Language

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.

I’ll disregard the Trixie insult at the end.
Religion is, indeed, the externalization of man’s idealization of himself.

The Abrahamic triad, in particular, externalized the abstractions in the mind - where absolutes are created.
Mind is worshipped by nihilist
It is ‘free’ from the body’s limitations, and is considered divine - magical.
Denial of the body is about denial of the physical, the tangible, the empirical.

We can now see the relationship between mind/body dissonance and how religions - the Abrahamic triad - deny body, and worship mind - mind detached from body.
Self is idealized as being ‘spirit’, unrelated to the physical, the body.
language expresses this disconnection, as this occurs in the nervous system, including the brain, from where mind extends.
Language ceases to refer to the experienced, the tangible, the empirical, and increasingly refers back to mind - solipsism.
A self-referential system is established.
Words connecting the ego to its own emotions, sensations, abstractions, or to external abstractions in text. Circumventing the experienced world we call reality, ro natural order.
See how philosophy has become about commentary on other mind’s commenting on other minds commenting on reality. Reality is pushed to the periphery. All that matters are scripts, abstractions, theories.
Nothing objective to limit and to discipline subjective minds to reality.
An alternate world of fantasies metaphors, sensations, and emotions.
Philosophy becomes political, psychological manipulation, exploitation using words to trigger and to seduce and to manipulate.

Then the nihilists declare language meaningless - void of substance - because they made it so.

I call Abrahamics people of the book, by the book, for the book. It’s all codes and innuendoes and allegories, because reality is denied relevance. There’s a hidden, occult pseudo-reality underneath ro beyond the experienced one.
A pseudo-reality constructed entirely of linguistic codes - semiotics. 'First there was the word - logos. Language as world creator. We remain within Abrahamic contexts - texts. Even secular variants, like Marxists and humanists, are entrenched in this paradigm.
Baurdillard. Desert of the Real

Orwell gives us an overview of how language can be used to limit thinking and shape consciousness - under a Marxist type regime, i.e., secularized Abrahamism.
But controlling thought cannot only be accomplished by criminalizing some words, or erasing words to eliminate the cocnepts….it can also take a more insidious path, currently underway.
Language can be warped, so that the mind is not aware that something is occurring, or something is prohibited, rising his interest.
Gradual erosion of words and their meanings can accomplish the same outcome.

Words/symbols can be detached from their external, objective, references, so as to convert them to ideological constructs - make them subjective.
The process will not be resisted by the average dolt, because this detachment is experiences as a relief - an escape, from an indifferent threatening reality that offers only challenges, insults and brutality.
Mediocre minds will embrace this new application of words, as salvation from the unyielding and uncaring physical world.
Over time they may even forget the original use and application of the words they are using. Language will be idealized and converted to obscurantism and occultism.

See how they corrupted the word ‘god’, or how they are currently attempting to do the same with the words ‘male/female’, or ‘race’.
Morality has been given a similar treatment.
It has become a word that can either remain universal morality, ro immorality - either/or is the binary dualities of the nihilistic paradigm.
If it is not absolute one, then it must be absolutely nil; if the will is not absolutely free, then it must be absolutely un-free, a slave.
Herd psychology. Stoicism as the only reaction to a state of absolue slavishness.
The absolute need not be named ‘god’ but may acquire a new branding and named ‘oneness’ ‘whole’, ‘order’…with the right degree of pseudo-intellectual scientific lingo to make it seem like it is a new product - updated and improved nihilism.
The anthropomorphic imagery has been ‘overcome’, Now the same concept is entirely abstract, so as to be more globally seductive.

no it doesn’t, and let me explain. statements don’t have to be ‘true’ to be meaningful, and creating meaningful statements is not a matter of mapping the logical form of the world. what makes a statement meaningful is its use-value in its particular language game. statements about ‘god’, for example, are not true in the verificationists sense (which seeks to map the world logically), but can be quite meaningful in other ways. one says ‘the mighty zeus’. this of course is not true, because there is no zeus. but the existence of zeus, or not, is not what that statement is trying to convey. what it does convey, implicitly, are the kinds of things that can be meant by that statement indirectly; zeus is not to be fucked with, zeus is all powerful, zeus is glorious, etc.

