Category Archives: Etymology

Cardio

Accord, concord, discord all share the same root: cord– ‘heart.’ Concord means “together-heart”.

Magnanimous come from magnus ‘great’ + animus ‘soul’.

*

I indexed on my wiki a long string of passages on the sublimation of personality in art. In art (and philosophy is a species of art) an author’s soul makes itself representative of something greater and more universal than the biography of a single individual. It becomes common property, something others can inhabit, see from, participate in, live out.

The name on the title-page. — That the name of the author should be inscribed on the book is now customary and almost a duty; yet it is one of the main reasons books produce so little effect. For if they are good, then, as the quintessence of the personality of their authors, they are worth more than these; but as soon as the author announces himself on the title-page, the reader at once dilutes the quintessence again with the personality, indeed with what is most personal, and thus thwarts the object of the book. It is the intellect’s ambition to seem no longer to belong to an individual.”

Another:

The book becomes almost human. — Every writer is surprised anew when a book, as soon as it has separated from him, begins to take on a life of its own. He feels as if one part of an insect had been severed and were going its own way. Perhaps he almost forgets the book; perhaps he rises above the views set down in it; perhaps he no longer understands it and has lost those wings on which he soared when he devised that book. Meanwhile, it goes about finding its readers, kindles life, pleases, horrifies, fathers new works, becomes the soul of others’ resolutions and behavior — in short, it lives like a being fitted out with mind and soul and yet it is nevertheless not human. — The most fortunate author is one who is able to say as an old man that all he had of life-giving, invigorating, uplifting, enlightening thoughts and feelings still lives on in his writings, and that he himself is only the gray ash, while the fire has been rescued and carried forth everywhere. — If one considers, then, that a man’s every action, not only his books, in some way becomes the occasion for other actions, decisions, and thoughts; that everything which is happening is inextricably tied to everything which will happen; then one understands the real immortality, that of movement: what once has moved others is like an insect in amber, enclosed and immortalized in the general intertwining of all that exists.

Pirates and experience professionals

Experience – ORIGIN late Middle English : via Old French from Latin experientia, from experiri ‘try.’ Compare with experiment and expert.

Empirical – ORIGIN late Middle English : via Latin from Greek empeirikos, from empeiria ‘experience,’ from empeiros ‘skilled’ (based on peira ‘trial, experiment’ ).

Pirate – ORIGIN Middle English : from Latin pirata, from Greek peirates, from peirein ‘to attempt, attack’ (from peira ‘an attempt’).

*

“A new species of philosophers is coming up: I venture to baptize them with a name that is not free of danger. As I unriddle them, insofar as they allow themselves to be unriddled — for it belongs to their nature to want to remain riddles at some point — , these philosophers of the future may have a right, it might also be a wrong, to be called experimenters [Versucher, i.e. attempters]. This name itself is in the end a mere attempt [Versuch] and, if you will, a temptation [Versuchung].” — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

To be seen and not heard

“You are to be seen and not heard.” This means: you are to be an object, not a subject.

Whatever needs knowing about an object can be known through observation. An object belongs to a world, but a world does not belong to it.

A subject, however, while belonging to the world also has a world that belongs to him. A subject looks back.

Consider the etymology of the word “respect”.

*

There is no way to understand a particular subjectivity as such objectively.

One only understands subjectivity by engaging subjectively. One attempts to share the other’s world as the other views it, which means one involves oneself. One learns from the other. In the process, one’s own view of the world changes, and that means one’s own subjectivity changes. The other’s view of the world changes, too.

In an interview two separated views converge and merge into an inter-view.

*

Behavior is an objective consequence of subjectivity. The odd thing about behavior: in the end it is phenomenal, and it can be taken as a mode of speech and heard along with the other’s voice, or it can be stripped away from the other and subsumed entirely by one’s own world and simply observed. Even speech can be viewed as behavior, or as mere sound. One can explain an other away or one can illuminate an other’s own self-explanation and understand.

Hermeneutics is hearing. The-hermeneutic-of-such-and-such is resistance to hearing: aggressive mishearing.

*

The most immediate and convincing evidence of otherness is dialectic.

Music

Sounds are harmonized, and the harmony has an immediate and inarticulate meaning irreducible to the formal constituent parts. Lyrics may articulate a meaning related to that of the harmony, but the meaning will not be an identical one, in fact the harmony between sound and word, creates yet another meaning even richer, more comprehensive and less explicable than the first. It cannot be conveyed by any abstract terms outside of the concrete being of the music itself. The only articulations possible are sympathetic ones which immediately enrich or diminish what is articulated.

*

Parts are harmonized into an irreducible whole. The whole is articulated in words which relate to the whole, within the whole, in participation with the whole.

If the words relate to the whole from outside the whole, the words are alienated from the whole and speak of something essentially different from that which they wish to comprehend.

*

When we try to transcend a whole to which we belong, in which we participate — apart from which we are no longer who we are — that whole expands with the experience or it ceases to be. It is never punctured and viewed whole against the sky like a piece of fruit, a beautiful body, a useful instrument, or a Big Blue Marble.

*

When we attempt to imagine a world beyond time, space and thought we attempt to perceive essential being as particular objective beings, which is all the mind can master.

Much metaphysics is the lust for the god’s-eye-view which dreams of the point of view from which all things are seen objectively and made comprehensible to a human mind. This is the only concrete image available to us when we imagine what it would be like to be a god, knowing good and evil.

Out of sheer incapacity to imagine otherwise, we reduce the Absolute to our human terms rather than raise our human terms in pursuit of the Absolute. For sure, we won’t find the edge and look back down on the Absolute, but we might find many relative edges and look back down onto many relative points and perhaps retain the capacity to recollect how the totality of existence looked when the intellect was constrained within those horizons, in that time, in that place.

*

To the inverted eye of idolatry, as we raise ourselves to the absolute we look like we are are falling into relativism, and as we perfect our obedience and love and look like like traitors and nihilists.

*

Harmony: ORIGIN Latin harmonia ‘joining, concord,’ from Greek, from harmos ‘joint.’

Articulate: ORIGIN Latin articulatus, articulare ‘divide into joints, utter distinctly,’ from articulus ‘small connecting part.’

