So much is discussed on BPL that has very little to do with backpacking. I, for one, would enjoy reading more of what you have to say about language.

Kat:

Speaking of language... totally off topic, I am no linguist, but I find this tidbit fascinating: the word for "universe".

The European term (Latin) is derived philosophically. 'The One'.

The Chinese term is made up of two words 宇宙 -- pronounced yu zhou - meaning space / time.

So Miss Universe is translated Miss SpaceTime in Chinese. I think Einstein (E=MC²) would have liked the Chinese term.

Oftentimes, how a people form their words tells lots of about how they view the world around them.

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 19:17:20 MDT.

How about this, kat?

Language - it's not perfect in any of it's 6,000 variations, but most of the time it works!

I was hoping for more.... I studied Linguistics but did not finish my degree.

The spirit has nothing to do with religion, invisible sky people or faith. I have a consciousness that other animals on this planet lack, that consciousness is my spirit. It is my essence, who I am beyond the physical manifestation of Steve, which is blood, muscle, and sadly, way too much fat. When I am dead I will no longer be Steve, just a lump of meat for microbes. My spirit is greater than my life force, consciousness is the key.

And language is flexible and constantly changing. Google it.

"The European term (Latin) is derived philosophically. 'The One'. "

All along I thought that was the name of a shelter.

--B.G.--

Thanks Ben. I missed your post somehow.

Steve:

You certainly have a point. But claiming about an essence or a spirit that is greater than your life force -- I think you will run into the same (or similar) problems we religious believers run into: how do you prove it definitively to the skeptics? I am thinking that having a "consciousness" is about as far as we can go in terms of universal acceptance -- if only because everyone this side of vegetative state can sense 'consciousness' without problem.

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 19:34:56 MDT.

Prove what exactly, we all have a consciousness, it is apparent. A set of twins who look identical have separate consciousnesses and that too is apparent. My physiological processes are my life force, but my personality, capacity for knowledge, and ability to reason are paramount to who I am. There is no mystical element that is required, no book to devote my life to, or church to support with my earnings. The only person that would be skeptical is one who is not alive or is unable to reason by order of mental defect or retarded development.

Edited by asciibaron on 03/21/2012 19:49:18 MDT.

Steve -- I already wrote above that having a consciousness is as far as we can go without needing to prove it to anyone -- simply because it is something that we are all aware of. 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.

"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.

Edited by asciibaron on 03/21/2012 20:04:22 MDT.

" 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.

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 20:13:05 MDT.

"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.