What's going on in the minds?

[WhyIsThatSo]

And to save you some time, you won't find the true meaning anywhere is any kind of "book" that defines words.
Because the true meaning was lost long ago and has never resurfaced in any way except as it is falsely
understood today . In other words, the true meaning of this word is a secret today, known only by those who
truly know what "evil" is.

 

[Polymath257]

And to save you some time, you won't find the true meaning anywhere is any kind of "book" that defines words.
Because the true meaning was lost long ago and has never resurfaced in any way except as it is falsely
understood today . In other words, the true meaning of this word is a secret today, known only by those who
truly know what "evil" is.

No, the true meaning of the word is how people use it. And there are a variety of ways people use the word.

Dictionaries tend to be descriptive, and not proscriptive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand very well what you are describing. But the problem is that people ( in general ) don't understand that true "hearing" has NOTHING to do with physical ears. True "hearing" means to "understand" ( standing beneath it, looking up into it ).

Do you "hear" (understand) me now ?

I had to read this. You're confusing "to hear" with "to listen." Hearing has to do with sound. Listen is the meaning and interpretation you receive from the sounds you hear. When you put meaning to that sound, we develop some sort of language to communicate that meaning with others. Some people hear sounds in their head (when you think, you can hear different tones-loud, soft-the reason is described in the OP link) others do not. Yet, they understand just fine because understanding has nothing to do with "true hearing" but listening; and, does not need to be auditory to be understood.

There's no true hearing in the context you're using it. True listening, maybe. But you got the two words mixed up.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

And to save you some time, you won't find the true meaning anywhere is any kind of "book" that defines words.
Because the true meaning was lost long ago and has never resurfaced in any way except as it is falsely
understood today . In other words, the true meaning of this word is a secret today, known only by those who
truly know what "evil" is.

I had to read this. You're confusing "to hear" with "to listen." Hearing has to do with sound. Listen is the meaning and interpretation you receive from the sounds you hear. When you put meaning to that sound, we develop some sort of language to communicate that meaning with others. Some people hear sounds in their head (when you think, you can hear different tones-loud, soft-the reason is described in the OP link) others do not. Yet, they understand just fine because understanding has nothing to do with "true hearing" but listening; and, does not need to be auditory to be understood.

There's no true hearing in the context you're using it. True listening, maybe. But you got the two words mixed up.

So, when somebody says something to you, and then exclaims " Do you hear me" ?
They are asking you if you are deaf ???? Because if they are, then they must be some sort of fool indeed to
think that a deaf person can "hear" them...….please, give me a break .

"Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear "

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, when somebody says something to you, and then exclaims " Do you hear me" ?
They are asking you if you are deaf ???? Because if they are, then they must be some sort of fool indeed to
think that a deaf person can "hear" them...….please, give me a break .

It is context. In English, the terms differ depending on how you use them.

"Do you hear me, or am I just talking to myself?" This is sound

"Do you hear me, or do I need to rephrase what I'm saying?" This is understanding

"Are you listening to me, or am I talking to myself?" Are you paying active attention to me (doesn't have to do with sound)

"Are you listening to me, or do I need to rephrase what I'm saying?" Did you understand what I'm saying or did you want me to say it in a way you can comprehend?

-

deaf* refers to one's ability to hear. So, if a deaf person did not hear me for whatever reason, it has to do with lack of sound. If I asked the deaf person if she is listening to me (case in point), I am asking about her understanding not their ability to hear sound.

People use the two words interchangeability; just, if you're explaining the definitions, the two are different both in context and in definition.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

It is context. In English, the terms differ depending on how you use them.

"Do you hear me, or am I just talking to myself?" This is sound

"Do you hear me, or do I need to rephrase what I'm saying?" This is understanding

"Are you listening to me, or am I talking to myself?" Are you paying active attention to me (doesn't have to do with sound)

"Are you listening to me, or do I need to rephrase what I'm saying?" Did you understand what I'm saying or did you want me to say it in a way you can comprehend?

-

deaf* refers to one's ability to hear. So, if a deaf person did not hear me for whatever reason, it has to do with lack of sound. If I asked the deaf person if she is listening to me (case in point), I am asking about her understanding not their ability to hear sound.

People use the two words interchangeability; just, if you're explaining the definitions, the two are different both in context and in definition.

Yes, and that's all well and good...
until there is no way that the person can "hear" (understand) what you are talking about.

And they can't "hear" (understand) because everything you say to them is "above their heads" .(beyond their intellect)
BUT , if they had the "understanding" that is required....
If they were "standing beneath" the rhetoric, it would not be "over their heads". Because then , they have a solid foundation,
and they support the ideas, and their minds are not "blown away".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, and that's all well and good...
until there is no way that the person can "hear" (understand) what you are talking about.

And they can't "hear" (understand) because everything you say to them is "above their heads" .(beyond their intellect)
BUT , if they had the "understanding" that is required....
If they were "standing beneath" the rhetoric, it would not be "over their heads". Because then , they have a solid foundation,
and they support the ideas, and their minds are not "blown away".

I don't know if you actually don't get it or talking about something else.

Hear and listen are two different words even though they are used interchangeably.

To hear something refers to sound
To listen to something refers to actively interpreting meaning from the sound you are hearing.

That's the bare bones of it:

What you're saying is based totally based on context.

I hear you fine can mean: I'm not. deaf!

Or it could mean, I hear you fine: I understand what you're saying.

Mean two different things but the same word.

