The Worst Translation in History
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The ground of being is not physical, but of signification.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
That's what the old, "wrong" version means.Dioscuri wrote:The ground of being is not physical, but of signification.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
That's what it does say, it's just not what Christians believe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
But what is your personal idea about this?Dioscuri wrote:That's what it does say, it's just not what Christians believe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
Someth like: "The word is not the thing; the word signifies the thing. But without the signifier there would no such thing to begin with" ?
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Worst Translation in History
"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
For some people, all of those fungible details that are theoretically questionable and thus malleable, are not malleable at all but are hard and real truths. In otherwords those orders of intelligences that are hierarchically superior to you set limits that you simply do not have the capacity to cross.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: The Worst Translation in History
So "who" is it that "I" am talking to now, who says the above?Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
So all that "exists" is the Signifier. How did "you" come to that conclusion?The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
I think that is a wrong characterisation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It merely argues that doing measurements at the quantum level means interfering at the quantum level which has a consequence for as how one must understand an outcome where "observer and observed" (i.e. measurement device and what it is supposed to measure) cannot not be seen as separate really. Scientists of all quantum brands however agree there exists an objective world independently of the experiential interface and models that "arise in human consciousness". It is a necessary assumption for science in general and it seems to work out quite well.The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Worst Translation in History
We only follow the words, and we say what the words necessitate our saying.Parodite wrote:So "who" is it that "I" am talking to now, who says the above?Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
Have you ever seen something that wasn't a One (or a group of Ones)?So all that "exists" is the Signifier. How did "you" come to that conclusion?The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
It means that being conscious is an interference at the quantum level.I think that is a wrong characterisation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It merely argues that doing measurements at the quantum level means interfering at the quantum level which has a consequence for as how one must understand an outcome where "observer and observed" (i.e. measurement device and what it is supposed to measure) cannot not be seen as separate really. Scientists of all quantum brands however agree there exists an objective world independently of the experiential interface and models that "arise in human consciousness". It is a necessary assumption for science in general and it seems to work out quite well.The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
This is not a problem. Any subset is a subset of another name, which name in turn has its own set of relations; what it contains and is contained by, what it dominates and is dominated by.Enki wrote:You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
"Hard" in what way? Only insofar as the signifiers dictate perceptions. It is true, the poor are not free to do things they may want because they lack the signifiers to do so, but what they want has also been written for them, it did not come from them. It is just the same for the rich: they are free only to do things that are allowed according to their position; what they "want", are able to imagine, has similarly been written for them. They are not original.For some people, all of those fungible details that are theoretically questionable and thus malleable, are not malleable at all but are hard and real truths. In otherwords those orders of intelligences that are hierarchically superior to you set limits that you simply do not have the capacity to cross.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
I've heard Christians say that very thing. Mostly Jesuit theologians. The idea that God creates the world through speech alone, not action, is an ancient one, and I was under the impression that most Christian churches maintained it. God said "let there be light," etc.Dioscuri wrote:That's what it does say, it's just not what Christians believe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
when dealing with anglo germanics i suspect you also need to keep track of their pre-existing notions on such things so that you can see how those may have changed any original intents.
not related to the bible or greek but part of the interesting movement of words and interpretations that dioscuri is getting at when dealing with anglo germanics interpreting the weirds ;P
The Old English term wyrd derives from a Common Germanic term *wurđíz. Wyrd has cognates in Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt, Old Norse urðr, Dutch worden (to become) and German werden. The Proto-Indo-European root is *wert- "to turn, rotate", in Common Germanic *wirþ- with a meaning "to come to pass, to become, to be due" (also in weorþ, the notion of "worth" both in the sense of "price, value, amount due" and "honour, dignity, due esteem").
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd.Wyrd is a feminine noun, and its Norse cognate urðr, besides meaning "fate", is the name of one of the Norns; urðr is literally "that which has come to pass", verðandi is "what is in the process of happening" (the present participle of the verb cognate to weorþan) and skuld "debt, guilt" (from a Germanic root *skul- "to owe", also found in English shall).
