misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

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.

you really have to stop over-reacting and going into preaching mode.first of all, god's name "yahweh" and not "god." "god" is a title -- a word. and it is the clear english analogy to theos in greek. i was giving you an example of how a word for "god" could come to have a common (and yes, trivial) usage. welcome to the english language -- chances are that you use the word "good" many times a day without even thinking that you are referencing god.second, you totally skipped the point in favour of trying to deliver a religious sermon to me. i promise you, i have been to church many, many times. i have heard it all before. you and i, we believe in the same god. we read the same holy texts. i promise you, i am not in need of evangelism. not especially. everyone has a particular style of discourse. i often get criticized here for mine -- failing to type using capital letters. feel free to respond in ebonics or country slang. i listen to enough rap and enough country (yes, both) to be able to understand you -- though your style may impair your ability to be recieved by others as an intelligent human being worthy of engaging in intellectual conversation. as an artist, i can tell you that this is patently absurd. logic does not a painting make. revelation and inspiration are highly arational things, more tied to emotion and whim and complete randomness than any concious logical thought process.now, please, back to the analogy at hand. do you understand how a word for "god" could come to have another usage, as it did in english, so common that bears to relation to its original religious implications?

---

quote:

---

Your conflating temporal reality with eternal and absolute reality. The supreme reality is God.

---

Then that part of your argument as well as being misdirected is also wrong.

quote:

---

I never said theory was part of theology. The point is that theory is the same discipline.

---

Yet the word "theory" does not refer to any specific discipline, and that is only one of the obvious errors in your equation of "theory" with "theology". All your arguments about reality could at best establish that all theories fell within the discipline of theology. It's not my fault that your arguments are silly.

quote:

---

Theory is apart from Him; a cheap immitation, but much more pleasureable to the lustful eye.

---

However scientific theories are only descriptions of "temporal reality". So thanks for demonstrating that the conflation you refer to is yours.

quote:

---

What exactly was I wrong about. You resorted to denying that words have historical and fixed objective meaning in order to win the argument.

---

I resorted to telling the truth ? Is that somehow wrong where you come from ?
The fact is that word usage can and does change over time. Think of how the use of "gay" has changed since the first half of the 20th century ! Or try reading Chaucer.

quote:

---

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?

---

Now you are being silly. Etymology does not dictate current use. However it is very much a description of past use. We certainly can use it - so long as we use it properly - to determine the past meanings of a word. But we aren't talking about past usage. The actual subject is current usage.

quote:

---

Wrong compared to what?

---

You are wrong in that the actual usage of the words is such that theory is a general term applying to bodies of knowledge in several disciplines. You claim that "theory" IS a single discipline, which is theology.

quote:

---

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.

---

Logical concepts are not the issue. The issue is the definitions of two words. "Theory" and "Theology". It could easily be resolved by looking the words up in a dictionary.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't think that I need to posit any "transcendental signified" simply to make the point that the definitions of two words are clearly different. All we need to refer to is the ordinary signification of word usage. And a dictionary - although descriptive rather than prescriptive is all that we need to show that you were wrong.There is truth. The truth is that you, Rob, made an obviously false claim. The truth Rob, is that you don't want to admit to that. The truth, Rob is that you put your self-worship against the truth. So there is truth, Rob, and your whole purpose in starting this thread is to deny it.

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.

You've deluded yourself PaulK.Theorizing itself is the discipline. You seem to think that each theory is some entity unto itself and seperate from all the rest of it's brothers and sisters. And it is...That is why your worldview is incoherent. You have all of these nice little boxes (theories) that contain each part of reality. But when you try and put them together, your tower of Babel collapses.That's what I expect from a dedicated deconstructionist and post-modern thinker such as yourself.You, nosy, and so many others... may not like the big picture because it conflicts with your desire to find a way to rationalize your lifestyle with reality. But that is the opposite road we must travel if we want reality.You don't want to conform to reality. You want reality to conform to you.Fine... create your own reality. But it will be your own. Existing in isolation will be a hollow victory.It is no co-incidence that you think that that is exactly what I am doing.One of is...

quote:

---

Theorizing itself is the discipline. You seem to think that each theory is some entity unto itself and seperate from all the rest of it's brothers and sisters. And it is...

---

If theorising is a discipline it is an abstract one, disconnected from the specifics of the various fields of study. You however, wish to equate it to a particular field of study.

quote:

---

That is why your worldview is incoherent. You have all of these nice little boxes (theories) that contain each part of reality. But when you try and put them together, your tower of Babel collapses.

