Human meta language

I came around a psychological test called Roschachs test and an interesting hypothes which I read in Thomas Anzs biography of Franz Kafka and that is that the interpretation of someone, here of Kafka is more expressive and telling not about the Kafka but about the biographer himself. We all interpret the world around us according to our subjective perception. There are no two objects perceived objectively by two different persons. That is the fallacy of the words, we all see under the things different denotations and definitions and these definitions have their connotations that are purely subjective. Nevertheless the definitions are also purely subjective although dictionaries try to creat a metalanguage that would fit all our communicative needs. Communication as I heard in Daniel Dennetts lecture is what distinguishes us from animals. Ants are capable of creating great ant hills but nothing else and only because they all fulfill the orders as machines. Humans on the other hand are capable of similar feats but only partly because they listen to orders. We humans are so effective because our communication is allpervasive. We do not understand each other absolutely like the ants do but we understand why we do something and what is it good for. We do not need to be machines, we can use language in order to think about the language itself which no other animal can do. Animal communication does not reach the boundaries of the communication itself whereas human language is what made us think about the language itself and thus make the communication infinite and even more effective than the communication that animals do.


Poslané z Fast notepad

Advertisement
Standard

Empirical knowledge

How can I know that democracy is the best political system one can have? It is not coming from expericence, but it stems from our primordial need to do good and be good. It does not depend on empirical knowledge. When someone researches something, then the thing researches is not to be memorised but must become part of you. What words are not enough is empirical knowledge. When I research something, see that something works this way, then word are not needed, but empirical knowledge is. My results are not for me to remember but those results just are, independent on my memory, while words do not exist – only in our mind. Thus one cannot say that socialism is better than capitalism or vica versa, because this can be conjecutured only empirically and is only hypothetically truthful.

Standard

Absolute and relative use of words

Painting is absolute in its essence,words are relative and thus an absolute understanding comes only when consensus comes. Words are not descriptive but prescriptive. only through understanding what is good via a consensus do we use was perfectly, absolutely like for example painting. The proof that I understand relative words which are descriptive absolutely is consensus about good and evil way of living. Even though words are relative and descriptive and everyone has a unique concept of anything one may encounter, the mutual consensus if arrived at sincerely is uniqueness of words because what is relative basically turns into non relativity but perfection. Words are universal and absolutely translatable – understood for everyone. There is not an empirical need to understand what is behind words – words that are absolute (showing good/bad way) can be understood via a universal conscience – God´s essence in us. Painting is via words not explicable – only empirically can I understand it – as opposed to words, which are universal and do not need any empirical knowledge. In real life situations, with concrete people I can never judge what is good and what not. I cannot talk about a concrete prostitute and claim that she sins, I can only say that anything against God is bad and what she does with it is her choice. I cannot be sure that she sins, although everything suggests that she does. Only in words I can be sure what is good and what is bad. Prostitution hurts people is absolutely right but I cannot hold it as truthful for concrete people. What damages people is not empirically proven, only via words. Masturbation can be seen as benefitial, for most psychologist even empirically proved, but definitely wrong thing to do – not based on any experience or empirical analysis. I cannot say I feel better now I do not masturbate, those 4 years, but I am sure it is the right thing to do. We can say that empirically for most people money are essential, but can also hurt people. Empirically we can say that socialism is more fair than capitalism but cannot know for sure that it is better for people. This depends on individual conscience, choice. People must choose good under any political system, be it capitalism, socialism or any other. Empirically we can say that under some political system, for example capitalism, people tend to act according to the law of jungle, because capitalism enforces to use strength and devour weaker. Socialism on the other hand does not want to make differences between people. It is not possible though to say which one is better empirically. Words are not here for descriptive purpose – for this we need empirical knowledge – for example seeing a picture cannot be explained via words, only to a certain amount of understanding, not absolutely – for absolute understanding one has to see the picture. Such communication is not absolute as well, because words I use aim at concrete things – when I talk about someones, or someones picture I use words-concepts which are known to the other party – if I used those words with someone not conversant with a certain picture or a person, I would not be able to describe absolutely the person or picture or anything concrete/unique anyway (the person see words concrete entities, not via words explicable concepts). Via words one can explain absolutely only such things which do not need any a priori knowledge – empirical. Words are here for prescriptive purpose – to show what is right from wrong. All that I write here is also adequate for absolute understanding. This text is not absolute in the way of showing a good way of life, but on the other hand, to understand it, one does not need any concrete knowledge. This applies to any text, not any concrete text. It is not descriptive but prescriptive, how to use words to be absolutely understandable, it is not about a certain amount of knowledge. When reading about any research for example, it is always better to be present when researching, because in words the results of any research are only partial, the empirical knowledge is always more precise – absolute. On the other hand, words are absolute only when they do not direct themselves to conrete (empirical) things.