Between themselves, the Norns weave fate or ørlǫg (from ór "out, from, beyond" and lǫg "law", and may be interpreted literally as "beyond law"). According to Voluspa 20, the three Norns "set up the laws", "decided on the lives of the children of time" and "promulgate their ørlǫg". Frigg, on the other hand, while she "knows all ørlǫg", "says it not herself" (Lokasenna 30). ørlǫglausa "ørlǫg-less" occurs in Voluspa 17 in reference to driftwood, that is given breath, warmth and spirit by three gods, to create the first humans, Ask ("Ash") and Embla (possibly "Elm").
not related to the bible or greek but part of the interesting movement of words and interpretations that dioscuri is getting at when dealing with anglo germanics interpreting the weirds ;P
Last edited by noddy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Ibrahim wrote:I've heard Christians say that very thing. Mostly Jesuit theologians. The idea that God creates the world through speech alone, not action, is an ancient one, and I was under the impression that most Christian churches maintained it. God said "let there be light," etc.Dioscuri wrote:That's what it does say, it's just not what Christians believe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
This is not what I say, and not what John says. It's just the opposite, in fact.
God does not "exist" and did not "create the universe." The Signifier said "God," and the universe happened.
Speech is not an action?
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Bertand Russel said that there are only two kids of jobs: changing the location or condition of matter at or near the Earth's surface, and telling people what to do. God has the latter kind of job, except instead of just bossing people around he orders the laws of physics to exist, etc.Dioscuri wrote:Ibrahim wrote:I've heard Christians say that very thing. Mostly Jesuit theologians. The idea that God creates the world through speech alone, not action, is an ancient one, and I was under the impression that most Christian churches maintained it. God said "let there be light," etc.Dioscuri wrote:That's what it does say, it's just not what Christians believe.
I don't hear Christians talking about how language created the universe.
This is not what I say, and not what John says. It's just the opposite, in fact.
God does not "exist" and did not "create the universe." The Signifier said "God," and the universe happened.
Speech is not an action?
God precedes the universe, and yet does not have a physical existence. There is not a giant guy with a "God" nametag digging out fjords with a giant shovel. That's the important part of the quotes you are claiming are translated incorrectly. God creates order out of chaos because he is, by nature order. Word, logos, however one chooses to term it or discuss it the concept is definitely as old as Christianity, and disappears into the mists of early Jewish history. There are even Egyptian precedents that I'm aware of, but Aryan gods like those of Europe or India actually DO things, they don't create or influence creation with words (or Word) alone.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious from existing translations and are, as far as I know, widely accepted norms in theological circles.
What is "the Signifier" supposed to be? This needs to be unpacked, you can't just say "the Signifier said "God"" because you haven't defined the Signifier.
- Endovelico
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
I mentioned on a different thread that I felt that God is not the beginning but the end result of our universe. God didn't create, will be created by the universe's global consciousness. When we speak of God we are simply projecting the future, we have the intuition of God-to-be and imagine he is already there.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Signifier, significance and meaning. Perhaps this essay by David Bohm adds something.
Meaning and Information
by DAVID BOHM
In this book our specific aim is to explore the notion that meaning is a key factor of being, not only for
human beings individually and socially, but perhaps also for nature and for the whole universe.
When we use the term 'meaning', this includes significance, purpose, intention and value. However, these
are only points of departure into the exploration of the meaning of meaning. Evidently, we cannot hope to
do this in a few sentences. Rather, it has to be unfolded as we go along. In any case, there can be no
exhaustive treatment of the subject, because there is no limit to meaning. Here, we can usefully bring in
Korzybski's statement that whatever we say anything is, it isn't. It may be similar to what we say, but it is
also something more and something different. Reality is therefore inexhaustible, and so evidently is
meaning. What is needed is thus a creative attitude to the whole, allowing for the constantly fresh
perception of reality, which requires the unending creation of new meanings. This is especially significant,
in the exploration of the meaning of meaning. [...]
http://www.implicity.org/Downloads/Bohm ... mation.pdf
Deep down I'm very superficial
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Like any good Vedantist knows, you can talk this "all is illusion" lavender until Mother Africa comes home, but you still gotta jump out of the way when an elephant comes barreling down the road.Enki wrote:You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Fjords are still being dug out because of God though. It is faith that moves mountains, after all. People just don't know what it is they have faith in.Ibrahim wrote: God precedes the universe, and yet does not have a physical existence. There is not a giant guy with a "God" nametag digging out fjords with a giant shovel. That's the important part of the quotes you are claiming are translated incorrectly.
