DarrenTomlyn
Banned
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- UK
- Current Location
- UK
I wanted to post this in my previous thread but it was locked before I could do so. I hope a new thread is considered worthwhile!
So, as before, I am reporting that, based on all the evidence I see (the basics of which I shared with jutfrank): Academia does not understand things, as a general type of concept.
As I quickly came to realise, neither does jutfrank, which is why I feel continuing any discussion with them isn't worthwhile - I guess that it's contagious, thanks to academia, too
AND THAT SCARES ME - the problems are obviously even greater than I realised.
HOW MUCH OF HUMANITY DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THINGS RIGHT NOW/EVER/ANYMORE?
Maybe I do need to share more with everyone - at least to be on record? (I have backups of this post - just to be sure!)
-------------------
So, to repeat what I said before: a failure to understand things, in general, is one of the greatest ever possible for humanity itself.
Why?
Because it's the basic level of human recognition, and without recognition, we cannot, and do not, exist.
Understanding things is inherently one of the most fundamental matters of linguistics - we have a word in English, with equivalents in other languages, that we need to fully know the meaning of. We can do this by studying it's use and context, especially pragmatic and semantic, greater and sub. Any 'philosophy' involved in their creation is not part of this problem - humanity has already created/defined them - we just need to understand them.
(You'll notice I didn't mention syntactic context. There is a good reason for that.)
The whole reason for the existence of things that humanity recognises, is that it exists as the most fundamental type of concept that a lot of what we perceive and imagine can then exist within. Not only that, but every other type of concept (properties of things, things of happening+properties thereof, and some basic relationships between them all) it also recognises MUST, AND CAN ONLY exist in relation to, and are directly and indirectly CAUSED by the existence of things in general - which is why things is the basic type of concept that exists in isolation of all the others. This is why syntactics isn't as useful in helping us to understand them for what they are, as things. (The organization type created by such relationships is called a taxonomic hierarchy.)
In order to fully understand things, we therefore need to recognise the full scope of what the type of concept includes, and this is where we run into problems, because of its relationship with language, that academia specifically fails to fully understand.
The whole reason language exists, is to use the basic consistency of such types of concept, by subjectively applying them according to individual rules, (both semantic and syntactic) to help increase consistency in communicating information such basic semantic concepts include within.
This means that languages can differ in what they recognise as being not just things, but also using/including/defining different types of concept of such things - (other concepts are treated similarly).
For example: The English language uses/includes/defines three basic semantic concepts governing things: singular, plural and type thereof, (all of which also differ in overall syntactic application).
This simple recognition is, in itself, not something academia currently recognises and understands - but if it did, its entire stack would then fall apart, because it needs additional understanding it still doesn't have for such differences to truly exist properly with their full ramifications.
But although recognising such individual concepts can then help us understand what is and is not a thing, there are other differences within the type of concept that exist in addition, and can even cross such concepts if needed.
There is one difference academia and people, in general, currently use to try and make a consistent distinction between two fundamental, fully inclusive, types of things, also usually within any context provided by language itself :
Tangible and intangible.
Although such differences can be useful in an easy, quick and simple informal manner, they should not have any place in a formal setting by themselves, which right now, they do, which should always be understood as a problem.
Why?
Because they're properties, not things - they're an effect of what things are, not a cause. The reason such properties exist is to help relate them to others because of what they are. Any individual things that are recognised solely by such properties are therefore not recognised or understood as things.
However, there is an additional reason for why such properties can have no place in formal understanding of types of things - there is another difference that is much more important to be recognised and understood, that such properties are currently affecting in a very negative manner, by being used in place of, which they are simply unsuitable for.
This is why the true current foundation academia currently places everything here upon, is merely that of intangible itself - an effect without a cause.
So what is this other difference humanity recognises - as it must, for everything to truly exist in the right context?
This difference is not so much about what things are, in general, it's about where they exist, which is why they differ in context:
Externally in and of the universe, ourselves and each other around us, that we perceive.
Internally that we imagine and think of.
Humanity demonstrably treats perception and imagination in a similar manner, because it already knows it cannot fully consistently distinguish between the two. (This is something everyone should already know.)
