Guest guest Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Wim Borsboom wrote: Excellent, Wim! > The mystical in physicalism and the physicality of mystical sensing. > > Before I dive into this, I will at first present some neigh axiomatic > statements about words and their meaning. Without the following > underpinnings (hopefully understood, but not necessarily accepted , > many of the posts that I will submit in the following weeks might not > make sense the way I intend them to make sense. > > 1. In principle any word points to something that 'e x i s t s ', any > word in principle represents a tangible, sensible element in/of > reality. (As to 'reality' see a previous post.) > > 2. That what any word points at can only be 'positive', literally > meaning that what is being referred to has a positional extension in > space/time and is sensorially experiencible. > In other words, what any word identifies is in origin materially > measurable across the widest range of measurability with or without > instrumentation: from the subtlest to the grossest - ad infinitum > both. > Purposely I use the word 'positive' in an unforgiving, uncompromising > non-dualist sense. I do not see the word 'positive' as being the > opposite of 'negative' (see below). The word 'positive' (together with > 'position') derives from the Latin ' ponere', 'placing', 'affirming'. > Ponere consist of two parts: > • an old Latin preposition 'po' (PIE root PA - active, compare to 'to > set' and PO - passive, compare to 'to sit') and > • the passive verb 'sinere', 'leaving as is', 'to let it sit', 'to > allow'. (Site, situation and 'in situ' derive from 'sinere'.) > The Latin adjective 'positivus' can be seen as a tautology: leave > something that has a place ('sinere', site) in place ('po'). > Thus my use of the word 'positive' is about anything that has temporal > and spatial extensions. The word 'negative' (Aryan/Sanskrit root NA, > NAK) I see in the sense of 'negating', an attempt at denial or > interruption of whatever has a chrono-topical presence, the negating > based on initial factual attempts to negate or attempts to 'get rid > of' something that extends temporally and spatially; a negation in the > sense of, " Although it is, it should not be or it should not have > been. " > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=negation > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deny > In addition, the way I see the word 'negative' is, that it originally > was never meant to identify the opposite of something 'positive' - > something positioned or extended temporally or spatially. The > reasoning for this goes as follows: if zero is already assumed to be a > conceptual nothing (zilch) and points to some non-existence or some > zero value, then something less-then-zero or negative is even more > conceptual. (Except for the banking system... a Medici reference > follows. > It was during the Italian Renaissance that Fra Luca Pacioli (Leonardo > da Vinci's collaborator and friend of the Medici Family) prescribed > tidily organized accounting practices and accounting terms such as > positivus, negativus, debito®, credito®, conto saldo (balance), > etc. for a double-entry accounting system that helped the Florentine > city-state organize and streamline the family businesses of the Medici > who were at that time of very affluent but still mafioso like > mercantile repute. ('Maf' might be Yiddish, meaning 'beautiful, > fresh'.) Pacioli helped them stabilize their business and keep honest > their own in-family money dealers. This way the Medici gained greater > ecclesiastical/legal status (sort of but mainly after being > sanctioned by the papacy of that time that may have been of the same > repute and ancestry as the Medici were themselves. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli > http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/barcelo/pacioli/summa.html > But back to how I see the notion of 'something negative'. > (By the way, the number line with negative and positive numbers to the > left and right of the zero is a rather recent arithmetic invention > (compared to the calculus) probably not older than the late 18 > hundreds.) > My assertion of the nonsensical notion of 'something negative' is > along the same line as saying that 'nothing' is NOT the opposite of > something, as 'nothing' does not even exist and also cannot even have > some essential reality. > Posing the possibility and tenability of 'nothing' is no more than a > dualist attempt at legitimacy. 