Tag Archives: definitions

INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY!!!

Perhaps the greatest criticism of current common language is that too many words have inaccurate definitions, are rather vague in meaning, and are associated with other words such as synonyms, antonyms, and slang words which tend to obscure the meaning rather than clarify the meaning.

Let’s take the example of the word stupid. If you are stupid then you are also dumb, half-assed, dull, unintelligent, brainless, a dummy, dopey, empty-headed, and dense. 9 words that mean absolutely the same thing and are a little misleading because can one truly be brainless or without a brain? and can one truly be empty-headed or without a brain also? Unintelligent is also misleading because there are degrees of intelligence or IQ and there is no such thing as being without any intelligence which is what unintelligent implies.

The dictionary definition of stupid from Google and the Oxford Dictionary is –

Stupid: adj. having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

There is a great difference between having or being genetically stupid with a very low IQ and showing a lot of stupidity which young inexperienced children and ignorant adults sometimes do demonstrate or show. You can be very intelligent in your professional specialty but be very stupid or show little emotional intelligence in other areas of life. You can make many stupid mistakes but be very intelligent and therefore not very smart at doing certain things.

Having or showing is really a multiple meaning for the word stupid so vagueness exists in the definition which obscures the true meaning in real life. When you stereotype a human and call him or her stupid then are you saying that they have low IQ? or are you saying that they make too many stupid mistakes or errors in their behavior or task? There is lack of clarity so it is no great wonder that someone being accused of being stupid will get defensive and offended by the suggestion. Yes, you can try to be a little more accurate and accuse one of doing a stupid thing rather than calling them stupid but if you call him or her stupid the damage is done and you have offended someone with your impulsive accusatory statement. Your intentions are pure or just but the result because of the inaccuracy of the definition and your inaccurate use of the word insults someone and it is the fault of language common usage and not really your personal intentional fault.

Common sense is relative to a specific culture and as an American you may have  much common sense in America but in Japan or an African country, because of cultural differences, you may do some very many stupid things and it may seem that you lack some common sense relative to that culture. So if you lack some common sense then you are not stupid but are ignorant or lack the knowledge of the behavioral norms of your culture or the behavior norms of a foreign culture.

From vocabulary.com the description rather than a definition for stupid is-

“A stupid person doesn’t have much intelligence or imagination, and they go through life making decisions that seem to lack all common sense. If you’ve got a brain but you don’t use it, you might be a bit stupid.”

This is a rather ignorant descriptive and not a factual or accurate definition for stupid and it shows you how ignorant the description is. Imagination has not been proven to be related directly to intelligence so that you can’t make the statement that as intelligence increases your imagination increases also. Some intelligent specialists are some of the least imaginative humans that one can meet. Intelligent artists can be very imaginative and intelligent technologists are limited in their imagination by the fact that their imagination must function within rather strict rules of acceptable technological and even scientific thinking.

The descriptive words “lack ALL common sense” is impossible unless you are talking about a chronic imbecile that is stupid all the time.  If you’ve got a brain but you “don’t use it” then it is an untruth or lie because you use your brain in any communication. If you really “don’t use it” or don’t use your brain then you are not just a “bit stupid” but you are totally stupid or even brain dead.

From the Cambridge Dictionary the definition for stupid is-

Stupid: adj. silly or unwise: showing poor judgment or little intelligence

Showing bad judgment or making judgmental mistakes is a frequent occurrence for some humans starting out in a new job or new skill and even though they may be called stupid mistakes it doesn’t mean that you are stupid with a low IQ or low intelligence. Bad judgment is more often a function of little experience or lack of knowledge which could merely be considered temporary ignorance and not permanent stupidity.

A huge fault in the definition is using the words silly and unwise to obscure the real meaning of stupid.

The Google definition for silly is-

Silly: adj. having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish.

Having implies that you are naturally silly or that there is a silliness IQ and there is no such thing as having genetic silliness. Yes, you can show silliness as a child and do so intentionally as an adult but it is not a trait or characteristic that you possess or have most or all of the time.

As is usual in many current definitions two words absurd and foolish are inserted to obscure an accurate meaning for silliness. It raises the question- When you are silly then are you also absurd and foolish or can you be absurd without being foolish at the same time? See what I mean? There is no clarity in the definition but the definition is intentionally obscured by randomly associating 2 words which in this case could remotely be considered to be bad synonyms.

My definition for foolish by using and/or sometimes makes silly a subset or smaller part of foolish and at other times the two definitions are more independent or distinct.

