What Is The Definition of a Definition?

The definition of a definition can be most easily described as (1) the origin and meaning of a word, and (2) an unwritten or written agreement about the various meanings and applications of a word, including the changes that a word or definition may incur, as well as other cultural influences that transform meanings, words and definitions between one era and/or culture and another.
Words can be flexible, and they should be. However, whenever we create the definitions of a word, the question is, are we using the same criteria for creating a definition? This may seem like an imposition on the creative aspect of constructing words, but the definition for definitions ought to be tethered in the definitive properties of the roots of knowledge and information. Why should this detail be significant? Do we really need to create another forum, or add another ridiculous category to the world of philosophical debates in which some minute detail is just endlessly discussed ad nauseam and ad infinitum? Does it change anything, or add any constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity?
The answer is that every issue adds constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity if it’s constructed in accordance with real brain potential. So how does the definition of a definition affect us?
We use words to construct sentences representing the languages we speak. We use language to develop relationships and share knowledge. Like language and culture that are interchangeable, relationships and sharing knowledge are also interchangeable – which is why we bond best and most with others who share our own ideas and feelings. Nevertheless, we must consider that all knowledge and information has an origin. Everything whether artificial or natural, visible or invisible, microscopically tiny or grandly gigantic, are all forms of knowledge and information that originate from the energy, matter and properties of the universe. The human brain itself is a concentrated microcosmic rendition of the universe, and therefore, since our brain relies on language for its cognitive and intuitive development – – particularly because we learn language intuitively and language is necessary for cognitive development, meaning that “cognition” and “intuition” are also interchangeable) – – then it is important to consider that the origin for definitions of words, which in turn formulate language properties, must also be in alignment with the fundamental properties and definitions of knowledge-information-energy-matter. These properties should then be consistent with the constructive properties of how we use language to formulate the full intuitive-cognitive development of our brains.
Let’s apply an actual example to this seemingly insignificant detail. “Consciousness” is a widely discussed topic. It crosses cultural boundaries and spans centuries of human progress and development. In more modern times, such as the one we are now living in, the idea of “consciousness” has also been adopted by various fields of Science, and yet even within the scientific community, there is little agreement on an actual definition for consciousness, and it is rarely, if ever, discussed in the same conversation as “intuition”. What’s even weirder is that “consciousness” is added to so many discussions, issues and topics of human endeavor, even while Scientists themselves understand that intuition is superior to consciousness. Einstein himself after all has stated on several occasions that “intuition is everything”. He never said ‘consciousness is everything’. What’s weirder and more curious is that Scientists rarely speak of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’ under the same heading or category, nor do the two words seem to arise in the same discussion.
The point is that Scientist who understand that the universe is interconnected, and that everything is a form of knowledge and information down to the smallest particle of energy and matter, the question is, where is the connecting fundamental property between the “definitions” of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’. If fundamental universal knowledge is the criteria for creating sincerely authentic definitions for words and meanings, then what is the problem with scientists coming up with a properly definitive definition for consciousness?
By the same rhetoric that consciousness is undefinable even by scientific standards, it is often connected to the emerging scientific narrative of parallel universes. They go together because they are equally vague — and inconsistent with the properties of universal knowledge that are openly accessible to anyone who wants to access it all. Keep in mind that Intuition is the Universe’s Naturally free Internet Service and we all ought to be connected to it so that we can access universal knowledge. While Science and Philosophy propose – at least the minimum property of consciousness as a feature of awareness, and preferably, ethical conscientious awareness – then why is there supposed to be a barrier between becoming aware but being barred from any conscious knowledge of parallel universe’s, in which there are other versions of you and me ???
Obviously, consciousness has its limits, but the universe is filled with unlimited knowledge, and the brain is naturally designed for unlimited knowledge processing — so it makes sense that rhetoric and conventional definition for ‘consciousness’ remains undefinable, because it is so out of sync with the definitive properties of universal knowledge.
If there are other parallel universes, and if we are supposed to become more intelligent by becoming more consciously aware and/or conscientious, then information and knowledge about the other versions of you and me should be accessible. Either we need to become more intuitive to have access to these parallel selves in parallel universes, or we have reached the limits of consciousness, which is clearly limited. Intuition would at least allow us to access these other parallel and differing versions of ourselves and our particular world – or we’d find that multiple dimensions of our selves are reflections of multi-dimensional information that can be exchanged between our parallel selves, so as to improve our lives, or be more connected to the multiple interconnected dimensions of the universe that we should be connected to. Consciousness is a closed system of information – that’s why it is undefinable. It’s best definition is that it is a temporary and auxiliary holding system substituting our eventual emergence into a full spectrum of intuitive intelligence capabilities. As Einstein said, “intuition is everything” and yet we should intuitively realize that everything is interconnected, especially since “intuition” is fundamentally the connection between all forms of knowledge and information. “Consciousness” has never offered that feature to us – and to our brains that require unlimited, open-ended information processing. Yes, the definition of a definition must be consistent with the fundamental properties and mechanics of intuition – the connecting feature of all knowledge and information – – and when a definition is inconsistent with the brain’s full rendition of intelligence potential, i.e., “intuition”, then it ought to be changed to suit the full development of the brain, which is a mini-microcosm of the universe, meaning that we ought to have full access to the universe’s knowledge rather than being limited or otherwise, redefining our human brains as the antithesis of a mini-microcosmic instrument capable of processing unlimited knowledge and information.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s