Sorry to derail your thread gramps, but as you friend it is my duty to tell you that nobody cares about you or your ideas, including me.
Now say something funny. Cmon.
Wow I haven’t seen you in a long time Phon, how you been?
It’s impossible to start a philosophy thread in this place without somebody immediately pissing on it. 
No shit?
Because this forum is not about philosophy.
It’s a gathering of freaks.
Why did you start this thread?
Hope?
One must try…even in darkens, to light a spark.
Some will see.
Historically, different languages and cultures are suited to different purposes. Greek and Hebrew, are contrary, as examples. As you mention, you can claim the ‘Empirical’ nature of one, versus the Esoteric/Mystical nature of the other. One language/culture is suited to confront reality and clarify, while another is suited to muddy the water, muddle the mind, and increases obfuscation. The more ‘civilized’/domesticated/effeminized one group is, the more ingrained in mysticism and religion it becomes. Because religion is mass-population control. Philosophy is antithetical. Philosophy, classically, is necessarily clarifying and de-mystifying. Philosophy is antithesis of Mysticism.
Also the Theology of one language/culture versus another, represents a different lineage of Ancestry, Genealogy, and thus, of their ‘Gods’. So the Monotheism, the agenda inserted by Hebrew, is contrary and contradicting of the Polytheism of Greek/Roman dialectic. These (Pagan) terms pop-up throughout though, “Saturday, July, August”, etc.
English is a conglomerate, amalgamation of different languages, reflecting the colonial nature of Anglo-British people, and their integration of foreigners into their, what is now ‘WASP’ overclass and culture. So English is expansive, but lacks context within its terms. I believe this is the cause for lots of confusion and disputes throughout the English language, and that many ideas are claimed “open to interpretation” when they’re really not. So language has a (Genealogical) history as well as (Empirical).
if we divide the individual along the nervous system into mind/body…then genes are physical codes (DNA), and words are memetic codes (semiotics).
Language synthesizes both…if it is used properly. If it is used to escape or to hide from reality - nihilism - then it takes the form of corrupted words - meaningless terminology triggering emotions sensations, feelings, but referring to nothing ni reality.
Language evolves as a representation of a tribe’s relationship with tis environment. This si why each language has its own essence, displaying the [particular genetic group, and tis historical relationship with tis environment.
Some languages evolved to function in niche environments, using specialized survival strategies.
The parasite - that will remain unnamed, for example has developed a language that is useful in exploiting and manipulating other tribes, because tis environment requires a proxy - see parasitic organisms.
I think Mathematics is the most specialized ‘language’, most ‘niche’, and it’s interesting to see how European, Jewish, or Arab/Indian thinkers over time, have “interpreted” mathematics in their own ways.
English is most common, and spreading throughout the world even today, Post-Colonialism. English can be both Obfuscating or Empirical. There’s more “artistic license” with English. I don’t know much about Greek but its Paganistic base is overt and obvious.
Mathematics is the most abstract language.
It reflects the human method of abstracting sensual input into symbols.
Some get carried away believing this is some universal code, and not a reflection of human abstracting and interpreting reality.
The binary 1/0 is based on the organic process of systolic/diastolic cellular rhythms.
Language can be used to define concepts out of existence, or to define them in supernatural, surreal, mystifying ways, to promote nihilistic escapism and cynicism.
It all begins with a literal interpretation of words/symbols and not their application as representational. Language is art.
And like all art it can range from realism all the way to cubism, surrealism, and romanticism.
example of romanticism would be how the term ‘love’ has been defined, guaranteeing that nobody will ever experience such a kind of love, other than in the movies.
Most begin with an understanding of existence as being absolutely ordered. Language becomes a magical code representing this universal order. Divine code, exposing the mind of god.
Similar to Biblical text claiming to be the ‘word of god’.
By defining words in surreal, supernatural ways one can easily achieve negation or imply an alternative reality hidden beneath, above, the experienced.
To get rid of a concept the easiest method is to use words that place them in some realm outside space/time.
This is how many words have been rendered meaningless or have been mystified. Defined out of existence. The concepts they represent made impossible to experience in reality, but only imagined.
Like the words ‘god’…‘morality’…‘love’…‘meaning’…and ‘free-will’.
Defining ‘free’ and ‘will’ in absolutist ways, ensures that you will never experience them in reality. This si how you can define a concept out of existence.