Sanity and vision

The world is overrun with visionaries and sane people.

What is lacking is:

  1. vision which respects sanity, and
  2. sanity which recognizes vision.

*

Too often, sanity poses as vision, exotically paraphrasing the same old content in the language and gestures of vision. Why? Because the sane know what the truth is, but they find the truth bland and wish to spice it up a little.

Too often, vision is ignorantly parasitic. It lives off the conditions provided by sanity while denouncing the sanity that provides it. Why? Because the visionary knows the truth about truth, and cannot go back to the stunted “truth” of the sane.

But neither the truth nor the truth about truth is true enough to support community.

*

We need sanity, not because it is more objectively true than vision, but because it is stable, more communicable and therefore more readily sharable.

We need vision, because things are true as far as they go but they are never true enough for long.

*

Human beings need each other — commonalities and differences, alike.

We hate this. Otherness confronts us with the fact of finitude. Individuals longs to be infinite.

*

Re-spect: re– ‘back’ + specere ‘look at.’
“How does this world we share look through your eyes?”

Re-cognize: re– ‘again’ + cognoscere ‘learn.’
“Can you show me a new way to see this world we share?”

Re-duce: re– ‘back, again’ + ducere ‘bring, lead.’
“The world exists as I comprehend it.”

Com-prehend: com– ‘together’ + prehendere ‘grasp.’
“I am objective.”

Ob-ject: ob– ‘in the way of’ + jacere ‘to throw.’
“The world is reducible to material, to the being of the object.”

Under-stand
“Do you understand that under every object stands an experience, and upon this does an object exists as an object?”

Is experience essentially individual?

*

Synesis means we stand together and see the world as together.
The subject who sees — we — is active. We see together.
The object of sight — the world — is passive.  The world is seen as together.

Synesis recognizes that the solid togetherness of the world is only apparent.
We can see this solid togetherness differently if are open to being shown.

Synesis respects the truth that we human beings need solidity.
The solidity of the world is scaffolding for the solidarity of people.

Synesis is solidity through solidarity and solidarity through solidity.

Both the solidity and the solidarily of synesis long for infinity and pursue it.
This means sometimes solidarity and solidity must be renounced, for the sake of  synesis.
Synesis is essentially self-sacrificing and self-affirming.

*

On this liquid ground of experience we stand together in understanding or we sink under the surface as dissolving individuals.

*

Vision opens sanity. Sanity stabilizes vision.

openstablespiral

Perfection

Yesterday I wrote this:

Love is the active desire to share a world, to see with. Love pursues the accomplishment of perfect sharing despite futility.

Some will point out the futility and on that basis to give up the pursuit, but this happens when love is lacking.

Would someone who loves chocolate refuse to eat a portion of chocolate she knows she cannot finish? The chocolate is intrinsically good. Eating it is not a means to having eaten it.

Where something is a means and not an end in itself it is not intrinsically valued. Love is intrinsic valuing.

In its imperfection, love is not absent, only its outer edges. Its imperfection is incompleteness, something remains to be done. But this is only a way of saying that it is inexhaustible.

*

Today I read this passage by Martin Buber:

Religion as risk, which is ready to give itself up, is the nourishing stream of the arteries; as system, possessing, assured and assuring, religion which believes in religion is the veins’ blood, which ceases to circulate. And if there is nothing that can so hide the face of our fellow-man as morality can, religion can hide from us as nothing else can the face of God. Principle there, dogma here, I appreciate the “objective” compactness of dogma, but behind both there lies in wait the — profane or holy — war against the situation’s power of dialogue, there lies in wait the “once-for-all” which resists the unforeseeable moment. Dogma, even when its claim of origin remains uncontested, has become the most exalted form of invulnerability against revelation. Revelation will tolerate no perfect tense, but man with the arts of his craze for security props it up to perfectedness.

*

Perfect –  ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French perfet, from Latin perfectus ‘completed,’ from the verb perficere, from per– ‘through, completely’ + facere ‘do.’

*

Etymologies of English words associated with Hegel

Subject – ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense of person owing obedience): from Old French suget, from Latin subjectus ‘brought under,’ past participle of subicere, from sub– ‘under’ + jacere ‘throw.’

Object – ORIGIN late Middle English : from medieval Latin objectum ‘thing presented to the mind,’ neuter past participle (used as a noun) of Latin obicere, from ob– ‘in the way of’ + jacere ‘to throw.’

Substance – ORIGIN Middle English (denoting the essential nature of something): from Old French, from Latin substantia ‘being, essence,’ from substant– ‘standing firm,’ from the verb substare, sub– ‘under, close to’ + stare ‘to stand.’

Existence – ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, or from late Latin existentia, from Latin exsistere ‘come into being,’ from ex– ‘out’ + sistere ‘take a stand.’

Essence – ORIGIN late Middle English : via Old French from Latin essentia, from esse ‘be.’

Immanence – ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from late Latin immanent– ‘remaining within,’ from in– ‘in’ + manere ‘remain.’

Transcendence – ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin transcendent– ‘climbing over,’ from the verb transcendere, from trans– ‘across’ + scandere ‘climb.’.

Appearance – ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French aparance, aparence, from late Latin apparentia, from Latin apparere, from ad– ‘toward’ + parere ‘come into view.’

Revelation – ORIGIN Middle English (in the theological sense): from Old French, or from late Latin revelatio(n-), from revelare ‘lay bare’, from re– ‘again’ (expressing reversal) + velum ‘veil.’

Manifestation – ORIGIN late Middle English : from late Latin manifestatio(n-), from the verb manifestare ‘make public.’

Phenomenon – ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek phainomenon ‘thing appearing to view,’ based on phainein ‘to show.’

Intention – ORIGIN Middle English entend (in the sense of direct the attention to), from Old French entendre, from Latin intendere ‘intend, extend, direct,’ from in– ‘toward’ + tendere ‘stretch, tend.’

Articulate – ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin articulatus, past participle of articulare ‘divide into joints, utter distinctly,’ from articulus ‘small connecting part’, diminutive of artus ‘joint.’

Concept – ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French concevoir, from Latin concipere, from com– ‘together’ + capere ‘take.’