Foolish: adj. being silly and/or making a wrong frequently impulsive judgment(s) and behaving with many wrong behaviors which usually are not immoral behaviors and frequently have no serious consequences

 

As you can see by my definition silliness is sometimes a subset of foolish but foolishness is a rather benign form of making wrong but not immoral behaviors which are often the result of making rather impulsive judgments on how to behave but usually have no serious consequences. Yes, some foolish humans are funny to some extent but unfortunately it is a rather sad state of affairs if someone is frequently foolish under social circumstances. How often or frequently you are silly or foolish is an important consideration under given circumstances. The more frequent you are silly or foolish the more you can justly or truly be considered to be a silly or foolish type.

 

I use the term and/or to indicate that some subsets are shared by sets and other subsets are not shared. It is a fact of life that when considering behavior one cause may have two or more effects and one effect may be caused by two or more causes. This creates much uncertainty in behavior definitions which by mere definition may not seem so logical to everyone. Venn diagrams are often used to demonstrate this overlap of sets and subsets.

 

Silliness is primarily a relatively random behavior which foolishness may not always be. So there is a degree of randomness which differentiates silly from foolish. Most silly behavior is more random than foolish behavior. You could logically say that wrong foolish behavior is wronger than silly behavior or has more serious consequences socially and you can say that foolish behavior deviates to a greater degree from an accepted social norm than does silly behavior. So we could all probably agree that it is better to be called silly than a fool.

 

My logical definition of silliness is-

Silliness: n. showing a (random behavior(s) without a serious goal(s) and/or an unknown goal(s)) which frequently causes laughter and/or a smile

 

With my logical or more accurate definition of silliness there is no vague association with dubious synonyms and no mentioned lack of common sense or judgment which is usually mostly due to ignorance or lack of knowledge or ignorance of behavioral norms.

 

One form of silliness is sticking your tongue out and trying to make fun of someone or showing slight disrespect. With this in mind you can almost conclude that silliness is really a rather minimal deviation from a human norm which often causes laughter or a smile or slight irritation. So silliness could even be considered to be a subset or small part of funny or humor much of the time or frequently. The fact is that silliness is usually random behavior without a serious goal or purpose and silliness is usually not shocking or high in emotional intensity.

 

Cultural norms also determine what is silly or not since sticking out the tongue is totally acceptable in rare cultures and has a realistic meaning associated with the behavior.

 

Could my definition for silly be improved and include words such as slight deviation from accepted behavioral norms? Probably yes, but I leave this to future definition fanatics who want to more accurately define what silliness really is or should be. Especially important are the more than one cause which can lead to silliness or silly behavior. As we can see by our description silliness can be caused by random behavior, bad impulsive judgment, ignorance, low IQ, willful intention or a combination of two or more of these causes. Because the causes or variables for behavior are so numerous true logical definitions are hard to make accurately and they are infrequently so general that they include all the potential causes and effects. However, trying to be more logical or accurate in a definition is not a bad thing but means making progress towards a more meaningful and usually more complex definition for a behavior.

 

Here are my logical definitions for stupid, intelligence, and smart which no doubt could be improved upon to be more accurate at some point in the future since finding logical definitions for words is a rather new linguistic challenge which I offer to all Anglophiles.

 

Stupid: adj. behaving with incomplete logical reasoning skills and unsuccessfully applying them to solve political and social and economic and scientific problems

 

Intelligence: n. possessing the ability to efficiently memorize and process much information but it is not frequently a measure of how smart you are in life

 

Smart: adj. behaving with above average logical reasoning skills and successfully applying them to solve political and social and economic and scientific problems and/or having emotional intelligence

 

Googles definition for intelligence and smart is-

 

Intelligence: n. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

Smart: adj. having or showing a quick-witted intelligence

Which definitions are more meaningful, accurate, or logical? Mine or Google’s? Yes, my definitions are more complex but also more meaningful as a result and less subjective or biased or less open to relative personal interpretation. My definitions are not perfect and are subject to improvement in the future but the definitions are definitely much better or more accurate than what we now have.

Not only inaccurate illogical definitions handicap our current language but so do distinct multiple meanings, synonyms, antonyms, descriptive language, bad analogies, and an absence of words such as frequently, infrequently, probably, degree, improbable, random, sometimes, etc.. These words more accurately describe reality than words such as yes, no, always, never, all, nothing, certain, uncertain, etc. which are absolute terms or words which convey the idea that reality must be either good or bad with nothing in between such as grey areas or possible exceptions to the rule or word.

