispute, but have you not heard of 'theoretical physics'? Of course you have...This is the rub. Here is the real point of tension. Please do listen carefully.Paul, is logic valid and why? Try answering that without invoking a theory of philosophy.Do we not distinguish between fact and theory based upon very careful reasoning and method?Said method and reasoning is based upon what?Is it not logical coherence?So logic is the key to unlock the puzzle...The assumption that the scientific method is valid, is itself a philosophical construct based on logic. And it is coherent and logical and therefore valid.That is the purpose of philosophical theory. To provide the unity in diversity (University). You completely take this for granted. And that is Davies' point:That is why these two issues are really the same topic...1. You demand the use of logical coherence as a means of establishing the legitimacy of the emperical world and to explain it.2. But when ID points out the failure of logical coherence and offers a far more intellectually satisfying and philosophically coherent response, you then turn and say that philsophical coherence is not that important to reality or science by holidng up instead 'methodological naturalism' as king... which is valid only if the philsophical assumptions behind it is true.Do you understand? Can you see beneath the surface?This whole mess began with David Hume (a philsopher btw). You mentioned sophistry.The following is sophistry at it's most glorious and theatrical: (David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)Hume's statement is fatally flawed because his statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number'. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?Or put another way, how do we make a philosophical statement, in order to tell us that philosophy is meaningless?It is illogical. That is what both you and Hume are trying to do...Think about it...PaulK:Thank you Paul...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

jaderis: Ah... there you are. PaulK said essentially the same thing.It all depends upon what 'is' means.That is another topic that I have tried to raise. See how it is all related Percy / Nosey?Jaderis... your quote above... do you expect me to understand the concepts therein based upon the words you used to relay it to me?And is that concept an objective reality? Is it objectively true that words do not have meaning? Or is that the meaning you are giving the words?

PaulK:Your conflating temporal reality with eternal and absolute reality. The supreme reality is God.I never said theory was part of theology. The point is that theory is the same discipline.Theory is apart from Him; a cheap immitation, but much more pleasureable to the lustful eye. What exactly was I wrong about. You resorted to denying that words have historical and fixed objective meaning in order to win the argument.If word etymology is irrelevant, then how can we understand what the ancients were talking about? How could we say that I (or you) am wrong about anything?Wrong compared to what?The fact is, that the logical concepts are the issue, we use different words to convey those concepts. The meaning hasn't changed, just the word games like those of Hume.Nietzche was at least honest... (Friedrich Nietzsche)Yet he, you, purpledawn, and jaderis use words to tell us such things...You have to get outside the box to make those things stick.If we say there is no 'transcendental signified', then we have just posited one.You might as well say that there is no truth...
Well, is that true?A man last wekk told me he doesn't believe in anything... I asked him if he really believed that?He got the point... will you?

I misread your original post... but jaderis corrected me.They are the same word, but I have yet to show a inarguable link between them... other than the suspicious simmilarity between 'a view', and 'the goddess of sight'.I'll look into it. Feel free to do the same. It simply requires more research.My intuition says.. 'not coincidence'.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Arachnophilia:Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain.See what happens when we trivialize it? Jesus: "I am the bread of life".Let me ask you Arach... does the truth taste good to you?Food is delicious, God is good.It really doesn't matter what we mean. What matters is the word and it's actual meaning.Would you mind if I responded to you with the slang of a rap star, or in red neck lingo?If all that matters is what I mean, then you cannot understand what I say...The word (logos, reason, or logic) is to be revered. For they are the only transcendental signfied we have. Revelation is nothing more than being logical.Now, none of us do respect it enough. We use it to curse and belittle. I for one would love to take back some things I've said.All your example does for me is confirm that what the Bible says is true, as well as confirm my argument...1 Co 14:9
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.Jas 3:5
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.Jas 3:6
The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.Jas 3:8
but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.You might also see the connections to the beasts (or serpent/dragon) we have discussed in the other thread.Can I share some of my favorite examples of absolute incoherent contradiction? Some of them appear funny, but in reality they burn...1. I don't believe in anything.2. Don't become a victim of your beliefs.3. A conclusion is what happens when you stop thinking.4. There is no truth.5. Words have no objective meaning.6. Truth is relative.7. We cannot know the truth.8. Statements of fact are ninety percent rubbish.9. Truth is irrational.10. There is not one way to God... all roads lead to God.

I was not preaching. And I am tired of the accusation meant to disregard everything I have to say.I am being logical. If I have said something in error, feel free to show the contradiction.If being logical is preaching then what are the rest of you doing?I profess theology and I am dismissed as a mad man. You profess theory and all is well in the tribe.How patently ridiculous this double standard is...I was showing the logical connection between what you said, and the Bible. Why do so many of you have this absolute notion that the bible is not logical?Has it ever occured to you that it offers coherent 'theo' that is leap years ahead of our scientific theories of reality?How is one profession of reality preaching and another not? I suppose you are only professing? Why is professing the concept of God preaching, and the concept of 'reality' not?They are the same concept... Your not in need of logic? That's funny... I thought we all were in need. After all, we cannot exhaust it. So when are we ever full of it. Don't we just 'overflow', because we are not big enough to contain it all?Let's listen to logic speak... Arach:God is not a painting. He is the artist. Nothing random about it... Revelation and inspiration are not arational at all.Nor are they irrational.They are simple like addition.They are super-rational like the higher math.But we cannot understand the higher without using the lower. Calculous is addition (among many other mathematical disciplines). They are inseperable.That's university (diversity + unity) that's the relational universe we live in. That's the trinity. And that is a good illustration or painting... nothing arational about it.To a 1st grader, calculus is arational. To many human adults, the Pslams are arational. The problem isn't with the pslams, the problem is that the humans are self righteous and think they know better than Logic / logos / God/ reality. Yes, and that is why 'thea' -to view- is related to 'thea' the -Goddess of sight-.Do you understand that since reality is logical, that the best way to describe it, is in logical terms be it theology or theory?Sticking with the Greek here... our theory of reality (metaphysics) is inexorably tied to Theos or thea.I wonder why they didn't just call it 'theary'? I contend that it is because the greater Christian culture would have been insensed at the obvious attempt to change the paradigm.But we can all handle small changes to our culture being degraded.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.