Notion – ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin notio(n-) ‘idea,’ from notus ‘known,’ past participle of noscere.

Idea – ORIGIN late Middle English : via Latin from Greek idea ‘form, pattern,’ from the base of idein ‘to see.’

Ideologue – ORIGIN late 18th cent. : from French idéologie, from Greek idea ‘form, pattern’ + –logos (denoting discourse or compilation).

Dialogue – ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French dialoge, via Latin from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai ‘converse with,’ from dia ‘through, across’ + legein ‘speak.’

Thesis – ORIGIN late Middle English : via late Latin from Greek, literally ‘placing, a proposition,’ from the root of tithenai ‘to place.’

Antithesis – ORIGIN late Middle English (originally denoting the substitution of one grammatical case for another): from late Latin, from Greek antitithenai ‘set against,’ from anti ‘against’ + tithenai ‘to place.’ The earliest current sense, denoting a rhetorical or literary device, dates from the early 16th cent.

Synthesis – ORIGIN early 17th cent.: via Latin from Greek sunthesis, from suntithenai ‘place together.’

Proposition – ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin pro– ‘forward’ + posit– ‘placed,’ from the verb ponere.

Assertion – ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Latin asserere ‘claim, affirm,’ from ad– ‘to’ + serere ‘to join.’

Negation – ORIGIN early 17th cent. : from Latin negat– ‘denied,’ from the verb negare.

Sublation – ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Latin sublat– ‘taken away,’ from sub– ‘from below’ + lat– (from the stem of tollere ‘take away’ ).

Cancellation – ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense of obliterate or delete writing by drawing or stamping lines across it): from Old French canceller, from Latin cancellare, from cancelli ‘crossbars.’

Erasure – ORIGIN late 16th cent. (originally as a heraldic term meaning represent the head or limb of an animal with a jagged edge): from Latin eras– ‘scraped away,’ from the verb eradere, from e– (variant of ex-) ‘out’ + radere ‘scrape.’

Eradication – ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense of pull up by the roots): from Latin eradicat– ‘torn up by the roots,’ from the verb eradicare, from e– (variant of ex-) ‘out’ + radix, radic– ‘root.’

Annihilation – ORIGIN late Middle English (originally as an adjective meaning destroyed, annulled): from late Latin annihilatus ‘reduced to nothing,’ from the verb annihilare, from ad– ‘to’ + nihilnothing.’ The verb sense of destroy utterly dates from the mid 16th cent.

Overcoming – ORIGIN Old English ofercuman. Old English ofer (of Germanic origin; related to Dutch over and German über, from an Indo-European word – originally a comparative of the element represented by –ove in above – which is also the base of Latin super and Greek huper/hyper) + cuman, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch komen and German kommen.

Sublimation – ORIGIN late Middle English in the sense of raise to a higher status) : from Latin sublimat– ‘raised up,’ from the verb sublimare, from sub– ‘up to’ + a second element perhaps related to limen ‘threshold,’ limus ‘oblique.’

Speculative –  ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin speculat– ‘observed from a vantage point,’ from the verb speculari, from specula ‘watchtower,’ from specere ‘to look.’

Perspective – ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘optics’ ): from medieval Latin perspectiva (ars) ‘science of optics,’ from perspect– ‘looked at closely,’ from the verb perspicere, from per– ‘through’ + specere ‘to look.’

Eco-friendly

Economy – ORIGIN late 15th cent. in the sense of management of material resources: from French économie, or via Latin from Greek oikonomia ‘household management,’ based on oikos ‘house’ + nemein ‘manage.’ Current senses date from the 17th cent.

Ecology – ORIGIN late 19th cent. (originally as oecology): from Greek oikos ‘house’ + –logy.

Compare and contrast

Have you ever been in a deep, inspired conversion with a friend and noticed that you were waiting with your friend to hear what you would say next? Did the world change for you? Did it wear off?

Have you ever been absorbed in a book and had difficulty adjusting back to the normal world?

Have you ever remembered a happy time and found it impossible to believe you were happy?

Have you ever spoken to a friend and realized they were no longer your friend? By this I do not mean that the person no longer considers you a friend – I mean the one who was your friend no longer exists behind this familiar face speaking in this unfamiliar voice.

We have ways of accounting for these experiences. We account for them to one another, and we accept these accounts.

These ways  of accounting for experience are not the only ways, however. In past centuries things were understood differently and consequently experienced differently. Even at this moment, experience may be understood and experienced radically differently by the people around you. They share your environment. When they speak they use the same words. They work with you, maybe collaborate closely with you. Nonetheless, they may dwell in a very different world than the one you know.

Perhaps our way of accounting for experience conceals and protects us from the depth of the difference.

=====

OPTIONAL ETYMOLOGICAL PLAY
(Feel free to skip this part.)

*

Subject – ORIGIN Latin subjectus ‘brought under,’ past participle of subicere, from sub– ‘under’ + jacere ‘throw.’ Senses relating to philosophy, logic, and grammar are derived ultimately from Aristotle’s use of to hupokeimenon meaning material from which things are made and subject of attributes and predicates. Hupokeimenon means ‘that which lies underneath’.

Object – ORIGIN medieval Latin objectum ‘thing presented to the mind,’ neuter past participle (used as a noun) of Latin obicere, from ob– ‘toward, against, in the way of’ + jacere ‘to throw’.

*

An interesting fact: In most traditions Heaven is considered masculine, and Earth is considered feminine.

‘Heaven covers, Earth supports’

*

Matter – ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin materia ‘timber, substance,’ also ‘subject of discourse,’ from mater ‘mother.’

Substance – ORIGIN Latin substantia ‘being, essence,’ from substant– ‘standing firm,’ from the verb substare, sub– ‘under’ + stare ‘to stand.’

Understand?

*

Check this out:

Contrast – ORIGIN Late 17th cent. as a term in fine art, in the sense of juxtapose so as to bring out differences in form and color): from French contraste (noun), contraster (verb), via Italian from medieval Latin contrastare, from Latin contra– ‘against’ + stare ‘stand.’)

*

Try this on:

Subject (throw under) : Object (throw against)
::
Substance (stand under) : Contrast (stand against) ?