Another ignorant language phenomenon is using the same word as a noun, adjective, verb, and adverb. For example- you are stupid (noun), that is a stupid human (adjective), that is a stupid laugh (adverb), and stop being stupid (verb). In Logical English Dictionary I try to make every noun, adjective, verb, and adverb unique in spelling so there is no confusion as to what part of speech you are talking about. So my attempt at accuracy is making context less important in the meaning of a word.

Stupidity (noun), stupidev (verb), stupid (adjective), and stupidly (adverb). I think that we could all agree that saying- that is stupidity is less offensive than saying you are stupid.

Finally, everything in the physical world that we know and understand has sets and subsets and our current archaic language infrequently reflects this reality causing much confusion and inaccurate statements which further exacerbate the situation and make the emotional reactions of fear, anger, hate, aggression, abuse, and offense more probable.

Because of multiple causes and effects behavior is much more complex than the physical world and has many more than just two dependent variables and simple mathematical equations. There is frequently much uncertainty in a behavioral definition because of so many causes and effects so it is important to include uncertainty in definitions with words such as frequently or often, sometimes, mostly, probably, miniscule, etc. This is why psychology and the concepts used is not a science but merely an attempted bad description of reality with dubious statistical coefficients but no provable causes and effects since there usually are so many of them which often seem contradictory depending greatly on the circumstances and personality types.

If I have stimulated your curiosity about logical or more accurate definitions then view my free book with Amazon prime with the title- Logical English Dictionary. Happy hunting. Enjoy!

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4700 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

HOW TO BEHAVE MORE LOGICALLY 11 WAYS!!!

Don’t attack a human’s character but focus on attacking the argument and/or opinion (ad hominem). Don’t ridicule, name call, put down, insult, and humiliate a human hoping that you can dominate the discussion or argument with this uncalled for intimidating and often rude aggression.

Don’t misrepresent and/or exaggerate a human’s argument and/or opinion to make it easier to attack (straw man).

Discuss or argue a position based on factual premises and don’t beg unfactual positions.

Avoid assuming that all preceding events are actual causes of subsequent events if there is no logical correspondence.

Sometimes admit that there can be more than one cause of an event.

Don’t assume that ignorance makes a claim true or false or a combination of both.

Don’t put the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the human that is questioning your claim.

Don’t make causal claims that one follows the other if there is no logical or historical assumed correspondence.

Don’t assume that subjective popularity of a point of view is always proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it is objectively true.

Don’t just use one example or a small number and assume that it has general applicability to many effects, causes, or situations or don’t generalize too quickly.

Ask for a definition of a word that you don’t understand the meaning of fully. If no definition is forthcoming then you can challenge the inappropriate usage of the word. Vague definitions imply uncertain validity and possible falsehood or error.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4400 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

WHY MOST PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES ON AGGRESSION, ETC. ARE SEVERELY FLAWED!!!

Aggression: n. pursuing a goal(s) forcefully and/or threateningly which may include (body contact and/or violence) and/or a ((verbal threat(s) and/or verbal attack(s)) and/or physical attack(s))

Esteem: v. to respect and admire

Selfesteem: v. to respect and admire oneself

Respect: v. to sense and frequently communicate that a human has (much value and/or moral goodness) and/or (much skill(s) in a (profession and/or activity)) and/or is experienced and has few severe personality flaws and the human is dependable

Admire: v. to sense respect and attraction and to sense a relatively large intensity pleasure because of (good and/or moral behavior) and/or professional excellence

One real example of psychologists trying to link high or low selfesteem to aggression shows how easy it is to get contradictory results. Baumeister 1999, 2000, 2002, 2007 claimed to show that high selfesteem is linked to greater aggressiveness and Donnellan 2005 and Trzesniewski 2006 claimed to show that low selfesteem is linked to greater aggressiveness.

 

Psychologists never accurately define what they mean by aggression and selfesteem which is what I have done and then try to set up questionnaires which supposedly measure the degree and type of aggression and selfesteem. Without an accurate definition of the words that they are using they are frankly groping in the dark. Frankly the two concepts are so complex that no validated correspondence between them is possible since there are too many interdependent variables at play.

 

Aggression can be physical and/or mental and this means that combinations of both approaches are possible. There is physical violence in various degrees of intensity and type, there are verbal threats in various degrees of intensity and type, there are verbal attacks in various degrees of intensity and type, and there are physical gesture threats in various degrees of intensity and type and then there are combinations of these aggressions which constitute the total possibilities of aggressive behavior. How can you possibly verbally determine the degree of aggressiveness and the type of aggressiveness that you are questioning about with any degree of accuracy? It is mission impossible.