So we have different types of things, that exist in a different context, that are both needed for everything else humanity itself requires to exist, as equal inputs to - what it is that truly matters, both for humanity and academia itself:
Recognition followed by understanding.
Academia's current understanding is demonstrably solely based upon and within perception itself, and therefore does not allow for anything that matters for humanity to exist at all - not imagination, recognition or understanding.
What truly matters next, however, is recognising that humanity understands that we create an abstraction of such inputs for ourselves, by our own thoughts, that such recognition and understanding then exist in relation to, (the descriptions and context of which are also inherently already part of language):
Information.
Information therefore inherently includes imagination as an input - including ideas, concepts, (which things/time and space are all examples of), (imaginary) stories, recipes/laws and language itself. Data and property also exist, and the latter is inherently required to be recognised and understood as such, for it's by further applications thereof that other concepts then exist in relation and are described as such, or should be.
Note: where my study began in the first place, was with the recognition that English uses/includes/defines a lot of additional semantic concepts, derived from others used elsewhere (e.g. all types of 'normal' properties), that are all used as subjects and objects, syntactically, within - that are NOT things. Academia does not recognise and understand these to exist, and confuses them for things, their further abstract nature perceived as being things perceived rather than imagined, being another reason for why it places everything within perception itself.
----------------
So we have things that exist in two different contexts: of perception and imagination/thought, that are then abstracted by thought to create information as a direct abstraction of such inputs, that is then used as the basis for recognition, with understanding in addition. Since imagination, recognition and understanding can only ever exist as a matter of thought and/or interpretation, in relation to information in this manner, information can never exist externally, except by application.
Academia places EVERYTHING solely within the context of perception, especially (and because of) information. Nothing that matters can ever truly solely exist in that context.
Academia is therefore currently/inherently built on an understanding of literally NOTHING.
-----------------
So maybe now you'll understand exactly how and why this is a fundamental failure of academia itself as a matter of linguistics, and exactly why an amateur like me shouldn't be trusted to publish it properly, in the context and format it needs...
Since no one in academia has been willing to talk to me, however - it does not look good for it right now.
THIS POST HERE EXISTS AS THE FINAL WARNING FOR ACADEMIA TO HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER ITS PUBLICATION - even if this post kinda counts for that, in itself!
So, as before, I am reporting that, based on all the evidence I see (the basics of which I shared with jutfrank): Academia does not understand things, as a general type of concept.
As I quickly came to realise, neither does jutfrank, which is why I feel continuing any discussion with them isn't worthwhile - I guess that it's contagious, thanks to academia, too
AND THAT SCARES ME - the problems are obviously even greater than I realised.
HOW MUCH OF HUMANITY DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THINGS RIGHT NOW/EVER/ANYMORE?
Maybe I do need to share more with everyone - at least to be on record? (I have backups of this post - just to be sure!)
-------------------
So, to repeat what I said before: a failure to understand things, in general, is one of the greatest ever possible for humanity itself.
Why?
Because it's the basic level of human recognition, and without recognition, we cannot, and do not, exist.
Understanding things is inherently one of the most fundamental matters of linguistics - we have a word in English, with equivalents in other languages, that we need to fully know the meaning of. We can do this by studying it's use and context, especially pragmatic and semantic, greater and sub. Any 'philosophy' involved in their creation is not part of this problem - humanity has already created/defined them - we just need to understand them.
(You'll notice I didn't mention syntactic context. There is a good reason for that.)
The whole reason for the existence of things that humanity recognises, is that it exists as the most fundamental type of concept that a lot of what we perceive and imagine can then exist within. Not only that, but every other type of concept (properties of things, things of happening+properties thereof, and some basic relationships between them all) it also recognises MUST, AND CAN ONLY exist in relation to, and are directly and indirectly CAUSED by the existence of things in general - which is why things is the basic type of concept that exists in isolation of all the others. This is why syntactics isn't as useful in helping us to understand them for what they are, as things. (The organization type created by such relationships is called a taxonomic hierarchy.)
In order to fully understand things, we therefore need to recognise the full scope of what the type of concept includes, and this is where we run into problems, because of its relationship with language, that academia specifically fails to fully understand.
The whole reason language exists, is to use the basic consistency of such types of concept, by subjectively applying them according to individual rules, (both semantic and syntactic) to help increase consistency in communicating information such basic semantic concepts include within.