---

Of course your claim that my worldview is incoherent is a falsehood, a fabrication. The fact is that theories DO have distinct domains and limited scope. And that is a virtue since it allows humans to make use of them. If the physicists ever produced a complete Theory of Everything it would still leave other theories, like the theory of evolution untouched because the amount of work required to get from one to the other is too great to be practical. However this does not entail that the various theories contradict each other. Or that a worldview that includes them cannot recognise any contradictions that might exist and deal with them.

quote:

---

That's what I expect from a dedicated deconstructionist and post-modern thinker such as yourself.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I'm hardly that !!!
Look - why not admit that you were wrong, rather than making up falsehood after falsehood, fabrication after fabrication.

quote:

---

You, nosy, and so many others... may not like the big picture because it conflicts with your desire to find a way to rationalize your lifestyle with reality. But that is the opposite road we must travel if we want reality

​

You don't want to conform to reality. You want reality to conform to you.

​

Fine... create your own reality. But it will be your own. Existing in isolation will be a hollow victory.

​

It is no co-incidence that you think that that is exactly what I am doing.

​

One of is...

---

Then it is you. You made a claim about the meaning of two words. A claim that could easily be settled by just looking them up in a dictionary. But that would prove you wrong so you try to set reality aside. This whole series of posts is your attempt to deny the reality that you were wrong.But thanks for providing one more example of how creationism is a narcissistic religion of self-worship.

Hi Rob,I noticed this in your Message 34: You say you weren't preaching, but in that case I have to ask, just what was it you were doing? This is from your Message 31 that Arachnophilia replied to: From a moderator perspective, I see no more relevance of these arguments to the topic than if we were having a discussion about some problem with your truck, and they certainly have all the appearance of preaching. Certainly if your minister spoke those words from the pulpit no parishioner would chastise him afterwards with, "Pastor, that twern't preachin'!"I have a request. In this thread, please no long mention God, the Bible, Jesus or revelation, and please do not quote from the Bible. I recognize the possibility that legitimate and secular arguments for your position about the origins of the word "theory" might be drawn from these sources, but because of your abuse of the Forum Guidelines and because of a desire to keep the thread on-topic, I am ruling these resources off-limits to you in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

you went off on a highly-religiously-charged tangent, pulling bible references and quotes. i call that "preaching," yes. if i ignore what you had to say, i'm sorry, but i'm more interested in debating and learning about the topic -- the origin of these words -- than debating how we are to understand what "taking the lord's name in vain" means, or talking about literal or metaphorical communion, or any of that other stuff. no, randomly quoting the bible for things that don't apply is not logical. the bible itself is actually quite logical in most areas, but not all appeals or references to it are. style and content. no, god and his revelations are someting akin to the inspiration for a painting. we make the painting. we make the thoughts. if you have understood god to be simple, you have misunderstood all of religion and god himself. this is actually ironic -- my father is a graph theorist. i have a decent understanding of how higher math works. the proofs are logical -- but the inspiration for them often isn't. sometimes, it just comes to you.anyways. topic. yes, but do you understand that "theory" then comes from "view" which comes from "goddess of sight?" so it's incorrect to jump from "theory" to "view" to "pagan goddess" to "yahweh?" that's about four logical fallacies in a row.

---

Except that it's more likely that the name of the pagan goddess comes from the word for "sight" than the other way around. Meaningful names are common in antiquity - it's just people like us who've absorbed all sorts of foreign names into our culture who find it odd. It would be far more unusual for a meaningless name to become a word than it would be for a goddess to be named after her area of influence. (Note too the names of her children !).

that's why i wrote "four logical fallacies" when there were only three steps.

---

Um...because two words were used as the base for theory: thea and horan. Whatever are you on about??? The ancient Greeks could not have possibly been attempting to change the Christian paradigm because there were NO CHRISTIANS in ancient Greece!Edited by Jaderis, : fixed quotes

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

I have the feeling that we are not in agreement PaulK...Did you study 'directly' under the authority of Michel Foucault, or did you just jump on the bandwagon because it seemed convenient?You do not know what it is you say (or do you?). Either way... I do: (Roland Barthes / 'Death of the Author' 1967)Sounds a bit like Nietzche no? God is dead and all?I think it was in Time magazine... a collage student said, 'if God is dead and Marx is dead, I am not feeling too well myself!"So just go on and deny... I have made my case. You're free to undo it, but at the expense of common sense and reason. if you don't relax you'll undo yourself .Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Yes... I missed that one.

Arach:If we make the pinting and the thoughts, then we make God. If we make god, then it is not god we paint but ourselves.

you are not an artist, evidently, so i can't expect you to understand.there is a famous (but probably apocryphal) quote attributed to michaelangelo: "i saw the angel in the marble, and i set him free."

---