 

Attempting to find some link or correspondence between selfesteem and aggression is even more problematic and impossible to do. Selfesteem is respecting and admiring yourself which means that you are personally judging your value and/or moral goodness which also means that you are judging how skilled you are in your job or profession and/or daily life. You are also making a personal assumption that you have minor personality flaws. Personality flaws theoretically should lower your selfesteem if you have many personality flaws. Of course you could be delusional and assume that you have no personality flaws so your selfesteem evaluation on a questionnaire would not be remotely connected with the reality of your life.

 

How intensely do you admire yourself and what things do you admire yourself for? Can you really determine how much or the intensity with which you admire yourself and for what things in life from a questionnaire?

 

So how many variables are at play when discussing aggression and selfesteem? An uncontrollable boatload. Further you could ask the question whether introverts or extroverts have higher selfesteem and who are more aggressive? You would probably assume that extroverts are more aggressive socially than introverts and maybe also assume that they have more selfesteem.

 

While sociable celebrities could be considered aggressive with high selfesteem you could also assume that introverts have higher selfesteem than your common extrovert because they frankly don’t want to put up with social drama, are more selective in their friendships, and are often very competent workers proud of their work. Unless you are talking about shy introverts who may indeed have less selfesteem than the average population I would venture to say that indeed common introverts in general may have more selfesteem than your common babbling extrovert.

 

In conclusion: For a given individual you can probably evaluate his or her degree of aggressiveness and selfesteem relatively accurately given enough exposure to them over a period of time. However, when you try to make correspondences between exceedingly complex psychological concepts and try to make general assumptions about them in a general population then you are doomed to fail miserably most of the time. Other psychological studies about hope, love, happiness, etc. are just as impossible to do and get verifiable results. Not only do cultural differences affect the outcome but other variables such as age, gender, current and past emotional state, financial status,  job or career, family, morality, health, etc.

 

There are frankly too many variables interacting when it comes to human interaction so a scientific approach is frankly not even remotely possible.

Psychologists like to sound scientific by using correlational or statistical numbers but they a not being at all being objective and their results show a very subjective bias which is just not valid worldwide for all kinds of human populations.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4400 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

UPDATED LOGICAL DEFINITIONS FOR 95 FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS!!!

depositphotos_9853183-emoticons-emotion-icon-vectors

Admirable: adj. sensing respect and attraction and sensing a relatively large intensity pleasure because of (good and/or moral behavior) and/or professional excellence

 

 

Affectionate: adj. sensing medium intensity pleasure for a subset(s) which you care about and the behavior(s) which exists with it

 

 

Aggressive: adj. pursuing a goal(s) forcefully and/or threateningly which may include (body contact and/or violence) and/or a ((verbal threat(s) and/or verbal attack(s)) and/or physical attack(s))

 

 

Agonized/Agonizead: adj. very intensely worrying for a relatively short duration

 

 

Amused/Amusead: adj. mildly entertaining

 

 

 

Angry: adj. very intensely sensing transient displeasure which is frequently a less intense form of hatred and caused by a failure to achieve a goal(s) and/or caused by (overt and/or covert aggression)

 

 

Anguished/Anguishad: adj. sensing very intense suffering for duration

 

 

Annoyed: adj. sensing small intensity anger and/or disliking frequently due to a repetitive and/or interfering subset(s) which tends to alter and/or delay an immediate personal goal(s)

 

 

Anxious: adj. sensing low to medium intensity fear resulting from the anticipation of a (realistic and/or fantasized dangerous event(s))) and/or (threatening event(s) and/or bad circumstance(s)) which may be accompanied by the uncertainty of not knowing (what to do and/or what will exist) good and/or bad

 

 

Apathetic: adj. sensing and/or showing minimal motivation

 

 

Apologetic /Apologad: adj. regretfully sensing and communicating the acknowledgement of a mistake(s) and/or bad behavior(s) which frequently injures someone and/or hurts someone’s feelings and/or sense of selfworth

 

 

Apprehensive: adj. sensing anxiety about a future bad subset(s)

 

 

 

Arrogant: adj. an excessive and frequently offensive (sensing of and behaving with) superiority and/or behaving disrespectfully

 

 

 

Astonished/Astonishmed: adj. very intensely impressed and surprised

 