Nah.God creates order out of chaos because he is, by nature order.
But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.Word, logos, however one chooses to term it or discuss it the concept is definitely as old as Christianity, and disappears into the mists of early Jewish history. There are even Egyptian precedents that I'm aware of, but Aryan gods like those of Europe or India actually DO things, they don't create or influence creation with words (or Word) alone.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious from existing translations and are, as far as I know, widely accepted norms in theological circles.
Anything.What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Dioscuri wrote:Anything.Ibrahim wrote:What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Very good. People professing 'personal ideas' tend towards being 'unique individuals' possessed of 'originality'. We know what they are like, best to move on............Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
No tree falls in the wood that doesn't make a sound. The minute the thought is conjured up with the physical properties governing the event, the tree is is view. The tree is always in view, it is never not seen. No tree, or trees, however innumerable is ever unseen - that which is thought; is seen. In there is the signifier........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: The Worst Translation in History
You keep claiming this but you have not demonstrated it at all. You assert that standard translations are flawed, but your versions sound atrocious and don't even mean anything different than the standard translations, insofar as they are coherent at all.Dioscuri wrote:Fjords are still being dug out because of God though. It is faith that moves mountains, after all. People just don't know what it is they have faith in.Ibrahim wrote: God precedes the universe, and yet does not have a physical existence. There is not a giant guy with a "God" nametag digging out fjords with a giant shovel. That's the important part of the quotes you are claiming are translated incorrectly.
Yuh-hu.Nah.God creates order out of chaos because he is, by nature order.
Says you. Examples?But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.Word, logos, however one chooses to term it or discuss it the concept is definitely as old as Christianity, and disappears into the mists of early Jewish history. There are even Egyptian precedents that I'm aware of, but Aryan gods like those of Europe or India actually DO things, they don't create or influence creation with words (or Word) alone.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious from existing translations and are, as far as I know, widely accepted norms in theological circles.
So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.Anything.What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The term I'd go with here is "pet theories."Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Very good. People professing 'personal ideas' tend towards being 'unique individuals' possessed of 'originality'. We know what they are like, best to move on............Dioscuri wrote:"I" try not to have "personal ideas," as they are not merely unhealthy but unbecoming of what is proper to a Human.
The notion you punctuated with an eyeroll emoticon is not inaccurate, and yet not really accurate either. "Things" do not "exist" "because of" the Signifier, it is rather that the Signifier is the only "thing" that "exists" at all.
The scoffing of materialists at the notion has been familiar to us for centuries and millennia, and it continues, even while those who are properly informed have known since the Copenhagen Interpretation that the "objectively existing" world-model is simply not scientifically supportable.
No tree falls in the wood that doesn't make a sound. The minute the thought is conjured up with the physical properties governing the event, the tree is is view. The tree is always in view, it is never not seen. No tree, or trees, however innumerable is ever unseen - that which is thought; is seen. In there is the signifier........
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Sometimes a literal translation is important, and often they will not be mellifluous in the second language.Ibrahim wrote:You keep claiming this but you have not demonstrated it at all. You assert that standard translations are flawed, but your versions sound atrocious and don't even mean anything different than the standard translations, insofar as they are coherent at all.Dioscuri wrote:Fjords are still being dug out because of God though. It is faith that moves mountains, after all. People just don't know what it is they have faith in.Ibrahim wrote: God precedes the universe, and yet does not have a physical existence. There is not a giant guy with a "God" nametag digging out fjords with a giant shovel. That's the important part of the quotes you are claiming are translated incorrectly.