*

Creepy, related words:

Succubus – A female demon believed to have sexual intercourse with sleeping men. ORIGIN late Middle English : from medieval Latin succubus ‘prostitute,’ from succubare, from sub– ‘under’ + cubare ‘to lie.’

Incubus – A male demon believed to have sexual intercourse with sleeping women. ORIGIN Middle English : late Latin form of Latin incubo ‘nightmare,’ from incubare ‘lie on’ (see incubate).

*

End of ETYMOLOGICAL PLAY

=====

A person would be blind to his own subjectivity if it weren’t for contrasting subjectivities.

There are two sources of contrasting subjectivity which when taken together, one reveal what subjectivity essentially is: 1) other people; 2) changes to one’s own subjectivity.

What constitutes contrasting subjectivity?

1) With other people, subjective contrast manifests when I and another subjectivity, share an experience and respond differently to it. In response, I act and speak in one way, the other acts and speaks another way. It is clear that we are encountering something analogous, but also different in important ways. What is comparable we take for objective, what contrasts we take for subjective.

2) Something similar goes on in how we account for changes to our own subjectivity. We encounter some object or situation that we have identified as identical, but at different times, and we have a different response. We act differently and we find ourselves saying different things about it. Again, what is comparable we take for objective, what contrasts we take for subjective.

My question is whether these two experiences don’t inter-illuminate. Would the subjective experience of others mean something different if we had no experience of individual subjective change, for instance if we had no mood shifts or we somehow failed to notice them? And if we were unaware of other subjective responses (for reasons of psychological impairment, or lack of interest or mistrust) would our own subjective changes have the same meaning? As I ask this, I find myself answering affirmatively: the inter-illumination, the parallax, the dialogue between intersubjectivity and change in subjectivity point to the essence of subjectivity.

But now look what we are doing here, right now. I am talking to you about my own experiences of comparing and contrasting my subjectivity intersubjectively and temporally – you who have had similar experiences, or maybe your experiences have differed in some way. Look at us comparing and contrasting our experiences of comparing and contrasting comparisons and contrasts…

The form is self-similar: dialogue within dialogue within dialogue. Dialogue, “with-logos”.

*

We know other subjectivities through dialogue, because dialogue directly changes one’s own subjectivity, and that change is manifested by the 10,000 things of the world. Dialogue is direct intersubjective encounter, mediated by the world.  Synesis – the Greek word for understanding (literally “togetherness”) –  is seeing the togetherness of the world together. Synesis is in the parallax between your eyes, the stereophonicity between your ears, in the objectifying that arises in the between-ness of your senses, between the voices conversing in your head about objects and experiences, spoken in your native language and in images and raw analogies. This complex, changing dynamically stable togetherness, which each of us abbreviates as self, and calls “I” or “me”, speaks to other selves and interacts with them as if they were simple, and often as if they were objects. Sometimes the self mistakes itself for an object, something that is primarily a thing or an image. It is hard to know one’s self.

*

According to the book of Genesis, on the sixth day, after creating our world, speaking it into existence:

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The book of John describes it differently, but compatibly:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

*

Many people think of the universe as physical. A person is a physical being somehow invested with subjectivity. Subjectivity is inexplicable, and explained through our most mysterious physical forces.

Many others think of the universe as spiritual. A person is a spiritual being somehow in the midst of a world we take for physical. Of these, some think of the individual as the ultimate subjective unit. Others think of their nation or religion or church or race or party as the ultimate subjective unit. These perspectives are solipsistic, the former is a solipsistic individual, the latter is a solipsistic collective.

Others think of the universe as spiritual, but that subjective being is elastic and variable and conducted by communication.

Indivisible

Atom – ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a– ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’

Individual – ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense of indivisible): from medieval Latin individualis, from Latin individuus, from in– ‘not’ + dividuus ‘divisible’ (from dividere ‘to divide’ ).

On the sixth day we came

We each have a pair of eyes which look out onto the world from slightly different angles. Because of the ordered similarity and difference between the two views the world gains stereoscopic depth.

Likewise, our two ears hear a similar sonic world, but each ear hears some sounds a little louder and some sounds a little softer. Because of the ordered similarity and difference between the two views the world gains stereosonic depth.

The stereosonic depth and the stereoscopic depth are perceived separately but can also be related (to use the word incorrectly) synesthetically to create an abstract depth. (Or is it this abstract depth that gives meaning to stereoscopic/stereophonic depth?)

The abstract depth is confirmed (or established) in our experiences, which are always twofold: reflection on the past related to our ongoing anticipations of the future. Without this play of future and past (which constitutes our present) time would not be time to us. It is hard to imagine that we would be ourselves anymore. I imagine we would be like Edwin Muir’s animals.

They do not live in the world,
Are not in time and space.
From birth to death hurled
No word do they have, not one
To plant a foot upon,
Were never in any place.

For with names the world was called
Out of the empty air,
With names was built and walled,
Line and circle and square,
Dust and emerald;
Snatched from deceiving death
By the articulate breath.

But these have never trod
Twice the familiar track,
Never never turned back
Into the memoried day.
All is new and near
In the unchanging Here
Of the fifth great day of God,
That shall remain the same,
Never shall pass away.

On the sixth day we came.

*

On the sixth day we came… We who speak to one another as a fellow I, as a thou. Together we call the world out of empty air.

We who, like pairs of eyes or ears, like the past and the future, bring together in language a stereo-ontic sense of the world, and bring out another divine dimension: the subject.

Without We, I am negativity, a nothing, a void, a dreamed thing populated with images.

*

Like two hands of a common body touching in gassho, two people speaking a common language meet in respect and transcend the illusion of the ultimacy of the ego. We say Namaste or Shalom to someone who hears our voice in world and understands. In dialogue we are changed and renewed and finally understand that in authentic we – dialogical we – none of us can believe he is alone.

*

Namaste/shalom/thou is said dialogically, or nothing is said in the word. It is just idle repetition of a word. All dialogue is practical namaste/shalom/thou. Dialogue is the opposite of idle repetition of words.

*

Some of us want to be left alone, except we don’t realize the extent to which we are sustained by togetherness.

The most antisocial man breaks down in solitary confinement almost immediately. The most antisocial thinker must necessarily go insane. He uses the same words, but cannot communicate. Nobody can save him.

