Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

And that is the entire problem.

It is an enormously complex problem, yet with the right kind of software tools it would allow a machine to fully comprehend anything that a human comprehends.

[Calm]

Did you read your own cite?

from ne "not" (see no) + an "one"

[peteolcott]

There is "none else" means "there is no-one else." It does not mean "there is no-thing else."

YOur etymology of none was incorrect. I posted a link.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=none

[volgadon]

Apparently not.

http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=none

Not any, well, look at any. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=any&allowed_in_frame=0

[mfbukowski]

Considering the absolute difficulty of two people having a conversation both walking away from that conversation with an identical understanding of what just happened, honestly I have a hard problem to believe that Montague has anything to do with 'real life'.

This is pretty restricted to a particular view of language which really -as you say- has little to do with "philosophy" in a traditional sense and courses in this stuff are offered academically in hybrid departments which are inter-disciplinary with linguistics or computer programming departments. http://www.linguisti...philosophy.html

It assumes Montague's and a logical-positivist point of view, which is of course as we have seen in other links above, a debatable position in a philosophical sense- but again, this has little to do with philosophy in a traditional sense- it is a specialization taught typically through other disciplines.

Edited December 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

YOur etymology of none was incorrect. I posted a link.

http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=none

Check again....

[volgadon]

In my opinion philosophically this is pretty restricted to a particular view of language which really -as you say- has little to do with "philosophy" in a traditional sense and courses in this stuff are offered academically in hybrid departments which are inter-disciplinary with linguistics or computer programming departments. http://www.linguisti...philosophy.html

In my opinion philosophically this is pretty restricted to a particular view of language which really -as you say- has little to do with "philosophy" in a traditional sense and courses in this stuff are offered academically in hybrid departments which are inter-disciplinary with linguistics or computer programming departments. http://www.linguisti...philosophy.html

Anyone reading Montague needs a corrective dose of Dylan Thomas.

[peteolcott]

There is "none else" means "there is no-one else." It does not mean "there is no-thing else."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=none

none (n.) O.E. nan (pron.) "not one, not any," from ne "not" (see no) + an "one" (see one). Cognate with O.S., M.L.G. nen, O.N. neinn, M.Du., Du. neen, O.H.G., Ger. nein "no," and analogous to L. non- (see non-). As an adverb from c.1200. As an adjective, since c.1600 reduced to no except in a few archaic phrases, especially before vowels, such as none other, none the worse.

[none] boils down to {not one}, it does not boil down to {no one}.

[Bill Hamblin]

Anyone reading Montague needs a corrective dose of Dylan Thomas.

Or Monty Python.

[mfbukowski]

Here is another example when taking the words precisely literally derives a completely different meaning:

http://bible.cc/mark/13-19.htm

Mark 13:19 NRSV

For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be.

suffering ... never will be

This indicates the world war three nuclear bombs dropping everywhere Armageddon will not ever happen. If we assume that Christ screwed up and meant to say never will be equaled again, then we get the common meaning that everyone takes as the truth. I assume that Christ did not screw up and said exactly and precisely what he meant, and meant exactly and precisely what he said.

Wow. You are a radical fundamentalist. Kinda scary actually.

Do you speak other languages? Have you ever done any translations whatsoever?

[peteolcott]

Did you read your own cite?

[none] boils down to {not one}, it does not boil down to {no one}.

[volgadon]

Or Monty Python.

Intelligent humour is always a good cure.

[Bill Hamblin]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=none

none (n.) O.E. nan (pron.) "not one, not any," from ne "not" (see no) + an "one" (see one). Cognate with O.S., M.L.G. nen, O.N. neinn, M.Du., Du. neen, O.H.G., Ger. nein "no," and analogous to L. non- (see non-). As an adverb from c.1200. As an adjective, since c.1600 reduced to no except in a few archaic phrases, especially before vowels, such as none other, none the worse.

[none] boils down to {not one}, it does not boil down to {no one}.

And not one boils down to no one.

But far be it from me to quibble. I'll concede that none derives from not one. It still makes my point. It is not "no thing".

[volgadon]

http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=none

none (n.) O.E. nan (pron.) "not one, not any," from ne "not" (see no) + an "one" (see one). Cognate with O.S., M.L.G. nen, O.N. neinn, M.Du., Du. neen, O.H.G., Ger. nein "no," and analogous to L. non- (see non-). As an adverb from c.1200. As an adjective, since c.1600 reduced to no except in a few archaic phrases, especially before vowels, such as none other, none the worse.

[none] boils down to {not one}, it does not boil down to {no one}.

It says right there, see "no."

[mfbukowski]

Not even Montague could have used it that way.

It is relevant I suppose for computer languages.

I bet it is used in google translator!

[Calm]

[none] boils down to {not one}, it does not boil down to {no one}.

"not" (see no)

According to your cite, they are equivalent. Or is your cite incorrect on that?

[peteolcott]

There is "none else" means "there is no-one else." It does not mean "there is no-thing else."

none can be taken to mean [not any] or [not one], it excludes all, ie nothing else

none (n.) O.E. nan (pron.) "not one, not any," from ne "not" (see no) + an "one" (see one). Cognate with O.S., M.L.G. nen, O.N. neinn, M.Du., Du. neen, O.H.G., Ger. nein "no," and analogous to L. non- (see non-). As an adverb from c.1200. As an adjective, since c.1600 reduced to no except in a few archaic phrases, especially before vowels, such as none other, none the worse.

[mfbukowski]

{There is none else} never has and never will mean [there is some else].

Under this logic the bible is self-contradictory and therefore should be discarded. You have already seen verses which describe other Gods.

So what's the answer to that Mr Spock?

[Calm]

none can be taken to mean [not any] or [not one], it excludes all, ie nothing else

You mean there is more than one definition? Shocking! Ambiguity as opposed to precision.

[mfbukowski]

Although there are many different branches of Buddhism, I am not at all confident that many, if any, see "enlightenment" as "union with God." This is your neomystical conflation and idiosyncratic use of language.

Enlightenment (Sanskrit bodhi, Japanese satori) in Buddhism means literally "awakening" not "enlightenment," and technically refers to the recognition of the true nature of reality and the Four Noble Truths. It has nothing to do with "union with God."

Totally correct, absolutely right.

[mfbukowski]

Which is what our dollars will soon be worth. I'm sure you remember fondly the old Israeli shekel!

On the other hand, the old Israeli shekel was never quite as awesome as the Turkish lira!

Did you know that any old silver quarter pre-1964- with no numismatic value- just for silver content- is now worth around 5 bucks?

Where's a time machine when you need one?

[peteolcott]

And not one boils down to no one.

But far be it from me to quibble. I'll concede that none derives from not one. It still makes my point. It is not "no thing".

none == not any == nothing

[mfbukowski]

My grandmother once faced the dillemma of either buying a new pair of shoes, or making a house payment...

We will be seeing variable PRINCIPAL loans I am sure. They have been done in Brazil and other countries. The principal balance is pegged to an inflation factor.

[mfbukowski]

No one that has not had this experience directly first-hand for themselves has the sufficient basis to determine whether or not Union-with-God is not also equally apt. Very few buddhists ever have this experience, thus most are unqualified to speak.

This is a tacit admission that the Buddhist experience is totally different. Fancy that, hey?

Why don't we just say that no one is "qualified" to experience another tradition's experience and then we will have come full circle?

Edited December 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

none == not any == nothing

Did you see where I provided a link to the etymology of "any"?