This means that languages can differ in what they recognise as being not just things, but also using/including/defining different types of concept of such things - (other concepts are treated similarly).
For example: The English language uses/includes/defines three basic semantic concepts governing things: singular, plural and type thereof, (all of which also differ in overall syntactic application).
This simple recognition is, in itself, not something academia currently recognises and understands - but if it did, its entire stack would then fall apart, because it needs additional understanding it still doesn't have for such differences to truly exist properly with their full ramifications.
But although recognising such individual concepts can then help us understand what is and is not a thing, there are other differences within the type of concept that exist in addition, and can even cross such concepts if needed.
There is one difference academia and people, in general, currently use to try and make a consistent distinction between two fundamental, fully inclusive, types of things, also usually within any context provided by language itself :
Tangible and intangible.
Although such differences can be useful in an easy, quick and simple informal manner, they should not have any place in a formal setting by themselves, which right now, they do, which should always be understood as a problem.
Why?
Because they're properties, not things - they're an effect of what things are, not a cause. The reason such properties exist is to help relate them to others because of what they are. Any individual things that are recognised solely by such properties are therefore not recognised or understood as things.
However, there is an additional reason for why such properties can have no place in formal understanding of types of things - there is another difference that is much more important to be recognised and understood, that such properties are currently affecting in a very negative manner, by being used in place of, which they are simply unsuitable for.
This is why the true current foundation academia currently places everything here upon, is merely that of intangible itself - an effect without a cause.
So what is this other difference humanity recognises - as it must, for everything to truly exist in the right context?
This difference is not so much about what things are, in general, it's about where they exist, which is why they differ in context:
Externally in and of the universe, ourselves and each other around us, that we perceive.
Internally that we imagine and think of.
Humanity demonstrably treats perception and imagination in a similar manner, because it already knows it cannot fully consistently distinguish between the two. (This is something everyone should already know.)
So we have different types of things, that exist in a different context, that are both needed for everything else humanity itself requires to exist, as equal inputs to - what it is that truly matters, both for humanity and academia itself:
Recognition followed by understanding.
Academia's current understanding is demonstrably solely based upon and within perception itself, and therefore does not allow for anything that matters for humanity to exist at all - not imagination, recognition or understanding.
What truly matters next, however, is recognising that humanity understands that we create an abstraction of such inputs for ourselves, by our own thoughts, that such recognition and understanding then exist in relation to, (the descriptions and context of which are also inherently already part of language):
Information.
Information therefore inherently includes imagination as an input - including ideas, concepts, (which things/time and space are all examples of), (imaginary) stories, recipes/laws and language itself. Data and property also exist, and the latter is inherently required to be recognised and understood as such, for it's by further applications thereof that other concepts then exist in relation and are described as such, or should be.
Note: where my study began in the first place, was with the recognition that English uses/includes/defines a lot of additional semantic concepts, derived from others used elsewhere (e.g. all types of 'normal' properties), that are all used as subjects and objects, syntactically, within - that are NOT things. Academia does not recognise and understand these to exist, and confuses them for things, their further abstract nature perceived as being things perceived rather than imagined, being another reason for why it places everything within perception itself.
----------------
So we have things that exist in two different contexts: of perception and imagination/thought, that are then abstracted by thought to create information as a direct abstraction of such inputs, that is then used as the basis for recognition, with understanding in addition. Since imagination, recognition and understanding can only ever exist as a matter of thought and/or interpretation, in relation to information in this manner, information can never exist externally, except by application.
Academia places EVERYTHING solely within the context of perception, especially (and because of) information. Nothing that matters can ever truly solely exist in that context.
Academia is therefore currently/inherently built on an understanding of literally NOTHING.
-----------------
So maybe now you'll understand exactly how and why this is a fundamental failure of academia itself as a matter of linguistics, and exactly why an amateur like me shouldn't be trusted to publish it properly, in the context and format it needs...
Since no one in academia has been willing to talk to me, however - it does not look good for it right now.
THIS POST HERE EXISTS AS THE FINAL WARNING FOR ACADEMIA TO HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER ITS PUBLICATION - even if this post kinda counts for that, in itself!