Dialogue is what stabilizes our world and makes the primordial chaos of the phenomenal flux solid and real.

*

Take note those times when you speak to your friend and lose yourself in conversation; when you are absorbed in your work and forget yourself; when in collaboration nobody knows who thought of what and everybody knows that what the group produced was impossible for any of the individuals; when you speak to someone and only that someone and what is being said is revealed you you as you hear it…

Take note of how you feel afterwards.

*

If you can never lose yourself, you can never find yourself.

*

Stereo – ORIGIN from Greek stereos ‘solid.’

Parallax – ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French parallaxe, from Greek parallaxis ‘a change,’ from parallassein ‘to alternate,’ based on allassein ‘to exchange’ (from allos ‘other’ ).

Dialogue –  ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French dialoge, via Latin from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai ‘converse with,’ from dia ‘through’ + legein ‘speak.’

*

Love and duality. – What is love but understanding and rejoicing at the fact that another lives, feels and acts in a way different from and opposite to ours? If love is to bridge these antitheses through joy it may not deny or seek to abolish them. – Even self-love presupposes an unblendable duality (or multiplicity) in one person. – Nietzsche

*

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” – Matthew 22:34

Across words

Dialogue – ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French dialoge, via Latin from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai ‘converse with,’ from dia ‘through, across’ + legein ‘speak.’

Dialectic – ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French dialectique or Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektike (tekhne) ‘(art) of debate,’ from dialegesthai ‘converse with’. [NOTE: dialogical techne?]

Transcend – ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French transcendre or Latin transcendere, from trans– ‘across’ + scandere ‘climb.’


Christian cred

Think about these statements:

“Bear with me.”
“Please hear me out.”
“It will all make sense in the end.”

Why are these requests necessary? When are they made?

To what feeling in the listener is the speaker responding?

What kind of appeal is being made? Do we owe it to another to give him a full hearing?

When is the appeal denied? Is it a matter of credibility?

What is the experience of denial?

*

To read the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament is to experience the most pluralistic religious vision ever recorded, from the most accutely and radically pluralistic people who ever lived. In what other scripture is the same story is recounted three different times from the point of view of three different people? It would have been easier and more obvious to collapse them into one univocal account, but instead the three experiences, three meaningful visions were presented together in a three-in-one synopsis – syn– (together) –opsis (seeing). [* See note 1 below]

I like to think of pluralism as a kind of parallax vision, that allows us to see hyper-dimensionally. With one eye you see a flat picture. With two eyes working in concert we see depth. Our so-called “inner eye” draws out the dimension of meaning. With a pluralistic synopsis we see meaning together – we share meaning and have community. We gain understanding, which the Greeks called synesis.

*

By the time Jesus began teaching his distinctively Jewish universal vision of life, the Jewish tradition had survived and overcome numerous cultural crises. They had dominated and been subjugated, had won their home and lost it. They knew belonging and alienation, and they knew both sides of power.

Most importantly they knew that knowledge of experience means to know an experience from the inside. Experiencing is inseparable from that which is experienced, and this means, to use a common visual analogy, that  experience is inseparable from its vision, as how the world looks from that experience. (One of my favorite Jewish thinkers, Edmund Husserl called this “intentionality”: seeing and seen are inseparable, as are hearing and sound, feeling and sensation, etc. [* See note 2 below].)

The Jews knew better than anyone that power is something that can be seen, but even more, it is a way of seeing – of life and the world as a whole. Power has its own kind of vision. When an emperor sees himself, or his court, or a rival power, or he looks upon a conquered enemy or slave, that emperor sees something radically different than the slave regarding the same situation. Power is something different, powerlessness is different. A palace, a body, a tree, a poem… everything is the same in a sense, but things are deeply different. The same goes for a stranger, expat, wanderer, outcast or outcaste.

Out of necessity, the Jews had to develop a way of preserving themselves as a tradition within these conditions. That meant living on a line between provoking attacks from the outside and simply dissolving from cultural self-indifference or self-disgust. They had to internalize their strength. They had to find dignity in their vulnerability to escape the indignity of weakness.

There was no way such a response to such a universal problem was going to stay contained within a small ethnic tradition forever. Whether it was Jesus or Paul, somehow the radical insights of Judaism went universal.

*

A series of words derived from the Latin word credere, “believe, trust”:

  • Credit
  • Credential
  • Credence
  • Creed
  • Credo

A series of words derived from the Old English word agan, “believe, trust.” :

  • Own
  • Owe
  • Ought (originally past tense of “owe”)

A series of words derived from Latin auditor, from audire, “to hear”:

  • Audit
  • Audition
  • Auditorium
  • Auditory
  • Audio

*

An example of divergent accounts from two of the Synoptic Gospels (which some scholars believe were adapted from yet another lost Gospel, “Q”, possibly a compendium of sayings similar to the (in)famous Gospel of Thomas).

These two passages are taken from Jesus’s famous Lord’s Prayer, his instructions on how to pray.

Matthew 6:12: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

Luke 11:4: “And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

In Matthew 6:12, the Greek word used was opheilema. [* See note 3 below.]

In Luke 11:4, the Greek word was hamartia, which means literally “missing the mark”.

*

Out of time. Darn. I’ll finish this post if there’s any interest. [* See note 4 below.]

—-

* NOTE 1:  To call the New Testament inconsistent as some atheists do is to miss the point. To argue over which meaning is the right meaning as the fundamentalists do is to betray the point. To behave as though a plurality of possible meaning implies that all meanings are equivalent and that it is meaningless to discuss them… to go skeptical on that basis, and to ask cynically, rhetorically “what is truth?”… to wash one’s hands of the responsibility to engage dialogically in pursuit of understanding… that’s complicity in the conflict.

* NOTE 2:  Intentionality in Husserl’s sense is a core religious insight, expressed in a variety of forms, from the Jewish Star of David, to the Chinese yin-within-yang and yang-within-yin, to the Greek Janusian herms (with Hermes’s head fused to the head of a goddess, often Aphrodite), to the Hermetic hermaphroditic Androgyne, male on the right, female on the left, sun on the right, moon on the left. Listen for the inside-outside symbolic structure and you’ll find it everywhere. This capacity to hear and understand the form-language of symbol is what I believe is meant by “having ears that hear.”

