Breaking God down into pieces is an exercise in mental contortionism. Ideas are fluid things, very flexible, and hard to even identify. The action of breaking God down is the action of identifying the different forms of the piece of cosmic taffy that is “everything”. There are no principles to follow. We are SEARCHING for principles, and when we find them, we’re going to have to take a good, hard look at them to make sure we understand what they actually are.
selection-▶sequence, pattern◀-element, ◀-aspect-▶ are three things that are apparently fundamental to our understanding of the world and presumably to the world itself. But, how did we arrive at them? Simply put: we looked at how we look . . . really.
2.I, you, they, it, etc.-▶saw, perceived, beheld, bore witness, became aware, etc.-▶to, towards, with respect to, with intention of perceiving, etc.-▶the arrangement by which, the mechanism causing, the way that, our specific action, etc.-▶I, you, they, it, etc.-▶see, perceive, witness, become aware of, understand, etc. (something like that)
The first question I have is: why are some of the words broken down into other, single words, but some very simple words (at) are broken down into many-word phrases? It’s almost as if each single word actually represents a more complex unification of multiple concepts arranged in some manner so as to communicate a very specific meaning.
Nouns are persons, places, or things. Verbs are actions. Prepositions “express temporal, spatial, or other relationships” . . . prepositions are relationships. Adverbs describe verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Finally, we have “we” and “look” again, another noun and another verb, at the end of the sentence.
“We” means a group of people, specifically one that the author of the sentence is a part of as it pertains to the sentence.
“looked” is past tense, and signifies that “we” committed the action of examining by some method.
“at” means “towards, in the direction of”. Simple enough.
“how” is classified as an adverb, but I’d call it a pro-adverb, since it is more of a placeholder for adverbs. In this sentence, it declares that there is a way, a method by which “we look” but without defining what that method is, just like “we” declares that there is a group without defining who is in the group or the nature of the group.
“look” signifies the action of examining. When I wrote out the sentence, it wasn’t that I didn’t have a specific tense in mind for the word. It is that to apply a tense to it would have been inaccurate. So, in this, we can see that the verb is independent of the tense. The tense is something we may or may not apply to the action.
4.unspecified group to which I belong-▶action with tense-▶relationship-▶unspecified adverb-▶unspecified group to which I belong-▶action
Can we break it down further?
“unspecified group to which I belong” can be stated more simply as myself, which is always specific, and unspecified other or others. Funnily enough, “others” is not specific, so “unspecified others” literally means “unspecified non-specified people” in that sentence, so, we could say “Myself and at least one other”.
“action with tense” can be simplified to “in the past, look”. That is simpler because the two concepts are better compartmentalized. They can be parsed sequentially, rather than simultaneously.
“relationship”, specifically “at” could be swapped for another preposition, but it’s about as simple as we can make it.
“unspecified adverb” means, basically, that “how” is a pro-adverb, a word that can take the place of an adverb, literally “an adverb”. Let’s just stick “an adverb” in there.
“myself and at least one other”
5.Myself and at least one other-▶in the past-▶look-▶at-▶[adverb]-▶myself and at least one other-▶look
In this iteration, it is apparent that there is some precedence to be observed. There is something akin to recursion going on. “We”, “in the past” and “look” are in the top level. “at” modifies the first “look” and joins it to the clause “how we look”, so it must be immediately between those two elements. We might even say that “at” describes how we look, which would make it an adverb. If we said look up or look closely or look when, those would be very similar grammatical constructions. They are all the action “look” modified by a descriptor. What’s the difference between an “adverb” and a “preposition”?
What’s the difference between “look closely” and “look at”? If we take the “look” in “look closely” to mean “gather visual information”, then altogether, “look closely” simply means “gather much visual information”. On the other hand, “look at” would mean “gather visual information from”. You could put all three words together to make “look closely at” and it would mean “gather much visual information from”. So, “closely” somehow means “much” and “at” somehow means “from”. Well, lets twist and stretch this cosmic taffy some more. “Much” is a noun, adjective, and adverb. “From” is a preposition. WHY?!
