The Paradox of Existence

[Drifter]

Morphology,

Fundamental concepts

Lexemes and word forms

The distinction between these two senses of "word" is arguably the most important one in morphology. The first sense of "word", the one in which dog and dogs are "the same word", is called a lexeme. The second sense is called word form. We thus say that dog and dogs are different forms of the same lexeme. Dog and dog catcher, on the other hand, are different lexemes, as they refer to two different kinds of entities. The form of a word that is chosen conventionally to represent the canonical form of a word is called a lemma, or citation form.

Prosodic word vs. morphological word

Here are examples from other languages of the failure of a single phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of 'NOUN-PHRASE1 and NOUN-PHRASE2' (as in "apples and oranges") is to suffix '-que' to the second noun phrase: "apples oranges-and", as it were. An extreme level of this theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak'wala language.[3] In Kwak'wala, as in a great many other languages, meaning relations between nouns, including possession and "semantic case", are formulated by affixes instead of by independent "words". The three-word English phrase, "with his club", where 'with' identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and 'his' denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or even just one word in many languages. Unlike most languages, Kwak'wala semantic affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically, but to the preceding lexeme. Consider the following example (in Kwakw'ala, sentences begin with what corresponds to an English verb):[4]

kwixʔid-i-da bəgwanəmai-χ-a q'asa-s-isi t'alwagwayu

Morpheme by morpheme translation:
kwixʔid-i-da = clubbed-PIVOT-DETERMINER bəgwanəma-χ-a = man-ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINER q'asa-s-is = otter-INSTRUMENTAL-3SG-POSSESSIVE t'alwagwayu = club. "the man clubbed the otter with his club"
(Notation notes:
1.accusative case marks an entity that something is done to.
2.determiners are words such as "the", "this", "that".
3.the concept of "pivot" is a theoretical construct that is not relevant to this discussion.)

That is, to the speaker of Kwak'wala, the sentence does not contain the "words" 'him-the-otter' or 'with-his-club' Instead, the markers -i-da (PIVOT-'the'), referring to man, attaches not to bəgwanəma ('man'), but instead to the "verb"; the markers -χ-a (ACCUSATIVE-'the'), referring to otter, attach to bəgwanəma instead of to q'asa ('otter'), etc. To summarize differently: a speaker of Kwak'wala does not perceive the sentence to consist of these phonological words:

kwixʔid i-da-bəgwanəma χ-a-q'asa s-isi-t'alwagwayu

clubbed PIVOT-the-mani hit-the-otter with-hisi-club

A central publication on this topic is the recent volume edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2007), examining the mismatch between prosodic-phonological and grammatical definitions of "word" in various Amazonian, Australian Aboriginal, Caucasian, Eskimo, Indo-European, Native North American, West African, and sign languages. Apparently, a wide variety of languages make use of the hybrid linguistic unit clitic, possessing the grammatical features of independent words but the prosodic-phonological lack of freedom of bound morphemes. The intermediate status of clitics poses a considerable challenge to linguistic theory.

[Drifter]

I`ve been into spirituality since I was quite young, read many books and studied many theories but I`ve yet to come across someone who speaks with the clarity of Tolle. He is easily the greatest teacher I have come across. I would advise people if you only read one more book in this life, read The Power of Now.

Why not let those who choose to speak negatively, speak as they will. There is really no need to respond or acknowledge those comments. Remember not to be "pulled into the unnecessary". It's really not important is it? Your time could be better spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fVg6pWDdgo

[Drifter]

Come to Daddy!

http://www.youtube.com/​watch?v=txTs...rel​ated

10 signs of a spiritual awakening

Plz comment and share with others I did not make this video.

[Mikal]

No view but logic, Mikal, will I enforce (: I am, 15 and ~2 months, and amused to suddenly realise that perhaps I have brought the average down much more substantially than previously wondered... heheh.

I have the impression that to attack my theory, you must explain how it is possible, through the mind, to determine what is outside of the mind. The reason I am so adamant that it is impossible is the basis of it, that existence is equal to awareness, so determining the objective is akin to determining the non-existent, as the objective only exists as a conception (Conscious Interpretation). If it is reasonable to infer on the truly objective, as in, independent of the mind, it is reasonable to proclaim the inconceivable, conceivable. It is drummed into the individual, constantly and through many means, that there are other entities, yet our awareness determines these entities.