But not coherent? You can, like, read, right?
A slight twist can change everything. What I'm saying is, on its face, not too complicated, but that does not mean it is widely accepted. Christian tradition has larded the translation of the beginning of John with unwarranted and heavyhanded references to the person of Jesus, translating "This" as "Him" and whatnot. Reread the thread.Says you. Examples?But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.Word, logos, however one chooses to term it or discuss it the concept is definitely as old as Christianity, and disappears into the mists of early Jewish history. There are even Egyptian precedents that I'm aware of, but Aryan gods like those of Europe or India actually DO things, they don't create or influence creation with words (or Word) alone.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious from existing translations and are, as far as I know, widely accepted norms in theological circles.
I asked this of Parodite and he did not respond, so perhaps it has produced some enlightenment, and perhaps it will for you too.So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.Anything.What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Have you ever seen anything that was not a One of something?
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Rather well, thus my position that your personal translation is incoherent.Dioscuri wrote:Sometimes a literal translation is important, and often they will not be mellifluous in the second language.Ibrahim wrote:You keep claiming this but you have not demonstrated it at all. You assert that standard translations are flawed, but your versions sound atrocious and don't even mean anything different than the standard translations, insofar as they are coherent at all.Dioscuri wrote:Fjords are still being dug out because of God though. It is faith that moves mountains, after all. People just don't know what it is they have faith in.Ibrahim wrote: God precedes the universe, and yet does not have a physical existence. There is not a giant guy with a "God" nametag digging out fjords with a giant shovel. That's the important part of the quotes you are claiming are translated incorrectly.
But not coherent? You can, like, read, right?
Now, a wise man might prove me wrong by describing, in palin English for all to see, what your translation does mean. A lesser man might try and be vague, maybe make passive-aggressive insults, and hope the pointed question eventually die away.
I've read the entire thread. There is nothing to recommend your translation over previous accepted translations, and you will not specify exactly what theological distinctions your translation makes, or why they are significant.A slight twist can change everything. What I'm saying is, on its face, not too complicated, but that does not mean it is widely accepted. Christian tradition has larded the translation of the beginning of John with unwarranted and heavyhanded references to the person of Jesus, translating "This" as "Him" and whatnot. Reread the thread.Says you. Examples?But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.Word, logos, however one chooses to term it or discuss it the concept is definitely as old as Christianity, and disappears into the mists of early Jewish history. There are even Egyptian precedents that I'm aware of, but Aryan gods like those of Europe or India actually DO things, they don't create or influence creation with words (or Word) alone.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious from existing translations and are, as far as I know, widely accepted norms in theological circles.
As uninterested as I am in your vague and unsubstantiated pronouncements, I am even less interested in your excuses for making them. Simply define your terms and work from there. This is all too elementary for you to play the professor.I asked this of Parodite and he did not respond, so perhaps it has produced some enlightenment, and perhaps it will for you too.So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.Anything.What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Why yes, grasshopper. And you will find the answers you seek..... when you cease asking questions. *twirls fu manchu moustache*Have you ever seen anything that was not a One of something?
Re: The Worst Translation in History
ya all, i can see the one, and i shot the f*cker.Now, a wise man might prove me wrong by describing, in palin English for all to see
ultracrepidarian
Re: The Worst Translation in History
now that ive finished having a laugh at a cute typo.
isnt the "one" issue the age old quantitive/qualitive issue we always get when bringing maths into the real world (1) or are we back in the rocks dropping on feet side of it ?
im losing track a bit.
(1) workable subset of the unknowable infinite which our limited senses and puny little brains can keep track of well enough to survive.
isnt the "one" issue the age old quantitive/qualitive issue we always get when bringing maths into the real world (1) or are we back in the rocks dropping on feet side of it ?
im losing track a bit.
(1) workable subset of the unknowable infinite which our limited senses and puny little brains can keep track of well enough to survive.
ultracrepidarian