nature=church?

"Tell me if I misunderstand, but I take that to mean "words mean whatever an individual chooses them to mean". That to me is both nonsensical and unrealistic."

Within broad parameters established by cultural usage at a point in time, that is essentially true, IMO. Language is in constant flux, with words acquiring new meanings constantly. When enough people agree on a new meaning it becomes part of the general language, but it always begins with one person. How do you think languages developed in the first place? Think about that for a minute, Ben, and then tell me I am being nonsensical and unrealistic. I have a question for Nick at this point by way of giving a concrete example. I once read that African American slang evolves at a very rapid pace, to the point where words often acquire a different meaning in a matter of months. A more definite example is the difference between Old English and Modern English, which applies to just about any other languge that I am familiar with as well.

Tom — give it up. The point in time is "now".

And Tom… when you and I share that vat of boiling nylon in Hades — we won't even notice it. Our true hell will be our close proximity to each other for all eternity with no bathroom breaks! :)

"The point in time is "now"."

is it?

Colonel Sandurz: You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

" but simply, that very definition does not fit the beliefs of atheists who honestly and genuinely recognize no higher power!"

So they call the same feelings by a different name, or no name at all. When you try to force them to use a word to describe their feelings that does not agree with their belief system, you are limiting their ability to communicate with you. It brings to mind Christian missionaries during the colonial period assuming native populations had no legitimate religion or spirituality because their belief systems were not Christian and our English words, as taught to them, did not describe how they felt.

"It's the things you said about "an essence or a spirit that is greater than your life force". You can't prove that to anyone who believe that humans are merely animals — maybe with a higher IQ."

sure, simply ask them to hop on one foot and count to four. then ask them if any other animals can do that. my cat might be able to do it, but he could care less and would just lick his crouch in defiance.

No, Tom. Slow down and read…

They call the same feelings by the same names. But as non believers of any higher power, they would attribute those feelings in the woods (i.e. peace, joy, sense of general wellness, etc.) to sources other than spiritual. What those sources are, they will have to discern for themselves.

As 'spiritual' and 'science' are widely defined and accepted…Christian Scientist and Spiritual atheists are both illogical, inaccurate and thus nonsensical terms.

"But as non believers of any higher power, they would attribute those feelings to sources other than spiritual"

you have a very limited definition of the word "spiritual" – the word is broader than a religious context.

— adj
1. relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
2. of, relating to, or characteristic of sacred things, the Church, religion, etc
3. standing in a relationship based on communication between the souls or minds of the persons involved: a spiritual father
4. having a mind or emotions of a high and delicately refined quality

"The definition in the Webster dictionary that they might not be able to accept? And thus implies a denial of feelings? Are there not other words people can use? Isn't that what vocabulary is about?"

More likely it just doesn't describe precisely what they are feeling and trying to communicate. Why do people everywhere commonly use slang in their everyday communications, to the point with minority groups where they essentially develop a language unintelligible to speakers of the parent language, African American dialect here, Creole in Haiti, C0ckney in England, and so on. If that is being difficult, then I plead guilty. I could reply in an equally insulting manner to you, but I would rather conclude by agreeing that our exchange in this thread has reached a dead end.

I had to misspell C0ckney to assuage the profanity police.

"Dictionaries, like Websters, are only useful as far as establishing some basis upon which to attempt to use and understand widely accepted language to a certain extent. This extent is often breached and exceeded when emotional or nonlinear concepts are cited. Again, like spirituality, faith, infinity, etc."

+1 This is essentially what I have been trying to get across. I would add that dictionaries usually lag behind the evolving use of the words they contain and try to define at a fixed point in time.

Steven:

Source? I don't see #4 in Websters. As well….it is pretty obvious that linking "high", "delicate", "refined" qualities to the "spirit" (hence spiritual) reflect the understanding and doing's of religious believers.

Going back to how you attribute the source(s) of your feelings of joy, amazement, general sense of well being, etc. (the words are my descriptions) when you are in the woods… I can't help but wonder if your entire being was venturing into Agnosticsim?? I can be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's just semantics the way you described your feelings of "spirituality"…

I hope you won't feel offended by my asking above… because none is intended.

"According to Wittgenstein, words are like tools in a toolbox. Words are instruments of language which may have varying uses, according to the purposes for which language may be used. The varying ways in which words may be used help to structure our concepts of reality."

Does he take into account the dynamic nature of language and how the constant accumulation of new knowledge alters both language and the words which it uses to convey meaning?

"Christianity: A big part of the problem there is that there are so many different varieties of Christianity. I was working with a guy who wanted to do a world-wide survey of how different Christian churches used/interacted with the bible, and he had a list of some 4,000 different types of Christian churches! I couldn't imagine the N needed for good stats on something like that! And to accurately identify, describe and catalog all those you'd need some sort of Linnaeun system such as that used to deal with different types birds, lizards or oak trees! Then you'd have to make sure you had agreement on your categorization of all the Christian species…."

Precisely what I was getting at.

"Conveying meaning: Always a problem, which shows the value of standardized word meanings. One of the big problems I have with Critical Theory writings is not that power is always an issue, but they way Critical theorists seem to change the meaning of their words every nine pages! Drives me nuts! But in any language, word meanings change with time and social environment. Complicating things yet more is that while a message originates in the mind/mouth/keyboard of the "speaker", the message communicated blossoms in the mind of the receptor – and there is NEVER a 100% correlation between the speaker's intended message and the receptors received message."