the use-value of such a statement is determined by examining the context around which the implicit meanings become effectual in their purpose. with that statement one might be saying to an enemy ‘is you mess with us, zeus will have your ass.’ again, this is certainly not true, but it’s purpose is not to make a statement about a feature of the world that is true or not. and, if the enemy, upon hearing that statement, decides to back the fuck off, we can say that they found the statement to be quite meaningful.

but i see what you’re trying to do in your own special way. and that is complete an inventory of what kinds of words can mean anything at all, something which you feel yourself to be the proper arbiter of. problem is, all philosophers believe they are the arbiter of this, and yet so many of them disagree. now it could be that one or more of them are right and the rest are wrong, or all of them are wrong. fortunately for these guys, verifiable statements of fact are either handled quite well already by the natural sciences, or are simply tautologies and a matter of definitional logic. that being the case, there isn’t much left for them to do but argue about what words mean in a linguistic and conceptual environment that is free from the restrictions of these two fields. free to roam in a more or less poetic atmosphere in which nothing can really be true or false, right or wrong. or better yet, free to construct elaborate theses that are founded and supported by more elaborate theses, none of which can actually be denied or confirmed beyond their correspondence to each other (which becomes a circular progression).

so i like to divide most philosophers up into two camps. it’s easier that way and you don’t have to spend much time sorting through their nonsense. you have the logicians, the sharper ones, who make it their task to transcend the naturalistic fallacy and make of value statements something solid like statements about facts, events and affairs in the world (which they have mastered). these are the guys who try to give moral direction to the natural sciences, you might say. then you have the emotivists who, lacking logical rigor, try to do the same thing… but with a much more ambiguous and obscure language… making them poets. with the former, you find a competent and honest attempt to ‘solve problems’, although it never works. with the latter, you find that philosophy is more of an emotional sounding board through which you have a terribly confused person trying to make sense of his frustration by forcing his thoughts into what he perceives (and hopefully others too) as clear and sensible expression.

Totally wrong…and only I can understand why.
I’m brilliant.

Shit…I like it.
It’s so easy and fun.
Negate, dismiss, and them imply one’s own greatness, as you patronizingly laugh.
Fuck…I did not know how powerful the nil truly is.
Give me any topic and any opinion, and I’ll obliterate it.

Concerning the meaning of meaning.

Picked this shit up on-line. Written by some douche-bag

Going on the map metaphor. Meaning is the relationships between points on the map. Elevation, distances, terrain…etc.
Matrices of inter-connectivity - relationship.

Now a map like Tolkein’s Middle Earth has meaning - internal, theoretical, abstract, because it certainty has no meaning beyond that.
A map’s meaning is found in the geography it represents - art, semiology.
It gives the destination and the effort it would require to attain it.
This is both where it derives its value and its meaning. The intertwining relationships are the maps of meaning.
The world is full of them.
So anyone that claims the world is meaningless is a moron, or a hypocrite.
What such a buffoon usually means…ha…is that no external agency has given it meaning - has not translated the relationships for the moron. He needs to be given the destination and all the variables.

Subject/Object/objective.
The triangulation of meaning.

Words are the map, representing a geographical place and its relationship with other places.

Now imagine a totally meaningless map. Scribbles, blotches….surreal art.
The fArtist will claim there si hidden, occult meaning, in the meaningless garbage. The gullible moron will not want to expose his idiocy and will claim that he sees it.
The garbage now acquires meaning in tis meaninglessness. It is so void of meaning that the observer can project whatever he desires into it.
A clever fArtist - like hebes - may include some suggestive discernible shapes, to trigger inspiration and bring out the observers needs/desires.
Trash now has value and can be purchased for millions of dollars, based on its meaninglessness. It’s potential to remain open to any interpretation and evaluation…to be given meaning, from inside the one looking at it.

A map not of a real geographical area, nor of a fantasy alternate reality…but a map completely void of meaning, awaiting meaning to be projected into it. A map made to reflect light in particular ways depending on from what direction you come at it. So an interactive map that is constantly changing, and every time open to the psychological state of the individual on that moment.