I have communicated, that I can explain all memories and occurrences I am conscious of under this outlook. A common sight of bird "behaviour" is very little to the many social interactions I have been privy to, and so we are on a level beyond experience and subjectivity, in dealing with essence and reason.

That is interesting Austin... The nature of the awareness? All that is known is what the awareness determines we are conscious of, at any given time. You say "that is a lot of modelling"... what is a lot, what is modelling? Everything is, through awareness, it is a system the same as any mathematical equation, and it is necessary. How it is necessary we cannot know, at least I do not think so, because the memory of the infinite existence of the individual is not retained. It is interesting, that this particular state of awareness must be...

There is a problem with logic and conceivability; the physical that holds information we access is also strewn with non-physical, intangible information more difficult to access.

Those things, objects, entities existing outside of you are there—biology is a physical fact of life and existence. Biology defines a low-level structural system that entails a dependence relationship between such high-level phenomena and concepts such as electrons, protons, atoms etc. The lower-level structural system is one set of facts that fully determine the high-level facts and vice versa.

David Chalmers states, ‘given the nature of our access to external phenomena, we should expect a materialist account of any such phenomena to succeed. Our knowledge of these phenomena is physically mediated, by light, sound, and other perceptual media. Given the causal closure of the physical, we should expect phenomena that we observe by these means to be logically supervenient (a relationship between two sets of properties) on the physical—otherwise we would never know about them.’—The Conscious Mind, pg. 169

We could easily apply here, ‘as above, so below.’

The mind determines what is outside of itself through distinctiveness (individuality/difference) of self from other.

What ‘awareness’ are you giving priorities to??

There are various kinds of awareness—introspection as awareness of internal state, attention as a high degree of awareness of an object or event, Self-consciousness as awareness of oneself. Awareness is a functional notion of consciousness.

Awareness can be broadly analyzed as a state wherein we have access to some information and we can use that information in control of behavior. Awareness of information generally brings with it the ability to knowingly direct behavior depending on that information. —D. Chalmers

You cannot say existence is equal to awareness and then claim that everything outside of you that is the source holding information that awareness can access does not exist—this is a contradiction and makes no sense.

Rather than saying ‘awareness determines entities’ it seems more reasonable to say that ‘objective entities determine that your function of awareness can access information from them.


Kind regards Mikal

[Keep Relentless]

Mikal, I would be silenced immediately if there was a basis for the notion that the mind may interpret what is beyond the mind... more than "it is fact"... ? You see the world "around" you, how is it not inside of you, if you see it? Same deal for dreams, you do not consider dreams as more than a product of your mind, do you? If so, only because you are awake.

Awareness is internal perception, and that is what I acknowledge as existence... for there is no representation outside of the awareness, and all words that may be used to describe the external are concepts, and the concepts themselves are a component of the awareness.

Awareness must be its own source, it is the set that we speak of when we refer to existence, and it makes no less sense to proclaim the awareness all, the necessary set in and of itself, than it does to refer to anything else as it... as motion is necessary by virtue of its existence, the awareness needs no causal explanation, the explanation is simply that it is necessary, exactly as it is.

[melanie]

http://www.youtube.com/​watch?v=txTs...rel​ated

10 signs of a spiritual awakening

Plz comment and share with others I did not make this video.

Your link didn't work this side of the water Drift.

Try this one ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txTsbeuY5gM

I've felt all the symptoms in this video....especially the voices and buzzing in the ears.

I love the little 'clay coloured morph' at the end of the video...cute!

[melanie]

Why not let those who choose to speak negatively, speak as they will. There is really no need to respond or acknowledge those comments. Remember not to be "pulled into the unnecessary". It's really not important is it? Your time could be better spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fVg6pWDdgo

ET is the best.


Nothing has ever upset you. No one has ever hurt you. -Anthony De Mello

All conflict comes from attachment. –Anthony de Mello

[melanie]

You can't 'figure your way out' of the conceptual prison that your mind has created.
The mind cannot 'see' outside the mind.
Freedom can come only when you leave the entire conceptual framework behind. -Ed Muzika

[Drifter]

You can't 'figure your way out' of the conceptual prison that your mind has created.
The mind cannot 'see' outside the mind.
Freedom can come only when you leave the entire conceptual framework behind. -Ed Muzika

REPTILLIANS!!

The ICKE is RIGHT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz91F2PdyPM

love ya
d.

[Drifter]

The best that scientific-minds have come up with is still a monstrocity-of-a-thing compared to the lowest of Divinations (Creative Energys) Living Creations!
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mo...sp_montauk.htm