We are completely on the same page. I wish I had read this before I replied to Ben. I would have just referred him to you. :)

"And I'm going to stop here, because, as a professor of applied linguistics, I'm getting dangerously close to lecturing about language on backpackinglight, and that just seems wrong!"

Any time you feel in the mood, I can guarantee you will have at least one pupil. In the first row.

"Does he take into account the dynamic nature of language and how the constant accumulation of new knowledge alters both language and the words which it uses to convey meaning?"

Over time, Tom!. Which is why I quoted Websters — contemporary usage for our discussion today. In any case, even with "language creep" over time — that is a far, far cry from what you originally wrote, and I quote:

"What, if anything, one chooses to call it, is up to the the individual"!

So you slipped. Big deal. No need to be so desperate.

But yeah, I am sure you will want the last word — because you always do. So please, go ahead, knock yourself out. Over.

I don't detect any desperation in the arguments that language is constantly evolving and that the connotation for the same word can be vastly different between individuals. The images that come to one's mind when they hear the word "fear" or "love" or even a simple one such as "home" are very unique. We have agreed to use language as a tool to make communication easier and quicker, but when it comes to less tangible concepts, it becomes tricky to pin one down with an exact meaning.

"Tom — give it up. The point in time is "now"."

That was several thens ago, Ben. :)

"I don't see #4 in Websters"

the source is the Collins English Dictionary.

there is a great deal not in Websters and any student of language will have several dictionaries. i own five English dictionaries, including an OED and Websters. i studied etymology in college.

language not a fixed constant. slang is an interesting thing:

i could give you the skinny but you might ring the coppers on the blower and then the jig would be up. i don't need some copper clocking my melon over a twist.

"it is pretty obvious that linking "high", "delicate", "refined" qualities to the "spirit" (hence spiritual) reflect the understanding and doing's of religious believers."

obvious to whom exactly? a shared word does not a lexicon make. slang is a commonplace landscape where the everyday language has been co-oped and turned against the common meaning.

Kat:

The debate only started with what Tom wrote: "What, if anything, one chooses to call it, is up to the individual!"

He has been reframing his defenses every which way — from my supposed denial of another's feelings (which I showed him was nothing of the sort) to now, about language constantly evolving.

Yes, we all know that word meanings change constantly — but also quite slowly. It's a desperate defense on his part — reacting to my Webster's dictionary explanation. As well, no velocity of language creep could ever justify what he wrote above — that people can use whatever words they want!

"So you slipped. Big deal. No need to be so desperate.

But yeah, I am sure you will want the last word — because you always do. So please, go ahead, knock yourself out. Over."

C'mon Ben. Now you are getting downright obnoxious. Maybe time to give it a rest?

I'm outta here. You're starting to bore me.

"I don't detect any desperation in the arguments that language is constantly evolving and that the connotation for the same word can be vastly different between individuals."

The thing you have to understand about Ben, Kat, is that he was an accountant for many years and continues to think like one to this day: Everything very precise, arrayed in rows and columns, each term with its precise, immutable definition. All very comforting and reassuring, offering certitude and confidence in one's perceptions of reality. Unfortunately, life is a messy affair where certitude and its offspring are the province of fanatics and fools, sort of like Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

I wonder if we changed the word "atheist" in Ben's statement to "materialist" if it would better express what (I think) Ben might be trying to say?

Something like, "By definition, a materialist, one who believes that nothing outside the material world exists, would be unable to say s/he had a spiritual (if defined as an experience of or in the spiritual realm) experience, unless the materialist were to define "spiritual" as a heightened sensual state brought on by a serendipitous arrangement of sensual experience.

Thus the materialist could experience a heightened sense of arousal while contemplating a sequoia grove, but if confronted with an apparent angelic being, would have to resort to defining it as a hallucination brought on perhaps by the anchovy pizza s/he had for lunch."

How far off am I, Ben?

this thread has crossed into the pedantic. words are used to define many things and concepts, and many fall short. the best example is when a term in a foreign language has no literal translation into English. the concept expressed by that foreign phrase or word simply does not exist in parallel in English because of a culture difference.

kummerspeck is a great example, everyone loves bacon, right?

Steven, dictionaries are indeed notorious for always being behind the times!

But they can be helpful – we have an old thick Webster's that we used to sit my son on when he was young and needed a haircut! ;)

My apologies for not getting off the lecture soon enough!

i think Ben needs to replace "atheist" with "engineer"

:)

“Something like, “By definition, a materialist, one who believes that nothing outside the material world exists, would be unable to say s/he had a spiritual (if defined as an experience of or in the spiritual realm) experience, unless the materialist were to define “spiritual” as a heightened sensual state brought on by a serendipitous arrangement of sensual experience.

Thus the materialist could experience a heightened sense of arousal while contemplating a sequoia grove, but if confronted with an apparent angelic being, would have to resort to defining it as a hallucination brought on perhaps by the anchovy pizza s/he had for lunch.””

I don’t know about anyone else, but thanks to grampa I’m suddenly feeling quite ‘frisky,’ and rather hungry as well. Which to attend to first, the angel or the anchovy. Decisions, decisions……..

I’ll consult Webster’s for assistance…