Posted on May 31, 2014 by SigoTratando
Playing devil’s advocate: “but I don’t ‘fear’ homosexuals”.
I would reply: what are the different words for “love” in the original Greek of the bible? One of them, agápɛ, was more of an attitude that translated to intentional actions that promoted unconditional well-being. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
But that’s not what they’re practicing. It’s quite the opposite: agápɛ ≠ mísia. They can say “love the sinner; hate the sin” all they want. But how that translates is deflection off the sin and onto the sinner. “Tough love” – for my “own good”? The ends justify the means?
I’m thinking that the primary command to “love thy neighbor” and “the greatest of these is love” was meant to show Grace – the very foundation for getting into Heaven – not “toe the line” to spare us sinless-righteous from countenancing your sinfulness and forcing us to live among it.
This is the “Christ” part of christianity. Without it, it’s christianism and its followers christianists. Anything you add to Love becomes a condition; if you condition Grace in anyway, it ceases to be Grace. The light is out.
So, if not agápɛ, then what? Mísia, as in homomisia, homophiliomisia and/or misohomophilia for the perspective and misohomophiliac or misohomo for the person exhibiting it.
I can see hate being how a deep fear is expressed. But I see actions born of fear more like reactions to create barriers. (For example, fear of being invaded would compel deliberate construction of defenses.) Premeditated actions and false-witness based on “tradition,” disapprobation and personal disgust, that’s hate. Seeing dragons in the windmills, that’s disease. Tilting at windmills, that’s a choice.
Let’s call it what it is: hate.
Filed under: Reflection, Religiosity | Tagged: etymology, grace, pathwalking | Leave a comment »
Posted on December 13, 2010 by SigoTratando
While I think that most people in casual dialogue would approximate the meanings of all these words such that they mean pretty much the same thing, I think looking into the etymologies of the words is instructive.
Content: from Latin continere, to contain => contentus, contained — in the context where a person’s desires are bound by what he already has. There was a point in my life where I was astoundingly content in the sense that I was not frustrated by what I lacked, including having possessions, a place of my own to sleep, oodles of money. At the same time I also knew that my standards could evolve, but that contentedness could only be maintained by aligning my emotions to things as they happened in the present.
Satisfied: from Latin “make enough”; related to the ‘sat-‘ in saturate and satiate, where ‘sat’ refers to being full or drenched. I think our formal meaning remains: something is satisfying when it has reached the point of being enough to suit some end. So the state of being satisfied would be resting no longer concerned in the fact that some personal criteria, concern, etc. has been met.
Happy is more related to an delighted emotion or positive reaction. Dictionary definitions use words like “delighted, pleased, jubilant, elated, joyous.” My dog is a very happy dog, wagging his tail nearly always. He appears to be enjoying (another associated term) his circumstances. He could also be happy by nature, where he simply enjoys life or his interactions in general.
Satisfaction of course can have an according emotion, but strictly speaking, no emotion is necessary to complete satisfaction. It could be merely intellectual assent; and you can be pleased with the resulting state or outcome. Contented to me would be the lack of stressing or negative emotion, complementary to ‘satisfy’ in the context that what I have currently is enough (‘sat’).
As another person put it (on Philosophers’ Playground): “I’m satisfied that I’m happy just to be content.”
Filed under: Linguistics, Reflection | Tagged: etymology | 3 Comments »
Posted on May 27, 2010 by SigoTratando
I love my friends! Here we are, sitting on the beach and Deb suddenly erupts with excitement to discuss why Spanish uses the word hueso (bone) for pit; and at what point is a semilla (seed) different from a hueso. She issued me a challenge, and I accept. Love, love, love my friends.
The analysis focuses on two aspects: 1) why two terms, and 2) why ‘hueso’. (Emphasis added to stress that ‘why’ is the purpose of the exercise.)
Why Two Terms
Super easy — according to botany sources, the seed is what germinates, and the pit (vulgar variation of ‘pith’) is a core.
I ran across an ooooold dictionary English definition for seed: “that Matter which in all Plants and Continue reading
Filed under: Linguistics | Tagged: etymology, friends | 2 Comments »
Posted on May 24, 2010 by SigoTratando
One of my favorite blogs is Philosophers’ Playground. The topics there are interesting and accessible, and all over the board. One topic was called “Ambiguity is the Pits,” asking the question whether “pitted olives” means that the olives have pits in them or have had the pits removed.
There was lively debate in the Comments for the topic with exploration of seedless vs. seeded grapes, bottled milk, shelled peanuts, and things that are skinned. What I found interesting about the discussion was that commentators were trying to inductively arrive at theories about the linguistic rules involved and whether those are being consistently applied. I wondered how one could arrive at a theory based on very little knowledge of a topic whose breadth includes much more than what is revealed in examples alone.
What can’t the examples tell us?
Back when English was much younger, it included a great many particles (ex: suffixes, prefixes, etc.) that Continue reading
Filed under: Linguistics | Tagged: etymology | 4 Comments »
Posted on May 24, 2010 by SigoTratando
Vallarta Tribune #681, article entitled “Our Twisted Way of Speaking”
Dear Tommy Clarkson:
I loved the use of your phrase “semantic forensics” in referring to the investigation of ‘de-‘; and I thought that, as a fellow LSI (Linguistic Sense Investigators, a language twist on CSI), I could offer a few more details to those interested in this etymological topic.
The difficulty with disassembling words that English got from Latin (when the Romans occupied England) and French (when the Normans conquered the Anglo Saxons in 1066 or somewhere there abouts) is that we recognize neither the word parts (from Latin and “made vulgar” by the Gauls) nor do we realize that most words are distilled forms of expressions, which to us may not have made sense even if we had heard the expression back when it was spoken natively! Continue reading
Filed under: Linguistics | Tagged: etymology | 1 Comment »