--

As for all of the other things you said, I have no clue. It's a jumble of sorts. Can you type it in full paragraphs or separate the sentences like this

And they can't "hear" (understand) because everything you say to them is "above their heads". (beyond their intellect) BUT , if they had the "understanding" that is required.... If they were "standing beneath" the rhetoric, it would not be "over their heads". Because then , they have a solid foundation, and they support the ideas, and their minds are not "blown away".

or two or three sentences together per line with a space between?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I don't know if you actually don't get it or talking about something else.

Hear and listen are two different words even though they are used interchangeably.

To hear something refers to sound
To listen to something refers to actively interpreting meaning from the sound you are hearing.

That's the bare bones of it:

What you're saying is based totally based on context.

I hear you fine can mean: I'm not. deaf!

Or it could mean, I hear you fine: I understand what you're saying.

Mean two different things but the same word.

--

As for all of the other things you said, I have no clue. It's a jumble of sorts. Can you type it in full paragraphs or separate the sentences like this

And they can't "hear" (understand) because everything you say to them is "above their heads". (beyond their intellect) BUT , if they had the "understanding" that is required.... If they were "standing beneath" the rhetoric, it would not be "over their heads". Because then , they have a solid foundation, and they support the ideas, and their minds are not "blown away".

or two or three sentences together per line with a space between?

All I can tell you is that some things in this world are MORE real than others. People think that everything here, including their
physical bodies is all there is. They don't "understand" that things like principles, and ethics, even what we call metaphors , are the things that are REALLY real. Everything here, including our bodies, will one day rot into oblivion. But the eternal things, the things that can never change, these are all that "really" matters. Yes, I know, you can't believe that. And that's why it's "unbelievable".

Do you "see" what I'm sayin ?

 

[Polymath257]

All I can tell you is that some things in this world are MORE real than others. People think that everything here, including their
physical bodies is all there is. They don't "understand" that things like principles, and ethics, even what we call metaphors , are the things that are REALLY real. Everything here, including our bodies, will one day rot into oblivion. But the eternal things, the things that can never change, these are all that "really" matters. Yes, I know, you can't believe that. And that's why it's "unbelievable".

Do you "see" what I'm sayin ?

I see what you are saying. I just disagree.

Ethics, principles, and (especially) metaphors are NOT real. They are dreams we have cooked up to order our lives. Once humans go away, none of those will remain, but things like planets, atoms, and stars still will.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I see what you are saying. I just disagree.

Ethics, principles, and (especially) metaphors are NOT real. They are dreams we have cooked up to order our lives. Once humans go away, none of those will remain, but things like planets, atoms, and stars still will.

Please Poly....spare me the heroics..
You know full well the molecular/atomic/quantum/infinity "rabbit hole" leads to somewhere.

 

[Polymath257]

Please Poly....spare me the heroics..
You know full well the molecular/atomic/quantum/infinity "rabbit hole" leads to somewhere.

A mindreader, huh? You might want to touch up your skills a bit. They seem to have failed you this time.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

A mindreader, huh? You might want to touch up your skills a bit. They seem to have failed you this time.

Oh....that (rabbit hole) was a "metaphor".

 

[Polymath257]

Oh....that (rabbit hole) was a "metaphor".

I've never quite understood why people get so entranced by metaphors, but not by similes.

*shrug*

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I've never quite understood why people get so entranced by metaphors, but not by similes.

*shrug*

Well Poly, if you could do the "math", ( you are a "scientist", right ? ), then you would know that when you get to "infinity", hang a right at the next "quantum entanglement ", then you will come to what's known as "truth". Now, when you get to truth, you will find only what is true (naturally).

 

[Polymath257]

Well Poly, if you could do the "math", ( you are a "scientist", right ? ), then you would know that when you get to "infinity", hang a right at the next "quantum entanglement ", then you will come to what's known as "truth". Now, when you get to truth, you will find only what is true (naturally).

LOL. Like word salad much?

 

[PureX]

That's not quite how I see it. I think that human cognition is ultimately physical in nature. But I don't think that cognitive states are an illusion any more than i think that pressure or temperature are illusions. They are real processes in the physical world.

I don't think that was the primary motivation for fascism. Or even a secondary motivation. At most, it was a convenient set of ideas for a conclusion they already reached.

I disagree on both counts. The futurists, from which fascism developed, believed that because of science, and the dramatically increased functionality it provided, mankind now had control of it's own destiny. The fascists simply took that to mean that those who were clever enough to recognize this (meaning themselves), and 'take control', were those who most deserved the right to shape that destiny. And emotionalism (like empathy, guilt, etc.) didn't enter into that control because they were attributes of weakness. And controlling human destiny was all about being strong, and self-righteous. (The master race.)

Science is all about eliminating emotional bias to gain knowledge of physical functionality. So the worship of science as the only pathway to truth also tends to reject emotionalism as weakness. And as we saw with the fascists, this is a very dangerous path for humans to walk.

Also, you say that you think that cognition is ultimately physical in nature, and yet you cannot find nor measure the physicality of an idea. You can find and measure the neurons involved in formulating that idea, and you can map the pathways of their interactions, yet you cannot show any physicality of the extraordinary result of those interactions. You can take a picture of the energy being expressed as these neurons interact, but that doesn't embody the result being generated, either. Results that in turn, change the world and define our experience, within it.

 

[Howard Is]

Language is about "understanding"

“It’s OK ! I’ve overstood !
This is a wordy rapping hood !”

 

[Howard Is]

And while we’re on the subject...

 

[Howard Is]

On a roll !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tccpGP80oik

(pardon the schmalz)

 

[Mock Turtle]

“It’s OK ! I’ve overstood !
This is a wordy rapping hood !”

Haven't heard that in a long while. Ta.