The dog from the pound . . . “from” declares that there is a relationship of origination between “dog” and “the pound”. It is a type of relationship, so here we are with another “relationship”. What IS a relationship? Is it a person, place, or thing? Is it an action? The dog IS from the pound . . . “from” goes from declaring a relationship between “dog” and “the pound” to declaring a relationship between “is” and “the pound”. Well, not really. “Is from” and “from” kind of do the same thing in declaring a relationship between “dog” and “the pound”, but then what is the significance of the being verb “is”? How about we state it as “The dog, being from the pound . . .” or “The dog that is from the pound . . .” or “The dog that has a relationship of origination with the pound . . .” or “The dog that is in a relationship of origination with the pound . . .” or “The dog originating at the pound . . .”, etc.? It’s almost as if the English language doesn’t quite know how to express or describe relationships.
It doesn’t. “The red car”, “The car is red.”, “The car exists in a state of redness.”, “The car has the attribute “color” that has the value “red”.”, “The car can be described as red.”, “The car emits red light.”, “The car is painted red.”, etc. Why does it have so much trouble with “relationships”?
Well, what is a relationship? Apparently it is “a connection, association, or involvement”. It’s a noun. But, if “run” in “I run fast.” connects “I” and “fast”, then doesn’t that mean that a relationship can also be a verb? And, “from” isn’t a noun, either. It’s a preposition, supposedly. And, the “-▶” we’ve been using represents a space, but also a connection between the words in the sentence (We looked at how we look.), but what would it be classified as? It’s just a space, nothing, literally, but yet it is necessary to represent it with a space or a “-▶”, so it must be something. How about “running shoe”? Clearly, “running” is a verb with present tense, but yet it is clearly describing “shoe”, it is a type of shoe.
There is this great and undefined mutability about the words and the connections between the concepts. If we use “running” one way, it is a verb, but used another way, it is a “connection”, a noun, or it is a description which seems to be neither verb nor noun, or it is an expression of a relationship. The thing about these connectors of concepts is that they all do the same thing, i.e. they connect concepts, so maybe we can put all these connectors in one bag and just call them “connections”. Thus, actions, objects, connections. Now, let’s continue with our sentence.
6.Myself and at least one other-▶in the past-▶look-▶at-▶[adverb]-▶myself and at least one other-▶look
“Myself and at least one other” is a conjunction of “myself” and “at least one other”. In order to be “we” it has to be a group of which I am only a member. I have to be part of the larger whole, but not the whole in its entirety, so, really, it is myself connected to the concept of a whole in a certain way. Maybe we could say it as “whole:part(myself)”. The problem is that “whole” could not have any other people in it. I could be grouped with inanimate objects. Let’s try “group:member(myself)”.
“in the past” connects “We” and “look” with the idea of time, specifically to a time in the past, so we could say “time:past”.
“at” connects “look” with “how we look”, but the sequence indicates the connection.
“[adverb]” is begging for a connection. Instead of adverb, let’s use “[connection]”.
It’s still not clear, but it is becoming clear why it is not clear.
“:”, “()”, “-▶”, and “at” are all connectors in our sentence signifying different types of connections. “:” signifies a heirarchy with the first word being the top of the heirarchy. “()” signifies one of a number of possible states. “at” signifies a specific type of connection between “look” and direction. “-▶” signifies a simple transition from one step in a sequence to the next. The problem is that we want “[connection]-▶group:member(myself)-▶look” to have precedence before the rest of the sentence, and we don’t have a connector for that. In other words, we need more words . . . for connectors. Also, “time:past” might be better stated as “time(past)”. Time, after all, only has 3 values, past, present, and future.
That looks great! That looks confusing! I’m stupid. Let’s draw pictures!
I really should have separated “look” from “at”.