This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:13 pm

Another word I like to use when dealing with Desperate Degenerates, is the word 'love' This is a particularly effective word with them, because they are emasculated and emotional thinkers....effete to the core - to such concepts can influence their feminized minds - not that I hold any hope with them, because most are so entrenched and invested in their won variant of nihilism that all they do is dismiss ignore and are so defensive that nothing gets through.
No secret that I've been using them to explain my positions to others - those silent observers who visit this forum but do not participate - dozens of them, daily....and I see them. Most come here from that other FaceBook page...which shall remain unnamed. They understand....even if Desperate Degenerates don't or pretend not to.
This is for their excuse, if you will, using degenerates and their predictable desperation to make my points.
So, love.
The Desperate Degenerate - positive kind - will idealize, romanticize, mystify the concept. He will paint it using prose and innuendoes and seductive words - each selected to impress, to manipulate and to exploit weakness - to sell itself. They will define 'love' outside existence - in a magical realm that exists underneath or above this experienced world.
The Christian variant made 'love' synonymous with their one-god - a divine cosmic force....replacing the attractive force, and ignoring the repulsive one. Later demonizing the latter, creating their binary dualities - God/Satan, good/evil.
Attraction = good; repulsion = evil - see all is united in god - absolute unity held together by the magical force of love. All soothing and comforting. All so feminine.
A girl can be swept off her feet when a gentleman comes a calling with such words in his mouth.
The antithesis is the cynic....I call him a 'pure nihilist'. He dismisses the previous romantic drivel, as well he should. Replacing it with nothing....literally nothing. He may reject the naïve idealists prose, and claim that 'love' is a subjective thing, a social construct...and that it doesn't really exist.
A human idea.
But both are wrong.
Love refers to an observable behaviour, found among many species - particularly those using heterosexual reproductive methods and those using cooperative survival strategies - so there's a link here.
It isn't an illusion, nor some divine cosmic force - a magical power.
In my view it is an evolved chemical reaction dealing with the fight/flight mechanism....but if others disagree with my theory they can offer their own, and then both can be compared to observable, falsifiable, empirical data. Not words and more words...not easy negations, on the ground that no theory is absolutely perfect and absolutely complete...but empiricism.
Which theory is more probable. Survival of the fittest in philosophical contexts.

My definition of love is not arbitrary; it is not based no my private preferences and personal tastes; not based on my upbringing and my traditions.
It is based on an objective interpretation of behaviours that occur outside human cultures and systems.
Shit gets added, over time....but if we begin with the act, the behaviour, we can cleanse the concept of its emotional and cultural baggage.
Love is an esoteric process - processes - which is externalized as particular behaviours....just as thinking is an esoteric phenomenon that is externalized as action.

Love between a parent and a child, or between friends, is not the same as erotic love - lust - yet there are connections which one of the chosen (Freud) exploited to discredit family that type is known to do, viz., the sense of melding identifies - loss of self in other - commonality, shared destinies, shared values, purposes, interests...
Agape/Eros....both forms of Love - distinct but related.
Neither magical, mystical, nor nothing.
Love is an activity - interactivity.
Not my invention; not my preference. Nothing to do with what I prefer or hope or want.

But Desperate Degenerates don't like this rational approach - this objectivity - because it disarms them of their mystical obscurantisms, used to cope with existence - or it negated their negative defensiveness.

Transvaluation: to re-estimate the value of, especially on a basis differing from accepted standards; reappraise; re-evaluate.