Standard

Inner voice

Is necessary to believe in sacraments or is an open heart enough? Is it really necessary to be of Catholic faith? Not every Catholic is good, but I think that everyone who is good is inevitably a Catholic – following Christs teaching. If you fulfill all religious prescripts but do not have faith, you are nothing. if you have faith, love, God-like consciense-daimonion, voice of the heart and fulfill no prescript, then you are with God. Until one does not know that something is good and something is bad (sometimes sin is doing something, but sometimes not doing, or doing nothing) then one is not quilty of such a thing. Once one knows teaching of Jesus Christ and does not accept it, then he sins because logically, it is not possible to go against teaching of Jesus – it is the highest principle even for nonbelievers. These prescripts are not outer but inner- they come from our selves, from our essence, they are not given by anybody, not even by Jesus, he came to be sacrificed for us, but he did not tell us anything new-all he said is something we would know if we had opened hearts. Through words and sincerity we arrive at the consensus that doing good is the highest human principle. Its all about choice, I cannot persuade you that something is wrong, I am not God, I do not know it for sure, maybe you can kill with a good intention, I do not know. I cannot say about concrete people or concrete situations that are either good or bad, but I can say for sure abstractly that something is wrong, evil and something right,good. What I say you either take as right and maybe not and maybe you are right in not believeing what I say-that killing someone or sex for pleasure is sin. But if one looks into one´s heart then one sees what is right and what is wrong. Sex for pleasure is very evilish thing to do, although people my disagree with it. I cannot say about concrete people or situation that something is wrong-only the protagonist can say so. It all goes back to an individual conscience. Some things on the other hand are definitely wrong. For example to kill somebody – because by killing somebody I hurt people. What is worse is that I hurt myself and damn myself. The killed one does not sin, but sin is worse than death. To die is not as bad as to die badly – in sin. What if someone sins and does not know it? Euthanasia for example may be considered a murder but may not. Hurting myself, although not doing anything evil to others is the worst thing one can do. Once I know that I hurt myself I must refrain from doing it. Other things may be more ambigous. For example masturbation – can there be a good masturbation? I do not think so, because masturbation is predominantly for my ego, my pleasure. Physical pleasure belongs only to marriage and love making with and for God´s glory. To know that something is wrong, I do not need any experience. For example lynching of people (blacks in the US history of the slave system) is wrong obviously, but what about people that do not know it? Is it possible to not know it? Hurting other always carries with it the knowledge, otherwise one would not hurt other if it did not somehow make it an egoistical pleasurable feeling. Thus one does not need any exprience to know that it is wrong. Such a damage can be very often seen in marriage that use contraception. It hurts me much, that people do not want at least to think about such things and its consequences. Maybe I am wrong,maybe contraception helps in a relationship, I do not want to be dogmatic, on the other hand – I want to be opened to everything, but have not seen up to now that contraception or anything like that could lead to a happy relationship. Golden rule says : do unto other what you want them to do to you. Does a woman want to be used anytime man want her, or should she rather follow her natural biorytmus? This is the question everyone should be willing to answer with a clear conscience.

Standard

Words and morality

When i exhort,i dont want to sound better than others because maybe they are right and not me. words, as opposed to empirical knowledge are absolute, do not require empirical experiences. we need to understand that only through words can we achieve absolute consensus to the essence of things which is not based on any empirical evidence. empirical evidence does not hint on spiritual things but on things material. Thus it can be said that premarital sex,eg sex for pleasure is bad,but it cannot be applied on concrete people-it cannot be sais that he or she is an adulterer – this depends on individual consicence to accept or not accept universal truth and goods which is presented via words. Words are absolute because they dont touch concrete world,but use concrete words in order to describe transcedent, abstract, moral things, how to be good. When we talk,unless we reach consensus,we need another words to describe words i use. To be honest, i need more words and arguments until one understands it and agrees with me. to be good in any situation. from this premise come all other postulates. The words that are used for descriptive means of world are relative and not absolute. If one uses words not to describe things in the world but to prescribe how things should be then people reach absolute consensus. Brushes of strokes can either copy reality, or can be used as a tool to express someone´s artistic need to express the truth. Words, though relative (or because of that) can be used only as a means to arrive at a mutual absolute consensus, as well as a painting which may be unique but is nevertheless potentially copiable – the truth is not a possesion of someone, but it is an entity that just IS. Same with words, via words one either accepts the truth, or does not. Words as well as painting may be only a copy of reality (not truthful but empirical – to see that something is empirically something we do not need words but must exprience it) or may be used in order to arrive at truth – use the concepts in order to arrive at mutual consensus – here I do not need to expericence entities to which concepts direct – I can understand those concepts via other words. What is only empirically understandable cannot be explained via words but must be experienced. The only proof of an absolute consensus is mutual understanding which is actually necessary to come to a conclusion if something is bad and something good. Always remember to consider an individual action. Its about concrete occurences,one may be wrong about other pereon,its about my view of my actions and actions in general,but never fromcthe point of view of an another person. Truth cannot be found,it is being found. Neverending proces. Nevertheless,words when used as tools for making situations can be understood absokutely-and the hearer either admits the truth or not,for example in oremarital amrriage – it is not possible to say in concerete people that they are either wrong or good, but generally when I talk to someone about this toppic, we arrive at the conclusion that If someone does sleep with his/hers partner before marriage it is because of the “inablity” (not wanting to!!) curb my physiological needs. Tastes should be controled, tastes and needs of my body should not control my mind and sel. Not everything that is allowed (and easy as in case of premarital sex) is allowed. My carrer as a social care worker showed me that everybody has certain sexual drives – some people I work with are not able to eat, drink, use toilet, but all of them have certain sexual drives, thus I conclude that procreatin is possibly the easiest thing in the world and thus one should be very careful about seeing premarital sex as something that should be adored, because it is the easiest thing and things that are easy are not usually good.

Standard