The Worst Translation in History

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

The ground of being is not physical, but of signification.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

Dioscuri wrote:The ground of being is not physical, but of signification.
That's what the old, "wrong" version means.


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.
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

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.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Parodite »

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.
But what is your personal idea about this?

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" ? :roll:
Deep down I'm very superficial
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

"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.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Enki »

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.
You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.

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
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Parodite »

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 "who" is it that "I" am talking to now, who says the above?
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.
So all that "exists" is the Signifier. How did "you" come to that conclusion?
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.
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.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

Parodite wrote:
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 "who" is it that "I" am talking to now, who says the above?
We only follow the words, and we say what the words necessitate our saying.
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.
So all that "exists" is the Signifier. How did "you" come to that conclusion?
Have you ever seen something that wasn't a One (or a group of Ones)?
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.
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.
It means that being conscious is an interference at the quantum level.
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

Enki wrote:
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.
You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.
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.
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.
"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.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

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.
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.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by noddy »

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.
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").
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").
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd.

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
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

Ibrahim wrote:
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.
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.

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?
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

Dioscuri wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
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.
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.

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?
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.

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.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Endovelico »

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.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Parodite »

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
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

Enki wrote:You do not make an allowance for the truth of operational subsets that are true at one scale but not another.
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.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

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.
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.
God creates order out of chaos because he is, by nature order.
Nah.
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.
But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.

What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Anything.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Marcus »

Dioscuri wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?
Anything.
Sally_Forth.jpg
Sally_Forth.jpg (64.47 KiB) Viewed 996 times
"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
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

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.
Very good. People professing 'personal ideas' tend towards being 'unique individuals' possessed of 'originality'. We know what they are like, best to move on............

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.........
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

Dioscuri wrote:
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.
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.
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.



God creates order out of chaos because he is, by nature order.
Nah.
Yuh-hu.

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.
But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.
Says you. Examples?


What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Anything.
So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
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.
Very good. People professing 'personal ideas' tend towards being 'unique individuals' possessed of 'originality'. We know what they are like, best to move on............

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........
The term I'd go with here is "pet theories."
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Dioscuri »

Ibrahim wrote:
Dioscuri wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes a literal translation is important, and often they will not be mellifluous in the second language.

But not coherent? You can, like, read, right?

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.
But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.
Says you. Examples?
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.

What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Anything.
So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.
I asked this of Parodite and he did not respond, so perhaps it has produced some enlightenment, and perhaps it will for you too.

Have you ever seen anything that was not a One of something?
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by Ibrahim »

Dioscuri wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Dioscuri wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes a literal translation is important, and often they will not be mellifluous in the second language.

But not coherent? You can, like, read, right?
Rather well, thus my position that your personal translation is incoherent.

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.

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.
But what you're not saying is not obvious, and not widely accepted, and nevertheless it is so.
Says you. Examples?
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.
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.

What is "the Signifier" supposed to be?.
Anything.
So you don't really have an answer. That's cool, I didn't think you did.
I asked this of Parodite and he did not respond, so perhaps it has produced some enlightenment, and perhaps it will for you too.
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.


Have you ever seen anything that was not a One of something?
Why yes, grasshopper. And you will find the answers you seek..... when you cease asking questions. *twirls fu manchu moustache*
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by noddy »

Now, a wise man might prove me wrong by describing, in palin English for all to see
ya all, i can see the one, and i shot the f*cker.
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The Worst Translation in History

Post by noddy »

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.
ultracrepidarian
Post Reply