Transvaluation of all values, is not the detachment of values from reality....but the return to the triangulation of subject/object/motive which is the origin of the meaning of 'evaluation'.
Nietzsche - if I dare to interpret him in contradiction to men-children - called himself a 'nihilists' because he was so in relation to nihilists.
As I am.
True Nihilists, on the other hand, are so in relation to reality - their positions attempt to negate and usurp and replace reality. In relation to their delusions a realist, like myself, is a nihilist - negating, nullifying nihilism, i.e., realism.
I am negative towards nihilism...but nihilism is not negative toward me and my personal preferences, but towards reality, which I am a part of, and I try to understand as objectively as possible.
Transvaluation is contra conventional understandings and definitions...which in our Age are distinctly nihilistic - anti-real, anti-nature.
If we return the concept of 'value' to its original meaning, then it indicates a relationship between observer/observed and motive, i.e., goal.
A relationship based on a triangulation. It has no other meaning.
Nihilism corrupts this, by replacing one part of the triad with nil - producing a dualism - the absence of what has been negated is compensated by its replacement by the remaining two, or by covering it up with mystifications, and obscurantism....leaving a duality.
In effect the triad of value judgements is converted to a binary duality that is self-referential - solipsist.

The triad subject/object/movement-motive is converted to a duality - subject/movement,motive, and the missing object is replaced by the subject - subject/motive/subject.
Subjectivity. the world is excluded from the relationship. Everything is reduced to a subjective mind and its motives, i.e. political, ideological claptrap.
A circular self-referential inter-subjectivity replaces the triad, which includes world/reality as the standard connecting the other two in the triad in a relationship.

Okay, I'm getting metaphysical I'll stop.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:15 pm

The meaning of the word 'race'.
Race is a word denoting type, kind, a sub-category of a specific species, in this case the homo sapient specie.
'Breed' is used in reference to the same in canines, horses, etc.

What does specie and consequently race/breed mean?
It means inherited potentials, exhibiting a particular physical symmetry, proportionality, pigmentation, size, mass etc. - ergo a potential for every conceivable and observable trait.
So, race, like breed, kind, means a potential falling within parameters - a higher and a lower - which is considers 'normal' or as categorizing a breeds, races, median - its average potentials.
Exception to this rule re to be analysed separately, and in relation to this median average rule - this normal range - so as to ascertain the reasons, the causes of this falling outside the normal range.

So, race is about potentials, a range, a degree, of all traits - physical and mental, psychological, behavioural...

It cannot be a social construct because civilization is 6,000 years old....let's say 8,000 years to be safe.
Man has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. Scientists claim the specie homo sapient is 200,000 years old, maybe more.
Now compare 6,000 of primitive developing towards the current social structures, with 200,000+ years....and more because evolution goes back further to a common ancestry with other primates, and then further back to a common ancestry with all living organisms on earth. It is estimated that life on earth is over 4 billion years old...and all those billions of years are participating in present day men and women of the human specie.

This is what I call the 'sum of all nurturing' which is 'nature' - as a reference to human nature, and not to be confused with nature as a general concept to include planets, galaxies and so on

The body's configuration its presence - interpreted as appearance - is a manifestation of this past; it is past made present.
How we look is not arbitrary or superficial...but we do try to cover it up with superficiality - including language redefinitions - or to alter appearance, surgically or cosmetically, precisely because it is so revealing of essence.
Breeds, races look different because they are different. How?
To a degree of inherited potential - a median.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:16 pm

Why do we value beauty?
Because it is difficult to attain, and difficult to maintain - ergo it is rare. The higher its order/functionality the more rare it is...and the more difficult it is to both attain and maintain - representing power, struggle, endurance and whatever probabilities this implies.
In organic life, displayed as symmetry (order, and proportionality (functionality), beauty represents higher potentials, or objectives that require effort (agon). This agon is what gives it value.

ἄξιος < ἄγω
Ενεστώτας ἄγω ἄγομαι
Παρατατικός ἦγον ἠγόμην
Μέλλοντας ἄξω ἄξομαι & ἀχθήσομαι
Αόριστος ἦξα, ἤγαγον ἠξάμην & ἤχθην
Παρακείμενος ἦχα, ἀγήοχα ἦγμαι
Υπερσυντέλικος ἤχειν, ἀγηόχειν ἤγμην
To drive, direct.

Notice the common root of agon {ἀγών}= gathering, battle, struggle, competition; axion {ἀξία} = price, cost, value.