* NOTE 3: Opheilema seemed like it might have a connection with the name “Ophelia” from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I looked it up on Wikipedia to see if there was an etymological connection. According to Wikipedia, “the name ‘Ophelia’ itself was either uncommon or nonexistent; the only known prior text to use the name (as “Ofalia”) is Jacopo Sannazaro’s Arcadia.” It seems fairly obvious the name is a combination of opheilema and philia, love – “love debt” – love unrequited.)

* NOTE 4: Etymology of “interest”: ORIGIN late Middle English (originally as interess): from Anglo-Norman French interesse, from Latin interesse ‘differ, be important,’ from inter– ‘between’ + esse ‘be.’ The -t was added partly by association with Old French interest ‘damage, loss,’ apparently from Latin interest ‘it is important.’ Also influenced by medieval Latin interesse ‘compensation for a debtor’s defaulting.’

Metaphysics

Metaphysics – the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: representing medieval Latin metaphysica, based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle’s works [crazy!]: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.

Theophanic – of a visible manifestation to humankind of God or a god. ORIGIN Old English, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek theophaneia, from theos ‘god’ + phainein ‘to show.’

Exophanic – of revelation of the fact of beyondness. ORIGIN Greek, from exo ‘outside’ + phainein ‘to show.’

Cataphatic –  of knowledge of God obtained through affirmation. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Greek kataphatikos ‘affirmative,’ from kataphasis ‘affirmation,’ from kata– (as an intensifier) + phanai ‘speak.’

Apophatic – of knowledge of God obtained through negation. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Greek apophatikos ‘negative,’ from apophasis ‘denial,’ from apo– ‘other than’ + phanai ‘speak.’

Transcendent – beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French transcendre or Latin transcendere, from trans– ‘across’ + scandere ‘climb.’

*

My definition of metaphysics: The philosophy of that which is beyond direct experience.

Obviously, this is tricky territory. How does one think about that which is, by definition, unthinkable?  Not only is the “object” of metaphysics beyond the reach of thought (and therefore as nonsensical as sight without seeing). The possibility is raised of intellectual entities that thought cannot wrap its fingers around even the entity is sitting in the palm of its hand. The latter idea might seem complete nonsense to many… but not to the soul who has even once come to understand something initially unintelligible and subsequently discovered that not only this particular thing was illuminated with intelligibility, but the entire world has now opened out in a way inconceivable prior to the epiphany.

Until a person has undergone the epiphany of what I call practical transcendence – having an actual before and after experience of intelligibility – the tendency is to treat metaphysics strictly as thinking about objects that are beyond our knowledge. Every single metaphysical conception a thinker has is marked either with this awareness or its conspicuous absence. For all I know there are many other similar marks. This is the one I know.

Those who don’t know don’t know that they don’t know unless they actively work to discover it. Otherwise, everything you can think of is self-evidently knowable, and nothing if left over. “Give me one intelligible example of something that’s unintelligible. Just what I thought: you babble nonsense and cannot provide a single example. Why should I take this seriously?” That’s a good question!

*

Things would be very different if blindness and darkness were the same thing. Light-and-knowledge analogies break down at this point. Sight sees objects in presence of light and notices darkness in the absence of light. Blindness lacks sight. It is wrong to say blindness sees nothing. Blindness does not even see nothing. For a concrete demonstration of the difference try a blind spot experiment. Really try it. Don’t just read about it.

*

A cataphatic metaphysic (which posits specific knowledge of what is beyond the limits of our knowledge) and an apophatic metaphysic (which posits limits to our knowledge) is total. It separates religious dogmatism from other religious forms. Religious dogmatism is only bad when it becomes severed from a religious tradition rooted in something inconceivably deeper. A dogmatist excommunicated from a sustaining community with all its spiritual organs intact is in serious spiritual trouble. He is at risk of loving his dogma as a thing that he knows and possesses that closes him to the radical beyondness and protects him from dread.

An exophanic apophatic metaphysic and a transcendental apophatic metaphysic is also different. An expohanic metaphysic tries to acknowledge and relate all experiences that indicate beyondness, which means all perceptions, feelings, intuitions, explicit thoughts are given legitimacy as entities they are and are interrelated. An exophanic metaphysic is an ontology that sees the terminus of ontology as beyond the grasp of ontology itself.

What I am calling a transcendental metaphysic employs hermeneutic practice to find ways to expand the scope of ontology (what is often called “horizon”, not in order to demystify the beyond, but to intensify and deepen the mystery of the infinite beyond that always remains despite our human efforts. Pursuit of the infinite is divine futility.

*

Metaphysics is the philosophy of the Other.

We love only what is Other; what cannot be possessed. We can possess a dogma or an apple. We cannot possess the infinite which surrounds us.

Whether you are aware of it or not, belief in the future is metaphysical, and so is belief in the past. Belief in matter is metaphysical, and so is belief in the space that extends around you. Belief in who you may someday become is metaphysical, and so are your beliefs of who you were as a child. Most of all, however, each of us is to the other is metaphysical when we accept one another as soul, as Thou, as one who lives and thinks and feels and sees, to whom we make the gassho or say “Shalom” or “Namaste“. Every soul is the whole world – vast, unique and interlapping with our own world.

Each metaphysical belief is only a symbol of Other. The Other is not reducible to any symbol nor to every symbol, for that matter.

*

Thomas Kuhn, coiner that well-drained term “paradigm shift“:

When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them. When you find an answer, …when these passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages, ones you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning.

Design thoughts

Solution – A product or a service that is used because it is wanted, needed, or otherwise required.

Solution provider – An individual or collective entity with a solution to offer.

User – The consumer of a solution; for example a customer, an employee, a member of an organization, an operator.

*

Usefulness – A useful solution satisfies a user’s known and/or unknown functional needs. Usefulness is a solution’s functional value.

Usability – A usable solution removes functional obstacles that discourage a user’s acceptance of the solution. Usability is a solution’s ease-of-use value, or more accurately the absence of pain-in-the-ass anti-value. Ideally, usability is imperceptible, being essentially the absence of negatives.