 

 

Attentive: adj. focusing and interacting bodily and/or mentally on some subset(s) to the relative exclusion of other subsets

 

Attracted/Attractad: adj. sensing a desire (to approach and/or to spend time with) and/or (to participate with, and/or to focus physically and/or mentally upon a subset(s)) and/or sensing a desire (for pleasure and/or to do a subset(s))

 

 

Awesome: n. sensing very intense respect with fear and/or wonder from a subset(s)

 

 

Boastful: adj. sensing and communicating excessive selfimportance and/or pride

 

Blissful: adj. sensing serene joy for duration

 

Bored/Borad: adj. sensing decreased interesteven and decreased mental activity which is frequently caused by (using too much time with a subset(s) and/or doing too much repetition of a subset(s)) and/or spending too much time with a uninteresting subset(s) and/or what we are doing is no longer a rewarding experience

(replace interesteven with human interest and it means the same thing)

 

 

Cautious:  adj. doing something with conscientious forethought trying to (predict danger and mistakes and/or avoid danger and mistakes) and/or trying to avoid external subset(s) which may change one’s immediate goal(s) and sometimes future goal(s) and/or avoidance of risky behavior(s)

 

 

Cocky: adj. conceited and frequently with excessive confidence and assertiveness

 

 

Cold/Coldad: adj. sensing minimal emotion in most circumstances

 

 

Compassionate: adj. sensing sympathy for a lifeform(s) and wanting to and helping in some manner

 

 

Conceited/Conceitad: adj. sensing and frequently showing excessive personal pride

 

Concentrating/Concentratead: adj. focusing mentally

 

 

Concerned/Concernad: adj. being attracted to a subset(s) caused by sensed (caring and/or interesteven) and/or (importance and/or empathy) and/or (suffering of and/or affectation) for samer subset(s)

(replace interesteven with human interest and it means the same thing)

 

 

Confident: adj. sensing freedom from most doubt when trying to achieve a subset(s) and this frequently exists with a large belief in oneself and in one’s abilities

 

 

Covetous: adj. intensely desiring to possess a subset(s) and sometimes enviously

 

 

 

Craved/Cravead: adj. very intensely desiring

 

 

Curious: adj. sensing a desire to acquire new knowledge and/or experiences

 

 

Desired/Desiread: n. mentally sensing a need to achieve a goal(s) and frequently making that future achievement more probable and it originates in the survival instinct

 

 

 

Despairing/Despairad: adj. sensing complete hopelessness due primarily to very bad circumstances

 

 

Determined/Determinead: adj. sensing very intense persistence and perseverance

 

 

Disappointed/Disappointad: adj. sensing low to medium intensity badness after failing to achieve your (needs and/or hopes) and/or (desires and/or expectations) and/or goal(s)

 

 

Disapproving/Disapprovad: adj. judging a subset(s) to be bad and/or wrong and sometimes this can be judging a good and/or righta subset(s) to be bad and/or wrong           (righta is the adjective form of right)

 

 

Disbelieving/Disbelievead: adj. personally sensing and judging that something is not true with a very large degree of probability which may be a 100% probability

 

 

Disgusted/Disgustad: adj. sensing extreme displeasure at a very bad and/or very socially deviant action(s)

 

 

Disliked/Dislikead: adj. sensing low intensity displeasure for a subset(s)

 

 

Distasteful: adj. sensing dislike with one or more senses especially for food and/or drink

 

 

Eager: adj. an intense desire for a subset(s) and an intense desire to do what is essential to achieve and/or get samer subset(s) and it is frequently for a relatively short duration

 

 

Ecstatic: adj. sensing maximally intense pleasure which may or may not be injurious to the brain

 

Embarrassed/ Embarrassad: adj. sensing low intensity shame for a noncriminal subset(s)

 

 

Empathic: adj. sharing a sensation(s) with concern and meanmaking for the bad and/or good circumstance(s) and/or event(s) with another and sometimes offering helpful advice and/or caring

Meanmake: v. to communicate relatively accurately making a personal subjective and/or objective correspondence(s)

 

 

Enraged/Enragead: adj. making a lifeform(s) sense rage

You can enrage someone but when someone enrages you, then you are just in a rage or raging.