It is the objective in relation to the path towards it - objective via world - that bestows upon it its value to the actor, the subject. Without a subject with a projected objective, a motive/intent, there is no value - even using science as an objective subject, the value is a product of a measurement, in relation to a standard; a product of a comparison, a juxtaposition.
The idea/Ideal is what establishes the relationship with reality which value is to be measured by.

We cannot say if intelligence - in whatever way it is defined - is more valuable than idiocy without a goal, an ideal; we cannot say if strength - in whatever way it is defined - is more valuable than weakness, without an idea/ideal.
If it remains abstract, theoretical (ideological) then it can be considered valuable or valueless; but if it is applied, it is put into practice, then its true value and that of the objective itself, are both revealed...objectively.
No theory survives reality intact.
Beauty is appreciated because it implies probability in a sea of increasing possibilities. It makes it precious as potential.
Its value is a product of this appreciation, evaluation.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:17 pm

A word referring to a relationship between subject and object, or perspective/interpretation and world/reality.

Although truth can be imposed upon another, this is not what truth means objectively.
Since the relationship is one between two dynamic states, truth is not static - not absolute - but refers to the fluctuating inter-relationships in world and between observer and world.
If 'meaning' refers to how phenomena relate and the degree to which they do so, then truth refers to this cognitive map of dynamic inter-relationships.
To have an accurate map of reality will determine the successful application of a course of action and of a destination - both can be in error and can only be accurate to a degree (approximately).
Therefore, 'truth, is an approximation, similar to how a map representationally approximates a geography. The quality of the map will determine the successful travel through the geography towards a destination upon the map corresponding to a geographical location.
For the Greeks 'truth' was described as un-forgetting, because the noetic map referred to world that is being revealed. A map that had to recalled to memory, to consciousness, similar to how a map has to be unfolded and continuously updated and reaffirmed with increasingly finer - more precise - details.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:11 pm

Genes to Memes
If DNA are the inheritance of past, informing the organism how to interact, grow, behave....then language is the memetic equivalent.
An externalization of genetics. All technologies and art forms are the same: externalization of internal processes or of the organisms knowledge and understanding of itself.

We can trace inheritance linguistically, even if language can be transferred ro adopted by populations that did not originate it.
Racial identities can be traced using linguistics.
Major language families representing genetic racial, and tribal families.
Indo-European languages representing the Indo-European race with tis many sub-categories.

Breed is to animals what race is to homo sapient. Inheritance of potentials - a median.
Sub-Categories indicating further divisions.
Species indicating a final rift making synthesis impossible, with intermediating stages, such as those between horses and asses, ro lions and tigers, or grizzly and polar bears, where re-synthesis is possible with a genetic risk, a genetic cost.
For example: an ass and a horse produce an infertile mule.

Languages (semiotics) are to mind what DNA (genes) are to body.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:23 pm

Remaining true to our metaphors, we may say that speed and direction refer to possibilities of interactivity.
Speed of light indicated energies - of a particular pattern - which are characterized by a multiplication of possible interactions in one-dimension accompanied by the shrinking, to near absolute nil, in all other dimensions.
This implies that light/energy can only interact in one (or more) dimension9s) and so is not affected by interactions in all other dimensions which other types of energy can interact in.

Matter can be defined as patterns which interact in three or more dimensions - depending no the kind of matter - eidos.
Energy can be defined as patterns which interact in three or less dimensions, with liquidity representing an intermediate state.

The sequence of vibration and its possibility of interacting in dimensions is interested by a conscious mind as matter/energy.
Random energies, or those lacking a pattern - i.e., a repeating, consistent, predictable sequence - are called chaos.
A conscious mind interest what it cannot perceive a pattern in, as darkness.
Black matter can be energies that lack order, pattern, their sequence of vibration being random.

But a limited organism, such as man, may also interpret patterns it cannot discern, ro which are too complex for ti to process, as darkness, producing the confusion and tautology that chaos is simply complexity - or inconspicuous order.
Complexity is not chaos.
Man has associated them as a single concept often named 'occult', alluding to hidden roder, only a few can discern and understand.
Chaos becomes a tool for such charlatans.