The same is true for the word ‘god’, or 'order, or ‘morality’, or ‘value’. Even the meaning of the word ‘meaning’ can be made meaningless.
let’s take an extreme example. Let’s say we want to define a horse out of existence.
Well, then we can describe and define this creature that describe a magical creature, like a unicorn, ro a centaur. Then we can seek to find it in the real world and constantly fail.
we may see a horse, but that’ll be a poor imitation of the ‘real thing’, ensuring disappointment, and a failure to ever prove a horse, as we’ve described and defined it, even exists.
We can then claim that horse do not really exist, or that you need training, initiation into the occult to find a real horse, and not these poor imitations.
I’m sorry sir, but this is demonstrably false and logically impossible.
Whatever statements that succeeded in proving the word ‘meaning’ was meaningless, would have to be meaningful in their demonstrative proofs, and would therefore refute themselves… self-referentially, as it were.
Meaning…indicates relationships and their degrees.
Seeking meaning, defined as magical, as absolute, as supernatural, makes the word ‘meaning’ meaningless.
Language is both a barrier and a powerful tool, English I believe was meant to be confusing and overly complex to cause division. Things may have slightly different meanings to people, which can cause fighting and a lack of understanding of each other.
We speak things into existence, the power of language is dependent upon ones use of it through what is understood regarding it and division from what is not understood regarding it.
It could be constructed better, to be more efficient and easier understood by others whom have different contextual backgrounds and perception.
See?
The power of negation.
it doesn’t require much effort. Just deny and negate, powered by cynicism.
All is as it ought to be, and could not have been otherwise.
God’s will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Replace ‘god’ with another word implying the same…like ‘one,’ or universe, or some other symbol of absoluteness. Order
Yes, the magical power of words and symbols.
Codes.
You can bring things into existence, with a word; or define it out of existence.
Define it in a way that it cannot possibly exist.
Language is to memes what DNA is to genes.
What are they?
Memory carriers, when placed in the proper sequences.
They externalize noetic constructs.
Like technology is the externalization of man’s understanding, of himself. Language is the code of technology.
Words/symbols with no external references are words referring to concepts with no substance - entirely theoretical, abstract. Such words can be used to manipulate and exploit those dissatisfied with existence. They become political and marketing tools.
What does meaning “mean”.
It refers to relationships and their degrees. It refers to utility. Matrices of inter-connectivity.
Like a map is a representation of a geography. The points on the map must refer to real places, and their respective distances, elevations, terrain; connecting one location with another. The map must be accurate and useful, in the real world. It has to have meaning.
A map of Tolkien’s Middle Earth would have meaning in the abstract, the theoretical, the fantastic. The map does not refer to a real geography. It is useless, unless one uses it to escape the real world, into an alternate fantasy reality.
Now imagine a map with no discernible points of reference, no elevations, no distances, no points indicating places…a meaningless map, a useless one. A surreal map. A map used to project whatever the individual wants to project into it.
The world is full of meaning, if meaning is accurately defined. It is full of inter-relationships and utilities.
If meaning is defined as something supernatural, universal, then the word ‘meaning’ is meaningless. Nobody can find such meaning…because it does not exist outside the mind of the one who created it.
The proper definition of words is vital to not be seduced and exploited by charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, prophets and messiahs.
‘Gods’ exist, if the word is defined properly.
‘Morality’ exists objectively, if it is defined properly.
‘Truth’ exists, if the word is defined properly.
Same goes for ‘value’ and ‘meaning’ and ‘love’, and ‘spirit’, and ‘soul’ and ‘free-will’ etc.
You may not like the proper definition, but that changes nothing.
A “proper” definition would connect the noetic map, in the mind, with an external geography, independent from the mind.
All these words can refer to experienced, dynamic processes - or they can be defined in ways that makes them meaningless and none-existent and nowhere to be found.
Similar to how religion is externalization of man’s inner psyche and self projected identity in present moments of continuity.
Remind me of Trixie.
Oh shit my bad. I meant to agree with what you said. I dunno what got into me. Probably the spirit of abrahamic nihilism or something… which is usually the conspiring force behind the logic of semantics.
Or at best I should have said:
“I’m sorry sir, but this is demonstrably false and logically impossible, maybe, but not absolutely, because if it was demonstrably false and logically impossible, I would no doubt be a nihilist because of that.”
You are wrong.
See?
easy, peasy….parcheesy.