 

Envious: adj. desiring another’s (possessions and/or characteristics) and/or (luck and/or circumstances) without sensing angry resentment

 

Exasperated /Exasperatead: adj. sensing extreme annoyance and some anger and especially when there is minimal and/or no control over the annoyance

 

Exhausted/Exhaustad: adj. sensing almost total depletion of energy and desire

 

 

Fearful: adj. sensing very intense bad sensations which are sometimes caused by (very little security and/or a threat by a large imminent danger) and/or caused when in much potentially deadly pain

 

 

 

Frantic: adj. sensing very intense urgent upsetting emotion(s) and the corresponding behavior(s)

 

 

Frightened/Frightenad: adj. creating low intensity fear in a human(s)

 

Frustrated/Frustratead: adj. frequently attempting to reach a goal(s) and not doing so within an acceptable standard(s) and/or norm(s) and sensing failure

 

Grieving/Grievous: adj. sensing intense mental displeasure and/or unhappiness from the loss of a loved subset(s) which is frequently most intense when it is due to the death of a family member and sometimes exists with crying

 

Guilty: adj. sensing and deserving punishment for doing a (bad and/or immoral) and/or illegal subset(s) for which one may not be punished unless seen and caught by a witness(s) and/or a legal authority(s)

 

Happy: adj. sensing pleasure but less intense pleasure than joy and ecstasy

 

 

Hateful: adj. sensing very intensely which one senses when one wants to destroy a (bad and/or wrong) subset(s) which may be morally (bad and/or wrong) and/or may be (bad and/or wrong) because it is the primary reason why one can’t achieve a desired goal(s) and/ or (bad and/or wrong) because it is a source of intense mental displeasure and/or bodily pain

 

 

 

Hopeless: adj. sensing that a personally desired goal(s) and/or an event(s) is probably impossible to achieve

 

 

Horrified/Horrifyad: adj. sensing very intense fear for duration

 

 

Hurt/Hurtad: adj. causing bodily and/or mental pain

 

Hysterical: adj. sensing frenzied/frenzyad extreme emotion

 

 

Impatient: adj. eager anxiety for a subset(s) to end existence and/or begin existence

 

 

Indifferent: adj. sensing minimal caring and empathy and involvement

 

 

Infatuated/Infatuatead: adj. sensing short duration frequent lovin for a subset(s) with mostly unreasoning impulse

 

 

Innocent: adj. sensing absence of guilt and/or knowledge about a criminal and/or sexual subset(s)

 

Interested/Interestevad: adj. sensing an exciting subset(s) which can maintain attention and/or curiosity frequently because samer subset(s) is (new and/or strange) and/or (pleasant and/or deviant)

 

 

Intransigent: adj. stubbornly refusing to change views and/or to compromise

 

 

Jealous: adj. envying with angry resentment

 

 

Joyful: adj. sensing much pleasure but less intense pleasure than ecstasy and more intense pleasure than happiness

 

 

Laughing/Laughad: adj. sensing pleasure with repetitive inhalations and exhalations of air and it is frequently accompanied by identifiable body movements, especially face movements

 

 

 

Likable: adj. sensing low intensity pleasure for a subset(s) and the behaviors which exist with the sensing of samer subset(s)

 

 

Lonely: adj. sensing frequently caused by a loss and/or an absence of companionship and/or friendship and a desire for companionship and/or friendship

 

 

Loving: adj. sensing any intense pleasure from a subset(s) one cares about and the behavior(s) which exist with it and frequently desiring to (possess and/or interact with) and/or experience samer subset(s) for a short and/or long duration

 

 

Meditative/Meditativead: adj. thinking without anxiety and/or emotion

 

 

Mischievous: adj. sensing a desire to cause and causing trouble in a playful manner

 

Miserable: adj. sensing intense unpleasantness and (enduring a very bad circumstance(s) and/or enduring a very bad mental subset(s)) and/or experiencing enduring intense pain(s)

 

Obstinate: adj. stubbornly refusing to change one’s opinion and/or course of action despite attempts at persuasion to do so

 

Optimistic: adj. believing that a goal(s) will be achieved with a relatively large degree of probability and a general belief that good events will be more frequent than the bad events in living

 

 

Painful: adj. a bad intense mental sensation which originates from an injured body subset(s) and the behaviors which exist with it

 

 

 

Panicked/Panicad: adj. sensing uncontrollable fear and/or very intense anxiety and behaving irrationally with (physical aggression and/or stampeding) and/or random movement

 

 

Paranoid: adj. extreme irrational fear of a subset(s)

 

 

Rage: n. very intense anger which frequently includes a violent behavior(s)

 

 

