| Author |
Message |
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:25 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:52:21 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:aXsaf.2171$5N1.1906@dukeread08...
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What do you think "beside" meant in 17th century English?
|
Alan Jones you are a guru. I now understand all.
God is the A-side. There is no beside.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:59 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...] |
I can't do this any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Alan Jones <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:aXsaf.2171$5N1.1906@dukeread08...
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What do you think "beside" meant in 17th century English?
|
For the record, it means the same to me in 21st Century English.
Beside other things.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svj3gFqh6m6U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
You are in denial |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:10 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
|
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:12 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5cm$55t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
|
You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svj3gFqh6m6U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
Although it might possibly be true that the bible |
was not meant to be taken literally, if it is taken
literally then I am right, and you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:20 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5cm$55t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit.
grin |
*I* haven't quit because I didn't start in the first place. I have
simply watched as the kinder souls around here, who thought you had come
to engage in informed debate, have devoted time and energy in futile
attempts to open your mind a little. Much of the misery in the world is
caused by people who know they are right.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:21 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John Flynn" <johnpf@lineone.net> wrote in message news:Xns9703ED1A2807AJOHNPF@213.123.26.234...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit.
I quit when it became obvious that you were clueless about how
natural languages worked and you were stuck in some formal-language-
based fantasy land.
--
johnF
"Man, for example, may feel the need to become familiar with sheep."
-- _The Origins and Nature of Language_, Giorgio Fano (1962)
|
Any infallible communication is necessarily a formalism.
This of course would not apply to fallible communications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:25 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5vi$lnd$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5cm$55t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit.
grin
*I* haven't quit because I didn't start in the first place. I have simply watched as the kinder souls around here, who thought you
had come to engage in informed debate, have devoted time and energy in futile attempts to open your mind a little. Much of the
misery in the world is caused by people who know they are right.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
|
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside {the bullfrog}.
{the bullfrog} is the {big green one}, and there is none else.
Show me how this statement possibly allows for more than one
bullfrog, or anything else besides this one bullfrog. If you can do
this correctly then I am refuted. If this cannot be done correctly
that I am proven correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svf0qFqbadcU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv8p3Fq55k8U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of
"none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the
piece
of early modern English you quote.
So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
You know perfectly well that I have offered a sensible explanation.
Your X and Y substitution looks very like intellectual dishonesty, as
it seems designed to produce the answer you want.
I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
{only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
There really is no difficulty: you are trying to force a perverse
interpretation on a simple text. Isaiah 45:5 even explains it: "I
[am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside
me:". It goes on, through v6: "I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord, and [there is]
none else." The chapter continues, with the speaker listing things
that he has made: that is to say, things nobody else has made. It is
about God's sole divinity, not a call to pantheism.
It is essential to contextualise any passage of literature. What you
appear to be doing is taking your own interest in producing a form of
English which needs no context to establish meaning, and projecting
it back onto an author who had no such intention. One can't do that;
and even if one could, the word "none" in an early modern English
sentence of this type cannot have the meaning "nothing".
I already carefully checked this with the original Hebrew. |
The Mystical traditions of Christianity and Judaism both
agree with my meaning of the verse below. This is esoteric
rather than exoteric meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/1c80a64c643e746b |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying. Nothing besides
X exists. How could this meaning change if all the words are left
the same, except for a substitution of what these words apply to?
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES mean
"no other Lord".
|
Not "no other Lord", "no other god". "Lord" is just the euphemism for
th guy's name. The "none" refers to the "Beside Me, there is no god"
in the previous verse.
| Quote: | It will help if you read the context, even if only that one
chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT pantheism.
|
Not even close. This may have been near the beginning of monotheism,
though.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:10:14 +0000, Laura F Spira
<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
[...]
I can't do this any more.
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
|
Exactly the sentiment I was about to express, but wanted to see
Laura's comment first. I killfiled the man early one; these days, I
skip most of the many responses to the fellow, too. This phenomenon
reminds me of when Spencer Hines used to post here, trolling, it
seemed to me, for responses. It surprised me that he got so many.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
|
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078.658862.15550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here:
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
|
That depends what you mean by 'clearly', and what you mean by
'understood'. They are abstract terms, and somewhat ambiguous.
| Quote: | It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
|
That's an unprovable assertion unless you have direct access to the
mind of the writer at the instant of writing. In fact, your only access
is what was written, and, of course, the context and your familiarity
with the writer, and all the rest of it.
| Quote: | We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
|
No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
| Quote: | impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
|
You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
evidence. The only alternative is for you to claim that you have the
unique correct interpretation that you claim exists. It's either forget
the claim, or surrender to megalomania (the monomania is already
evident).
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in