'Nothing' has a conceptual > pseudo-reality only, it is a conceptual idea about a conceptual idea > that by definition is neither tangible nor measurable or has any > extent or position..., except maybe for being a word containing a > conceptional meaning with a conceptual meaning. > (If 'nothing' would exist chrono-topically, we could not call it > nothing, we would call it 'something' and thus it would not be > 'nothing'. Consequently, as 'nothing' cannot even exist, it can by the > same token also not be an opposite of that which it attempts to negate > conceptually. The best 'nothing' can be is a senseless conceptual word > recorded vibrationally in one of the crevices of the brain.) > > Repeating 1 and 2 above: any word thus points to something that > extends 'chrono-topically', in other words, temporally and spatially > in space/time. > > 3. Any word NOT directly exhibiting such concrete content could be a > word that over time underwent the possibly adverse abstracting side > effects of mental deliberations used in abstract reasoning and logic, > during which the operation of abstraction (inadvertently perhaps) > rarified the meaning of some words so much that their originally > identified concreteness eventually lost their connection to concrete > positivity and evaporated almost entirely. > Luckily etymologically we can unravel and uncover the history of such > debilitations and be lead back to the original expressions that dealt > with reality. > Example: Take the words 'idea' and 'idealism', although they > originated from concrete source words, by now they have acquired quite > abstract meanings. > Idea derives from the Greek 'eidos' which signifies a 'mental image' > of a 'material image' ('eidolon', idol). > The Aryan Sanskrit root is VID (WIT) which means 'to see'. > WIT (from VID) eventually produced 'witness' of 'e-vid-ence' and to > 'wit' ('wissen', Wissenschaft - German, 'weten' - Dutch). > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vision > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wit > > 4. Of course we do have words that strongly connote negativity such as > say 'damnation' or 'doom'. How does that jive with 1 and 2 above? > My contention is that any such words originally pointed to something > extended/positioned in reality, something positive (in my specified > sense) but the words somehow took on judgmental/arbitrary overlays of > negativity... as in, " It ought not to be " , " That is derisible " , " Such > is unconscionable! " or " Something is not > socially/ethically/morally/scientifically acceptable! " , etc. > Certain words over time picked up such 'negativity', caused by an > attempt to negate that what they originally pointed at, eventually > transposing or replacing the original meaning of the word with its > later negative or negating meaning: > • An example would be the Sanskrit 'maya' which used to mean 'matter'. > As matter fell from grace together with the senses, it acquired the > meaning of illusion. This falling from grace was probably heavily > influenced by ancient Middle Eastern ambiguities - " In the beginning > of time " monotheistic fighting against adverse forces (Enuma Elish, > Bereshit, Genesis) The world was seen as divided into two dominions: > that of the 'good and wise' versus the one of 'evil and the lie'. > • Another example would be the word 'damnation' or 'damn', which word > came to us via the French 'damner' and the Latin 'damnum', damage. At > some point, when someone was deemed to be morally/socially/ethically > unacceptable, an irreparable state of damage or damnation was wished > them: they were deemed to be damned and... doomed. > • 'To deem' and 'doom' both derive from the Aryan/Sanskrit root DHA, > the same root that before it took on the secondary meaning of doom > meant 'putting in existence, placing, doing'. Doom thus came to mean > to undo what was at first 'deemed to be'. > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=damn > > 5. The way I like to work with words that have apparently been > overtaken by negative intent and/or meaning and to arrive at their > original meanings is to cleanse them so to speak from those secondary > acquired - usually negative or negating - meanings. They are often no > more than insinuations, threats and allusions that imply pain or > punishment. > > It has over time become clear to me that when an original word with > initial straightforward intent which nevertheless at some point began > to acquire negative judgmental, moral, ethical and social > connotations, content or meaning, that such skewing of meaning was > brought about by manipulative usage intent on creating imbalanced > one-sided dependencies, aimed at creating states of subservience > through the pronouncements of judgment and threats upon those deemed > to be negatively affected by those words. > > Wim > > PS. > Ready for the dive into the possible mysticality of physicalism... > Mystery, mystic, myth and mute (perhaps even muse, but maybe not) all > derive via the Greek 'mu' from the root MU as in " Mum is the word. " > ) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.