Regretful: adj. sensing a wrong reaction which may be doing something bad and/or wrong and/or not doing a subset(s) which should have been done and wishing one had the power to change the wrong reaction

 

Relieved/Relievead: adj. sensing the reduction and/or elimination of (pain and/or misery) and/or (discomfort and/or anxiety) and/or (need and/or fear) and/or (tediousness and/or a usually bad emotional subset(s))

 

Sad: adj. sensing a small intensity mental displeasure frequently because of the loss and/or departure of a subset(s)

 

Satisfied: adj. sensing pleasure when (fulfilling and/or achieving) a goal(s) and/or desire(s)

 

Shocked/Shockad: adj. causing a speedy increase in electrical activity and that includes the brain

 

 

Smart: adj. behaving with above average logical reasoning skills and successfully applying them to solve political and social and economic and scientific problems and/or having emotional intelligence

 

 

Stupid: adj. behaving with incomplete logical reasoning skills and unsuccessfully applying them to solve political and social and economic and scientific problems

 

 

Surprised/Surprisead: adj. suddenly sensing what is frequently caused by an unexpected and/or very infrequent event(s) which is usually not strange

 

Suspicious: adj. judging intuitively with little evidence that a subset(s) is a probable cause of an event(s) in the past and/or the future

 

Sympathetic: adj. empathy with a lifeform(s)’s misfortune(s)

 

 

Terrified/Terrifyad: adj. fearing so extremely that one is frequently physically stopped and unable to move

 

Thoughtful/Thinkad: adj. silently and mentally verbalizing and trying to make correspondences between the subsets of one’s own knowledge and/or experiences and using as much logic as possible

 

 

Thrilled/Thrillad: adj. sensing short duration very intense excitement and/or pleasure

 

 

 

Worried/Worryad: adj. being excessively (concerned and anxious and uncertain) and wasting thinking time with a (real and/or imagined) (future and/or present)

(danger(s) and/or event(s)) and/or subset(s)

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4000 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

THE TRUTH ABOUT LOGIC***

download (1)

Logic: n. being skilled in accurate reasoning

The more mathematical our reasoning is the more logical it is and if science can be included in our reasoning then it becomes the ultimate in explaining the existence of phenomenon in this universe.

Some reasoning is not very mathematical and it is cause effect reasoning or the assumption that one or more causes create one or more effects.

Deductive and inductive reasoning is really a skill at following a cause effect chain from beginning to end (deductive reasoning) and from end to beginning (inductive reasoning).

The concept of spatial arrangements using sets and subsets to describe the universe makes the most sense logically and is a way of grouping things and/or events into connected clusters.

Logic is really making accurate correspondences between movement or verbs and/or the environment or nouns. If we accurately describe the world and the way it operates then it has predictive value and we can make similar descriptions about the world in the future or past. If we make inaccurate descriptions of the world in the present then it is not very useful and has little or no predictive value about the future or past.

Nothing is more important than accurate descriptions of words or definitions because if our definitions are vague and inaccurate then their use in the world will also be rather vague and inaccurate.

The humanities and pseudo scientific politics and sociology uses badly defined words to try and describe reality and it is relatively useless with little predictive value and is mostly a statement of statistical norms and not cause effect relationships.

To make the humanities more logical I have attempted to define words more logically and have new more accurate definitions for love, hate, empathy, pity, cruelty, steal, deception, etc. and this more logical approach makes greater sense than ever before and makes possible more rigorous or accurate descriptions of reality.

They are not scientific definitions so their predictive value is not absolute but at least it is a step in the right direction in making language more logical and less emotionally biased. More logical definitions means a smarter language and humans who use the words with greater understanding will make smarter more logical choices in their lives.

If you have accurate reasoning ability in an area of expertise then you can be said to be logical in that area of expertise under many circumstances.

You are being logical if you can accurately find correspondences between a cause and effect or a series of causes and effects.

You are also logical if you can find relationships or correspondences between a set and subsets and between the subsets themselves.

You are also logical if you make accurate probabilistic communications about events.

You are logical if you accurately use historical precedents and present observations to make relatively accurate predictions about the future.

You are logical if you can use mathematics to describe the relationships or correspondences between variables in physics, chemistry, and biology.

You are logical if you use the scientific method to discover new facts, relationships, or correspondences between variables, sets and subsets.

You are logical if you can make accurate correspondences.

You are logical if you accurately predict the future behavior of a human based on historical precedent or based on the behaviors of that human or a group of humans similar in behavior to that human.

You are more logical if you use words with accurate logical definitions and not vague badly defined ones.

