So in a socratic approach (i am sure there are a few who know how to dissect an argument within the soc better than i) can we address that concept philosophically (mankind creating 'definitions') Since the universe is what 'we the people' are defining with the sciences and words; then 'we' are within the universe creating something new (words) that didn't exist before we began walking, thinking and comprehending within a conscious platform of 'self awareness'. Is this concept relevant to the progression of knowledge? WHY? and is this something new in the eyes of learning? (has anyone seen this type of analogy before?) {mankind creating words to describe} please show references
"...you give it a name, and you think you have understood it. Is not the very naming of the thing a hindrance to the understanding of it?" J Krishnamurti Bombay, February 12, 1950
but the ancient bishadi wisdom; "when first born; if mom don't show you the boob, you go hungry bow bow bow" first order; learn (the name) could a 'boob' mean food to a newby baby? gotta go (getting hungry) i see the concept of 'comprehending the process' as what is important, not possessing the control or isolation, being the good of knowledge the idea above seems more like the evil of isolating an 'identity' (kind of like a person trying to pigeon hole your opinion into a belief system; 'dah arr... he's just a 'blank' he don't know anyting') but to see the bird fly, then you are experiencing what you comprehend by the words learned (removes the suffering of being 'unaware') kind of a catch 22 based on the intent (my opinion)
Only as far as humans are concerned: the universe doesn't "care". No, it's not an analogy and it isn't new. It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks, that mankind creates words, since we use language... Also wrong: a baby doesn't need to learn the name, and in fact doesn't actually do so for a while. Words are irrelevant and totally meaningless to a new-born. Wrong again: the word means nothing, it's the concept that counts. No you aren't. Words aren't required to experience (and in fact words don't do anything but try to convey experience in this case - it doesn't matter how good your dictionary is, nothing but flying like a bird will give you the knowledge of doing so, description is a poor second.
You can know what things are before knowing the name for it, this is cause for much frustration...giving it a proper name helps describing something to others, but doesn't matter much to yourself (you know what you mean before you have found the word for it). I do think that words can be good for association and learning new things though. It might also help thoughts form concepts and remembrence of these concepts.
Aren't words usually made in reference to things? Isn't the "universe" one such thing that houses many other things, including "mankind"?
why emphasize "usually"? are words describing abstract concepts of lesser importance? is "red" as a wavelength more relevant than the experience of it?