The power of the nil, as I describe it in another thread, is founded on this.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:19 pm

Using words/symbols to disconnect from reality, rather than connect to it, attempts to convert the idea it represents into a subjective construct or an ideology, affected by social forces such as supply/demand and fashion trends.
An anchoring in reality, beyond human environments, would make such ideological detachments impossible.

Currently the concept of male/female is being linguistically detached from biology, making 'gender' a social fashion, or a product/service, like any other; a garment one puts on and takes off, at will.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:10 pm

Wipepedia wrote:A language family is a group of languages related through descent from a common ancestral language or parental language, called the proto-language of that family. The term "family" reflects the tree model of language origination in historical linguistics, which makes use of a metaphor comparing languages to people in a biological family tree, or in a subsequent modification, to species in a phylogenetic tree of evolutionary taxonomy. Linguists therefore describe the daughter languages within a language family as being genetically related.[1]
According to Ethnologue the 7,111 living human languages are distributed in 141 different language families.[2] A "living language" is simply one that is currently used as the primary form of communication of a group of people. There are also many dead languages, or languages which have no native speakers living, and extinct languages, which have no native speakers and no descendant languages. Finally, there are some languages that are insufficiently studied to be classified, and probably some which are not even known to exist outside their respective speech communities.
Membership of languages in a language family is established by research in comparative linguistics. Sister languages are said to have a "genetic" or "genealogical" relationship. The latter term is older.[3][obsolete source] Speakers of a language family belong to a common speech community. The divergence of a proto-language into daughter languages typically occurs through geographical separation, with the original speech community gradually evolving into distinct linguistic units. Individuals belonging to other speech communities may also adopt languages from a different language family through the language shift process.[4]
Genealogically related languages present shared retentions; that is, features of the proto-language (or reflexes of such features) that cannot be explained by chance or borrowing (convergence). Membership in a branch or group within a language family is established by shared innovations; that is, common features of those languages that are not found in the common ancestor of the entire family. For example, Germanic languages are "Germanic" in that they share vocabulary and grammatical features that are not believed to have been present in the Proto-Indo-European language. These features are believed to be innovations that took place in Proto-Germanic, a descendant of Proto-Indo-European that was the source of all Germanic languages.

Language families are the memetic projections of genetic families.
Their externalization makes them clear indications of shared genetic inheritance.
Their advantage comes at a price. The fact that they can be transmitted much faster and easier than genes, means they can spread faster and across broader areas; adopted by other genetic bloodlines, when they've been dominated.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:02 pm

Language connects or disconnects minds from reality; it expresses the shape and quality of thinking.
This is passed on from mind to mind, through the very nature of the specific language.

Marshall McLuhan wrote:The message si the medium

Passing-on language transmits a world-view inherent in the language's form and syntax.
Manipulating words increases or decreases awareness.
Restricting or criminalizing words is a method of mass-mind-control.
Words connected to specific imagery, ideologies, feelings, can be used to trigger reactions or to prevent specific thoughts - self-censorship.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Semiotics

Postby Aegean » Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:14 am

Afro-Asiatic: Semitic - Arabic
Altaic: Turkic - Turkish
Austro-Asiatic: Mon-Khmer - Khmer
Austronesian: Malayo-Polynesian - Tagalog
Dravidian: Tamil - Kannada
Indo-European: Germanic - English
Niger-Congo: Volta-Congo - Dogon
Sino-Tibetan: Chinese - Mandarin
Uralic: Finno-Ugric - Hungarian

Language families corresponding to racial categories.
Obviously, the higher transmission possibilities of language makes cross-contamination a historical by-product of racial nd tribal competition.
Like with genetic reproduction, the virility of a generic population can be evaluated by its linguistic fertilization of other peoples.

Each language - its form - produces a specific mindset - a way of engaging reality, expressing a specific survival and reproduction strategy.
like with genetic reproduction, a language transmitted to a foreign gene pool will morph (mutate), adjusting to the recipients inherited genetics and memetics.
We can say, if we want to be more poetic, that each language carries the spirit of the people it emerged within.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jakeyjake