Finally you are logical if you can accurately observe someone’s emotional state and can predict another’s behavior relatively accurately. You are also logical if you can control or change the emotional state of another in a relatively predictable way.

 

If you want a complete list of the new logical definitions for words then read my evergreen truth book SCIENTIFIC THESAURUS which has over 6000 logical word definitions.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 1000 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

THE LOGICAL DEFINITION OF LOVE NEEDED TO TALK ABOUT IT MEANINGFULLY

Loving-Couple-Near-Beach

Love: v. to sense a very intense pleasure for a subset(s) one cares about and the behaviors which exist with it and frequently desiring to (possess and/or interact with) and/or experience samer subset(s) for a short and/or long duration

 

Lovin: n. sensing a very intense pleasure from a subset(s) one cares about and the behavior(s) which exist with it and frequently desiring to (possess and/or interact with) and/or experience samer subset(s) for a short and/or long duration

 

Samer: adj. a second reference to a subset in a communication

 

Subset: n. a thing

You can love an object and/or human and/or activity either one of which is a subset or a thing.

If you love an object subset then you care about it and feel intense pleasure frequently desiring to possess it or interact with it.

If you love a human subset then you care about it and initially feel intense pleasure when interacting with the human and may desire to experience sex with the human or possess the human by marrying it so that you can interact with the human for a long duration.

If you love an activity subset such as a sport it can give you intense pleasure and you care about it. You may want to interact with it or experience it by watching or participating in it.

Initial love for a subset frequently decreases with time and you may only sense an attraction for it and no longer get very intense pleasure from it but that is very natural and nothing to worry about because very intense emotion lasting for too long is a dangerous addiction and not healthy for your system in the long duration. Not intensely loving a subset means that you may experience affection or liking for the subset also as time progresses because no one can perpetually live in constant infatuation with something you love. There are times when you will love a subset, there are times when you will sense affection for a subset, and many more times you will just like a subset or what it does for you.

Most very intense pleasure lasts for a relatively short duration but the desire to possess and/or interact with and/or experience it may last for a long duration.

Love is very complex with many special examples in life which are all frequently a smaller part of the general definition. Love not only is a  VERY INTENSE PLEASURE or emotion but it is also sensing a DESIRE to possess and/or interact with and/or experience it for a relatively short duration and/or long duration.

I think that we can all agree that with a logical definition of love it is much better than inaccurately arguing over and over again that love is God, love is an emotion, love is divine, love is devotion, and love is like a volcano which are all bad inaccurate illogical ways of communicating about love and making it mean a thousand and one different things depending on the personal subjective biases of the writer.

Fond and tender feelings are examples of low intensity pleasure or a little pleasure which is not love.  Love must be very intense pleasure and does not happen in a relationship as frequently as fond or tender feelings.  Fond and tender feelings are really examples of affectionate and liking behavior which is not love nor loving behavior.  Fond and tender feelings are frequently examples of affectionate and liking behavior which is very important in long lasting relationships especially marriages but those medium and low intensity feelings are not loving emotions and definitely not loving behaviors.

There is a fundamental difference between the concepts “I love that woman” and “I like that woman” or “I love my motorcycle” and “I like my motorcycle”.

Liking someone shows that you care for that person and in a close relationship it increases the probability that you also love that person. Affectionate behavior is a subset of liking behavior and loving behavior is a subset of loveall behavior. Liking and loving behaviors are both independent subsets of attracting behaviors.

loveall: n. loving everything

We are saying that we love a subset(s) if we like it very intensely.  If we say that we love a subset(s) with low intensity it is more accurate to say that we like that subset(s) or are affectionate towards that subset(s).

Being loving and affectionate and liking someone in a relationship is being attracted to someone and is not loving them. This is to avoid a serious logical paradox that loving, affection, and liking mean the same thing. I love you really means that I like you, I am affectionate towards you and I love you intensely at times and a new word for this kind of a loving relationship is necessary.

To avoid logical confusion the concept of universal love should be replaced with the following two new words:

Lovrelate: v. to sense much lovin and affection and liking for a subset(s) but not simultaneously

Lovrelationship: n. sensing much lovin and affection and liking for a subset(s) but not simultaneously

My current evergreen truth book is called LOVEALL and it goes into greater detail about love by asking and answering 73 questions about love. For only $3.50 it is a bargain and you will become masterful at the subject of love and learn to successfully apply the useful information to your own love life.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them.

Enjoy!!!!!!