Desirability – A desirable solution fosters a user’s goodwill toward the solution, emotional inclination to accept the solution. Desirability is a solution’s subjective value.

*

User experience  – A solution viewed from the perspective of the user. It signifies a user-empathic perspective on design: that the proper locus of design is not in the artifact itself but between the artifact and the one who uses it, in the experience the user has interacting with the artifact to satisfy a need or want. (In this sense user experience is form of practical idealism; see definition below.) The experience is not confined to the duration of the interaction, but also in how it is remembered and anticipated; nor is it confined to the artifact itself but into the user’s life, particularly to the effects of the interaction and to the entities perceived to be responsible for the effects, both good and bad.

On-brand user experience – On-brand user experience thinks not only about the design of the experience of a solution but also about how the experience with the solution will affect the experience of the provider of the solution and ultimately the enduring relationship between the user and the provider.

Experience is the conducting medium through which the brand flows. Brand is made visible through the graphic identity, articulated through messaging, expressed through voice and tone, demonstrated through prioritization and structuring of content and function, embodied through the feature set and given conduct and character through interaction design (a kind of body language).

*

On-brand usefulness – An on-brand useful solution satisfies a user’s known and/or unknown functional needs in a way that enhances the usefulness of the solution provider, and naturally reinforces the user’s perception of the provider’s indispensability.

On-brand usability – A on-brand usable solution removes functional obstacles that discourage acceptance of both the solution and the provider’s other solutions, (ideally together as a single integrated system), and naturally reinforces the user’s perception that the provider is easy to deal with.

On-brand desirability – An on-brand desirable solution creates goodwill toward the solution that naturally extends to the solution provider.

*

Empathy – The ability to understand and share the feelings of another. ORIGIN: Early 20th cent.: from Greek empatheia (from em– ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’)

Context – The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. ORIGIN: late Middle English (denoting the construction of a text): from Latin contextus, from con– ‘together’ + texere ‘to weave.’

*

Idealism – Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. ORIGIN: late Middle English: via Latin from Greek idea ‘form, pattern,’ from the base of idein ‘to see.

Pragmatism – An approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Greek pragma, pragmat– ‘deed.’

Perspectivism – The theory that knowledge of a subject is inevitably partial and limited by the individual perspective from which it is viewed. ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘optics’ ): from medieval Latin perspectiva (ars) ‘science of optics,’ from perspect– ‘looked at closely,’ from the verb perspicere, from per– ‘through’ + specere ‘to look.’

Empiricism – The theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. ORIGIN late Middle English : via Latin from Greek empeirikos, from empeiria ‘experience,’ from empeiros ‘skilled’ (based on peira ‘trial, experiment’ ).

Design etymologies

There’s considerable overlap with similar etymological posts, but I like to place the words together so I can take them together and see them as a whole.

*

Design – Late Middle English (as a verb in the sense of to designate): from Latin designare ‘to designate’ (based on signum ‘a mark’), reinforced by French designer. The noun is via French from Italian.

Concept – Mid 16th cent.(in the sense of thought, frame of mind, imagination): from Latin conceptum ‘something conceived,’ from concept– ‘conceived,’ from concipere (see conceive ).

  • Conceive – Middle English : from Old French concevoir, from Latin concipere, from com– ‘together’ + capere ‘take.’
  • Comprehend –Middle English : from Old French comprehender, or Latin comprehendere, from com– ‘together’ + prehendere ‘grasp.’
    • Prehensile (capable of grasping, chiefly of an animal’s limb or tail) – From French prehensile, from Latin prehens– ‘grasped,’ from the verb prehendere, from prae ‘before’ + hendere ‘to grasp.’

Synthesis – Early 17th cent.: via Latin from Greek sunthesis, from suntithenai ‘place together,’ from sun– ‘with’ + tithenai ‘to place.’

  • Thesis – Late Middle English: via late Latin from Greek, literally ‘placing, a proposition,’ from the root of tithenai ‘to place.’
  • Antithesis – Middle English (originally denoting the substitution of one grammatical case for another): from late Latin, from Greek antitithenai ‘set against,’ from anti ‘against’ + tithenai ‘to place.’ The earliest current sense, denoting a rhetorical or literary device, dates from the early 16th cent.

Analysis –  Late 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek analusis, from analuein ‘unloose,’ from ana- ‘up’ + luein ‘loosen.’ (antonym: ‘uptight’)

  • Paralysis – Late Old English , via Latin from Greek paralusis, from paraluesthai ‘be disabled at the side,’ from para ‘beside’ + luein ‘loosen.’
  • Decision – Late Middle English (in the sense of bring to a settlement): from French decider, from Latin decidere ‘determine,’ from de– ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut.’
  • Precision – Mid 18th cent.: from French precision or Latin praecisio(n-), from praecidere ‘cut off,’ from prae ‘before’ + caedere ‘cut.’

System – Early 17th cent.: from French systeme or late Latin systema, from Greek sustema, from sun– ‘with’ + histanai ‘set up.’

Pattern – Middle English patron, as in something serving as a model, from Latin patronus ‘protector of clients, defender,’ from pater, patr– ‘father.’ . The change in sense is from the idea of a patron giving an example to be copied. By 1700 patron ceased to be used of things, and the two forms became differentiated in sense.

  • Matrix – Late Middle English (in the sense of womb): from Latin, ‘breeding female,’ later ‘womb,’ from mater, matr– ‘mother.’
  • Matter – Middle English : via Old French from Latin materia ‘timber, substance,’ also ‘subject of discourse,’ from mater ‘mother.’

Metaphor – Late 15th cent.: from French metaphore, via Latin from Greek metaphora, from metapherein ‘to transfer,’ from meta– ‘over, across’ + pherein ‘to carry, bear.’

Analogy – Late Middle English (in the sense of appropriateness, correspondence] ): from French analogie, Latin analogia ‘proportion,’ from Greek, from analogos ‘proportionate,’ from ana– ‘up’ + logos– ‘word, reason.’

Paradigm – Late 15th cent.: via late Latin from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknunai ‘show side by side,’ from para– ‘beside’ + deiknunai ‘to show.’

