The Embodied Origin of Language

I think we create a false dichotomy arising from self doubt by suggesting we can never know a thing directly. Go deep enough, long enough and the voice of the mediator falls silent.

 

Don Juan's "Description of Reality"?

 

The empirical fruits of my own investigations. The first barrier to apprehension is the idea that knowledge is hidden or difficult to obtain. The real friction involves the shedding of beliefs that we had devoted our lives energies to upholding. It is insulting to our own self image to think that we may have made an unsound investment, to which I would counter, would you rather be right or would you rather be satisfied.

 

Beyond empiricism, the existentialist must feel that he interprets the following meta-physical demand upon the self being in the midst of the nature of the World.

How does the self (or individual) exist his knowledge: in essence, He is experiencing the self outside the self, disclosedness of the possibility, the value of non-being in being (in essence, 'the vagueness of the knowing of understood Knowns outside oneself), and How is Value the determined Self, being towards--, as surpassing Being to the Disclosure?

Yes: maybe there is no faith in the future for the present of the Past for empirical art and science: but how does faith issue in the face of a Possibly false World?:cheers2:

 

Faith in this case is a little willingness to suspend belief, to ask a question and be able to await the evidential response.

 

Faith = open mindedness.
Belief = prejudice.

 

Judging by the meaning of the word BELIEF, the reference to the on-going givenness of Objects alongside of thinking (Doing) minds, should make many scientists PREJUDICED.

 

Many are and it comes out in fraudulent exposures. Knowledge is, being shared, not being reflected. Reflection is a facsimile or the contemplation of being.

 

I nevertheless don't believe in the self-deceived and distinguished Soul from the world of greed and reflective image for Material wealth. We have a soul for expressing the beliefs and ideas which cannot successfully contemplate all the environmental objectivity for the things of our own privacy.

Our soul on the other hand is not private.

 

I cannot contend with belief that is a barrier to new information that you have erected. Your mind is a kingdom that you alone can rule. I'm not sure I understand your references to material wealth. I personally find no value in what the world has to offer. All I find is a redundant pattern of sensations of varying intensity, some which we call pleasant and some not so.

 

frankly, it's all to homocentric for me. the assumpution that humans matter more than other life forms is the baisis

 

I do not make that assumption, do you?

 

As soon as the term "belief" became pertient we veer into the homocentric

 

I find belief to be totally impertinent. Am I missing something? I know that we have diverged somewhat from the original proposition of whether my statement on origin of language perhaps presented a new idea. Are we making any dent in those 9 to 2 odds against? I still have more to propose.

 

Frankly, you fucked up when you claimed speaking to be symbolism for condition. Speaking is not confined to such. Logic chain needs adjustment.

 

Actually I said words were symbols for the apprehension of experience. Words conceived, spoken, or written could be considered a digital transmission of conditionality. Where and how do you find fault in this statement?

 

But it is the new way of customer service which strikes the customer at the heart of his feelings for love (without question of the MORALITY involved) which demands no question for the BELIEFS for the Self-consciousness in answering the ambition for dealing in material (let it be said) money.

For instance; the famous trap of the eighties; then the customer may have replied: 'I have no Faith in your company. As long as you know.'

Never again! Now we can hide our loveless faith in our vain love.

 

Don't get it. Love is always supposed to be moral, and that meant it was moral for itself as itself.

The war did it; not the new millenium dear.

 

Love was never moral unless issued to detension, but the question is whether 'thedope' now and here is Gustav Flaubert

 

If you are confused. I am that I am. Gustav Flaubert is another.