Text 17 Mar happy st. paddy’s day peeps :)

A little bit more about idioms, can mean a whole lot less to think about… or argue over.

As it turns out, an idiom can be an original form of language unique to a single individual and not necessarily shared by a group. For example, my unique usage of ‘manamana’, whilst sounding quite like ‘banabana’, is an idiom used by a group called: The Muppets.

After having watched their latest movie on Valentines with a few friends, I concluded without a shadow of a doubt that it was very much a classic. How could it not be, Miss Piggy was a cast member, her role: Miss Piggy. Nuff said and like I said a classic…

Anyhoo, The Muppets sing manamana (a lot), as have I since hearing that melodious tune.

But, I guess that’s because the word means something to me, which it doesn’t quite mean to others who don’t sing it (a lot). Still, now that I wonder about it slightly differently, this doesn’t mean that a nonsense word akin to manamana, can’t mean something to others either - in either a lighthearted or heavyhearted way… and I don’t mean in a semantically meaningful way, as though this meaningfulness can be defined, since semantic meaning is meant to exist within the grey matter of our brains: not our hearts.

There’s that reason, and also since checking my dictionaries, manamana doesn’t appear to be a word in english. Well, not quite, the word ‘mana’ is. Moreover, the word bana isn’t a word either, it’s a name: Bana. I’m sure that means something to quite a few people, for example - and this is just a possibility so don’t hold me to it - the Bana’s…

(Just a moment, just a moment… the tumbleweed will roll past soon, please, just give it time.)

…O-kay, so then, how can a meaningless word have or ‘hold’ meaning? To some, at least…

I know the answer to this question, but it can’t be ‘served on a plate’, as the saying goes. Or, in words more plain: a meaningful answer can’t be defined and given away so easily.

Walk what you talk, or you’ll only say what you’ll later fail to mean.

The two big problems or ‘doubts’ being faced here, are:

1) what is meaningful, really? And,

2) can the first question ever be answered - or concluded - through a logical argument?

Time to kill two big birds with one stone (but not the Big Bird :)

The first big bird, isn’t a bird really, but a monster - a sea monster from outer space: Hydra. The only way to slay this Monster, isn’t by trying to argue it to death - this will only produce more arguments. Instead, it needs not to be destroyed, only tamed; and not by whipping it into submission, but by agreeing with it reasonably… in one blow…

…for there can be only one, and only one, thankfully, is needed.

Anyway, here it is - enjoy! :)

As I’ve said before and never having needed to ask myself: where’s the meaning in an abstract conclusion?

“No matter how well defined every term is, in every premise that constitutes the argument for that conclusion; and, no matter how well made the case is, for such an argument, the conclusion itself cannot be meaningful even if the argument’s case were made in an attempt to define meaning itself.”

This argument is well made and its conclusion 100% sound, because the understanding it confers, confers the truth about any argument that claims to tell the truth or purports to confer any meaningful understanding to that effect. To this end, therefore, its meaning lies in its helpfulness. This helpfulness being the understanding that no argument can be defended if it lacks meaning and after understanding this, no further arguments need be made.

Their doubts certainly aren’t gifts, well, it all depends on how you use something or ‘turn it’, that determines its worth, right?

For example, can a destructive force not be used to build a creative energy?

Can pain, for instance, not be used to gain pleasure - meaningful pleasure?

‘No pain: no gain’, as the mantra is often retold in the gym. You tear the muscle through exercise and then it heals stronger than before, making it more robust and healthier yet. But that’s the physical realm and it has limits, what about the spiritually loving realm? Are there any boundaries to such a place? And, if so, can they be expanded upon further? Oh, I wonder, oh yes I do (doo doo, doo doo doo - manamana :)

I believe philosophy can be used creatively, by casting doubt on the destructive beliefs and thoughts they ‘help’ form: thoughts ‘given’ by their ‘thieves’ (be they formed by opinion or argument), to choke beautiful flowers and the odd weed, in an attempt to steal the light - knowingly or not.

Who knows, eh? I wonder indeed… osx

Hydra article with many thanks, courtesy of Wikipedia

Well, am I a Muppet or a Man? Decisions, decisions… ;)


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.