book
On Interpretation
KEYS (10k)
NEW FULL DB (2.4M)
2 G Willow Wilson
*** NEWFULLDB 2.4M ***
1:Expression, to a great extent, is a matter of terms, and terms are anyone's. The meaning of 'God' may have a billion interpretations if there be that many souls in the world ~ Charles Ives
#NFDB
2:Languages are different for a reason. You can’t move ideas between them without losing something. The Arabs are the only ones who’ve figured this out. They have the sense to call non-Arabic versions of the Criterion interpretations, not translations. ~ G Willow Wilson
#NFDB
3:The idea that “chunking” input can have an effect on deeper circuits, as well as their description of complementary facilitative and inhibitory circuits, are directly relevant to neural dynamics underlying the Reaction Model that is predicated on interpretations of “grouped” stimulus input. ~ Anonymous
#NFDB
4:All translations are made up," opined Vikram, "Languages are different for a reason. You can't move ideas between them without losing something. The Arabs are the only ones who've figured this out. They have the sense to call non-Arabic versions of the Criterion interpretations, not translations. ~ G Willow Wilson
#NFDB
5:Those who think of themselves as being open-minded are often even more prone to stick to their first understanding as they believe themselves to be without natural prejudices and therefore don’t see the need to counter-balance them. If we think we can ‘hold back’ on interpretation, we are fooling ourselves. ~ S nke Ahrens
#NFDB
6:The truth is, the way you write music, it's a code. It has to be very precise. It's scientific, but ultimately it also depends on interpretation. It's very similar to how you grow a master plan: it's an objective document, but at the same time it is a lyrical document which allows through interpretation to become a harmonious work of art. ~ Daniel Libeskind
#NFDB
7:According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. ~ Sam Harris
#NFDB
8:If we suppose a sufficient righteousness and intelligence in men to produce presently, from the tremendous lessons of history, an effective will for a world peace - that is to say, an effective will for a world law under a world government - for in no other fashion is a secure world peace conceivable - in what manner may we expect things to move towards this end? . . . It is an educational task, and its very essence is to bring to the minds of all men everywhere, as a necessary basis for world cooperation, a new telling and interpretation, a common interpretation, of history. ~ H G Wells
#NFDB
9:The Dictionary of Biblical Languages (DBL) admits that another interpretation of iyyim other than howling desert animals is “spirit, ghost, goblin, i.e., a night demon or dead spirit (Isa. 13:22; 34:14; Jer. 50:39), note: this would be one from the distant lands, i.e., referring to the nether worlds.”[12] One could say that siyyim and iyyim are similar to our own play on words, “ghosts and goblins.” The proof of this demon interpretation is in the Apostle John’s inspired reuse of the same exact language when pronouncing judgment upon first century Israel as a symbolic “Mystery Babylon. ~ Brian Godawa
#NFDB
10:significant that with the exception of animals and humans (Gen. 1:21, 26–27), Genesis 1 does not use the word “create” (bara ') but “make” ( ' asah). God fashions things out of preexisting material. This observation fits well with the view that Genesis 1 and 2 are talking about the restoration of the world, not its original creation from nothing. Finally, certain otherwise puzzling features of the Genesis narrative become clear in light of the restoration interpretation. For example, God’s command to humankind to “have dominion” seems to suggest that humankind would be met with resistance. The Hebrew term kabash (“dominion”) usually suggests suppression, conquering, or enslaving hostile forces (e.g., Num. 32:22, 29; Josh. 18:1; Neh. 5:5; Jer. 34:16; Mic. 7:19; Zech. 9:15). Along the same lines, God’s command to Adam to “keep” (shamar) the Garden (Gen. 2:15) conveys a sense of “guarding” it from something hostile. It is the same term used to describe the role of the cherubim in keeping Adam and Eve from reentering the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24). But ~ Gregory A Boyd
#NFDB
11:To claim that mathematics is purely a human invention and is successful in explaining nature only because of evolution and natural selection ignores some important facts in the nature of mathematics and in the history of theoretical models of the universe. First, while the mathematical rules (e.g., the axioms of geometry or of set theory) are indeed creations of the human mind, once those rules are specified, we lose our freedom. The definition of the Golden Ratio emerged originally from the axioms of Euclidean geometry; the definition of the Fibonacci sequence from the axioms of the theory of numbers. Yet the fact that the ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers converges to the Golden Ratio was imposed on us-humans had not choice in the matter. Therefore, mathematical objects, albeit imaginary, do have real properties. Second, the explanation of the unreasonable power of mathematics cannot be based entirely on evolution in the restricted sense. For example, when Newton proposed his theory of gravitation, the data that he was trying to explain were at best accurate to three significant figures. Yet his mathematical model for the force between any two masses in the universe achieved the incredible precision of better than one part in a million. Hence, that particular model was not forced on Newton by existing measurements of the motions of planets, nor did Newton force a natural phenomenon into a preexisting mathematical pattern. Furthermore, natural selection in the common interpretation of that concept does not quite apply either, because it was not the case that five competing theories were proposed, of which one eventually won. Rather, Newton's was the only game in town! ~ Mario Livio
#NFDB
0