Recall when we discussed that it is much easier to point and say “chair” than it is to explain what chair is. For example, if this object at which I am pointing was not within the sensual range of the sense organs extending from your brain, I would need to explain what chair is. And that requires a great deal of effort.
Like chair, water is also called a word. Chair and water are called words because they directly designate or audio/visually denote the physical existence of an object in reality.
The meaning of the words chair and water can be physically demonstrated. For example, when I point at this and utter the sound visually symbolized as water, its meaning is sensually available to you. You don’t have to think about it; you only have to sensually know that it exists. From thereafter you will automatically re-know (or recall) what I mean to be pointing at whenever I utter the sound visually symbolized as water.
Chair and water, in this way, are called words. Again, words directly designate or audio/visually denote the physical existence of a real something.
Space is rather different. Space does not audio-visually designate or denote the existence of a real physical object; i.e., it does not 'point at' the physical existence of a real something. Space is not a real something that can be walked up to and touched or pointed at or in some other way designated with some type of physical referencing.
Therefore, space is called a concept. Concepts are derived from the reasoned existence of the abstract nature of the intellectual existence of rationalized ideas. Whereas; on the other hand, words are derived from the known existence of the absolute nature of the physical existence of real objects.
Time does not denote the physical existence of a real something. Time; therefore, is not a word. Time is a concept, and concepts explain something about that which is known to be the case. Again, words denote and concepts explain.
Time is not real. Time is ideal. Time was created by the human mind in an effort to explain a specific aspect of the absolute nature of physical reality and how it functions. Time is not what it explains the existence of; time is simply an audio/visual symbol created to hold the definition [the explanation] as to why the existence of an ideal something exists. Time denotes the reasoned nature of an intellectual abstraction rather than more simply denoting the sensually known existence of a physical absolute.
It is in this way that time is called a concept rather a word. But notice the important linkage between words and concepts. Concepts are derivations of ideas abstracted from the absolute nature of physical reality. It is in this way that concepts are linked to reality; they are reality idealized; i.e., they are reality explained.
Distance is also a concept. Distance explains something about the abstract nature of some aspect of the absolute nature of physical reality.
All concepts have this in common. Concepts explain something about the absolute nature of physical reality, whereas words simply denote that its physical existence exists. It is in this way that concepts are said to explain why ideas exist rather than denoting the existence of the objects upon which their ideal nature depends.
Universe does not denote the existence of a real physical something. Universe does not exist in a physically knowable way. Universe does not exist as an object of reality; it exists as a concept of intelligence.
The idea explained by the definition of the concept universe is dependent on the absolute nature of physical reality for its existence to be considered rational (that is, pertaining to reality). Universe is not what the absolute nature of physical reality is; it is what the abstract nature of an idea is. Universe is an idea created by the human mind to explain that physical reality does exist, and that it exists as a concept resulting from knowing something rather than from believing in the real existence of nothing at all or from a demonic hallucination.
“The absolute nature of physical reality” is not a word statement; it is a conceptual statement. This is because “the absolute nature of physical reality” does not denote the absolute natural of a real physical something (an object), but instead explains the abstract nature of a rationally created something—an idea.
The issue is not, “Does life exist?” or “What is life?” The issue is, “Why does life exist?” This life is the existence of life. This life is life. Life is a creation of the human mind. Like all concepts, like all words, life is a creation of the human mind. The human mind is responsible for bring life into existence. But why?
Read that again: The issue is not, “Does life exist?” or “What is life?” The issue is, “Why does life exist?” Why was life created by the human mind? What is its purpose? What is its meaning?
Why did the human mind bring life into existence?
Is life a word? Is life a concept? Perhaps life is both.
Recalling that words denote the sensually known existence of the absolute nature of some aspect of physical reality. Then; since words are created to denote something that is sensually known to exist, and since the physical existence of life is not something that is sensually known to exist, then whatever its existence is, it must be explained.
This requirement—the requirement of explanation—would seem to require life to be considered a concept. But since life does have an absolute physical nature, and since concepts denote only the abstract nature of ideas, then life is not (it cannot be considered to be) a concept. Life must be considered to be a word.
But wait! The existence of the absolute nature of the physical existence of life is not sensually known to exist! How, then, can it be considered a word?
1) What aspect of the absolute nature of reality does life, the word, denote the sensually known physical existence of?
2) What aspect of the absolute nature of human existence does life denote the sensually known physical existence of?
3) What aspect of the absolute nature of the real physical world where you and I live does life denote the sensually known existence of?
Why did the human mind bring life into existence right here on earth?
How is this dilemma to be resolved? It is resolved by creating a new type of concept the purpose of which is to explain the absolute nature of that which the physical existence of is not; or cannot be; sensually known to exist. That is the concept of understand.
Understanding the Physical Existence of Life
We can understand the physical nature of life by observing its influence on that which is sensually known to exist. This is done by observing that animate objects are physically different from inanimate objects. It is the known existence of that physical difference that permits us to denote it with an audio/visual symbol called a word. And the word created to denote the physical nature of the real 'understood' difference between the animate and the inanimate is life. This is why life exists. It exists only because the physical difference between the animate and the inanimate does exist—the difference existing between that which lives and that which does not live is sensually known to exist. All brains have this capability, including the human brain.
But notice that the word life does not explain what that difference is. That function is left to its definition. The word life denotes the existence of that physical difference, but its definition explains what that physical difference is. Life is a word, but its definition is conceptual.
Note the following and apply it whenever necessary: The term life is called a word because it audio/visually denotes the physical existence of something that is sensually known to exist in a real physical way. Its definition is conceptual because it explains something about why the term life was created by the human mind and therefore must be considered responsible for bringing LIFE into existence right here on earth. .
If those people who have purposefully blown themselves up, instead of believing that their trusted religious advisors were acting in their best interest, had thought about what the actual eternal nature of the consequence of their actions was going to be on their life, would they have done that? No—of course not! But now it’s too late.
What advice would you have offered those same people if you had the opportunity to do so?
What advice are you now giving to your own children and grandchildren?
Email the Author: firstname.lastname@example.org