Value - the distances, elevations, approximating the effort required - relative to the subject’s needs and talents.
Value only makes sense, has meaning, as a triangulation pf subject with objective/destination/goal within world/objective reality.
Meaning is this relationship.

You are wrong.

…

Holy shit.

You are though.

Binary is based on the presence or lack thereof of an electrical current.

Cells cannot perform systolis and dyastolis.
Unless you’re talking about muscle cells… right? I mean, can we get someone in here who speaks greek?

The meaning of meaning would be meaningless if there was no meaning. For words come to existence when there is a need for them.
Without meaning, both word and its negation would obliterate themselves, like mater and anti-mater.

See? I too can say confusing shit that has no relevance in the world.
I might put this on a stick, it will be the new summer sensation. Bullshitsicles.

Nobody cares what you have to say.

Language either connects consciousness to reality, or it projects its reaction.

An example of the manipulation and corruption of language, using genes/memes.
Gender is the social application of naturally evolved specialized reproductive roles, yet gender is claimed to be a social construct, when it is a natural ‘construct’ applied within manamade socioeconomic contexts.

An example of the manipulation and corruption of language, using genes/memes.

Semites are an Afro-asiatic group of tribes.
Judaism is a dogma, an ideology.

Not all Semites ae Jews; not all Jews Are Semites. Yet, antisemitism is used as a defensive reaction to all critiques against the dogma/ideology of Judaism.
It would be like saying any critique of Soviet Style Communism - Stalinism - is anti-Slavic, or any critique of Christianity, granddaughter of Judaism, is anti-European, because Europeans practice it.

Judaism is an ideology, entirely based on linguistics. It has no tangible, corporeal, empirical meaning. It is pure ideology - a world-view.
It evolved to parasitically exploit other tribes, similar to gypsies.
The manipulation and exploitation of language is how they achieve this. like gypsies they are known, from ancient times, as peddlers of superstitions, and exploiters of feebleness and ignorance.
To this day they manipulate codes - abstractions - such as money, and exploit human need, through fArt. They never produced any fine art - realism - but were always involved in the surreal, the abstract.

An example of the manipulation and corruption of language, using genes/memes.

Race is not about a single trait, like pigmentation.
Race is to the human specie, what breeds are to horses ro dogs.
Race is about inheriting potentials, not about superior or inferior generalities.
Depending what traits you value determines what race you consider superior.

Race is not a social construct, but its reinterpretation is a social construct.
Like trying to convince th world that tis own senses evolved to trick it rather than aid it in distinguishing important and pragmatic differences.
Sensual awareness evolved to distinguish and discriminate…using the subtlest of divergences. What looks different, is most likely different. The degree of difference, implies the degree of relevance.

Past is made present, and interpreted by consciousness, as appearance.
Appearances can be misleading, and can evolve to imitate or to camouflage - to pretend - because they are so significant.

Past is never absent, even if denied or forgotten. Past is continuously made present.

An example of the manipulation and corruption of language, using genes/memes.
Beauty is not in the ‘eye of the beholder’.
Beauty is symmetry and proportionality - the latter a compromise made to a cosmos that is not entirely ordered but also chaotic.

Symmetry and proportionality indicate resistance to fluctuations - interactivity, just as skin, hair, physical shine and smoothness indicates resistance to parasites and to disease - a healthy autoimmune system; and hip to chest and waist ratios - proportions - indicate fertility.

Eye of the beholder, si code for…what you can get. What level you are able to settle for.

Feeling beautiful making another feel good - i.e., feel beautiful - is not the same. This has to do with personality.

Symmetry and proportionality of body is not the entire story.
There is symmetry and proportionality of mind, expresse in demeanour, humour, grace, etc.

Attraction for humans occurs on two levels, one superior to the other, depending on the individual’s own quality of mind.
Body & mind - for males
Mind & Body, for females. And this difference is due to the females specialize reproductive role which is dependent no others during gestation and weening.

That is a fact.
And the difference between you and me is the denial on your part.