  • Anomaly – Mid 17th cent.: via late Latin from Greek anomalos (from an– ‘not’ + homalos ‘even’)
    • Anomie – 1930s: from French, from Greek anomia, from anomos ‘lawless.’
    • Antinomian – Mid 17th cent.: from medieval Latin Antinomi, the name of a 16th-cent. sect in Germany alleged to hold this view, from Greek anti– ‘opposite, against’ + nomos ‘law.’
    • Nominal – Late 15th cent. (as a term in grammar): from Latin nominalis, from nomen, nomin– ‘name.’
    • Denomination – From Latin verb denominare, from de– ‘away, formally’ + nominare ‘to name’ (from nomen, nomin– ‘name’ ).

Model – Late 16th cent.(denoting a set of plans of a building): from French modelle, from Italian modello, from an alteration of Latin modulus (from Latin, literally ‘measure,’ diminutive of modus.).

  • Mode –  Late Middle English (in the musical and grammatical senses): from Latin modus ‘measure,’ from an Indo-European root shared by mete; compare with mood.
  • Mood – Old English mod (also in the senses of mind and fierce courage), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch moed and German Mut.

Represent – Late Middle English : from Old French representer or Latin repraesentare, from re– (expressing intensive force) + praesentare ‘to present.’

  • Present (verb) – Middle English : from Old French presenter, from Latin praesentare ‘place before’ (in medieval Latin ‘present as a gift’ ), from praesent– ‘being at hand’.
  • Present (noun, in the sense of in this time or at this place) – Middle English : via Old French from Latin praesent- ‘being at hand,’ present participle of praeesse, from prae ‘before’ + esse ‘be.’
  • Interest – Late Middle English (originally as interess): from Anglo-Norman French interesse, from Latin interesse ‘differ, be important,’ from inter– ‘between’ + esse ‘be.’ The -t was added partly by association with Old French interest ‘damage, loss,’ apparently from Latin interest ‘it is important.’

Style – Middle English (denoting a stylus (an ancient writing implement, consisting of a small rod with a pointed end for scratching letters on wax-covered tablets, and a blunt end for obliterating them), also a literary composition, an official title, or a characteristic manner of literary expression): from Old French stile, from Latin stilus.

Gestalt – 1920s: from German Gestalt, literally ‘form, shape.’

Grok (understand intuitively or by empathy, or to establish a rapport.) – mid 20th cent.: a word coined by Robert Heinlein (1907–88), American science fiction writer, in Stranger in a Strange Land.

*

Use / Useful / Usable – Middle English : the noun from Old French us, from Latin usus, from uti ‘to use’ ; the verb from Old French user, based on Latin uti.

Desire – Middle English : from Old French desir (noun), desirer (verb), from Latin desiderare (see desiderate).

  • Desiderate – Mid 17th cent.: from Latin desiderat– ‘desired,’ from the verb desiderare, perhaps from de– ‘down’ + sidus, sider– ‘star.’ Compare with consider.  (NOTE from anomaloge: shouldn’t we also compare with ‘president’?)
    • Consider – Late Middle English : from Old French considerer, from Latin considerare ‘examine,’ perhaps from com– ‘together’ + sidus, sider– ‘star.’
    • President – Early 17th cent.: from French presider, from Latin praesidere, from prae ‘before’ + sedere ‘sit.’
    • Decider – Late Middle English (in the sense of bring to a settlement): from French decider, from Latin decidere ‘determine,’ from de– ‘off’ + caedere ‘cut.’

Some consultanty etymologies

Consultants are notorious abusers of words, constantly verbing nouns, nouning verbs, gluing together superficial chunks of words into ugly-sounding lumps with confused meaning, mystifying the obvious. I hope the following etymologies somehow make it all worse by showing how the disgusting word-abuse at the heart of consulting goes back to the dawn of language.

*

Practice – Late Middle English : the verb from Old French practiser or medieval Latin practizare, alteration of practicare ‘perform, carry out,’ from practica ‘practice,’ from Greek praktike, feminine (used as a noun) of praktikos (see practical ); the noun from the verb in the earlier spelling practise, on the pattern of pairs such as advise, advice.

Praxis – Late 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek, literally ‘doing,’ from prattein ‘do.’

Pragmatic – Late 16th cent.(in the senses of busy, interfering, conceited): via Latin from Greek pragmatikos ‘relating to fact,’ from pragma ‘deed’ (from the stem of prattein ‘do’ ). The current sense dates from the mid 19th cent.

Method – Late Middle English (in the sense of prescribed medical treatment for a disease): via Latin from Greek methodos ‘pursuit of knowledge,’ from meta– (‘with, across, or after,’ expressing development) + hodos ‘way.’

Technique – Early 17th cent.(as an adjective in the sense of to do with art or an art): from Latin technicus, from Greek tekhnikos, from tekhne ‘art.’ The noun dates from the 19th cent.

Process / procedure – Middle English : from Old French proces, from Latin processus ‘progression, course,’ from the verb procedere, from pro– ‘forward’ + cedere ‘go.’ . Current senses of the verb date from the late 19th cent.

Approach – Middle English : from Old French aprochier, aprocher, from ecclesiastical Latin appropiare ‘draw near,’ from ad– ‘to’ + propius (comparative of prope ‘near’ ).

Strategy – Early 19th cent.: from French strategie, from Greek strategia ‘generalship,’ from strategos, from stratos ‘army’ + agein ‘to lead.’

Way – Old English weg, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch weg and German Weg, from a base meaning of move, carry.

Style – Middle English (denoting a stylus (an ancient writing implement, consisting of a small rod with a pointed end for scratching letters on wax-covered tablets, and a blunt end for obliterating them), also a literary composition, an official title, or a characteristic manner of literary expression): from Old French stile, from Latin stilus.

Design – Late Middle English (as a verb in the sense of to designate): from Latin designare ‘to designate’ (based on signum ‘a mark’), reinforced by French designer. The noun is via French from Italian.

System – Early 17th cent.: from French systeme or late Latin systema, from Greek sustema, from sun– ‘with’ + histanai ‘set up.’

Pattern – Middle English patron, as in something serving as a model, from Latin patronus ‘protector of clients, defender,’ from pater, patr– ‘father.’ . The change in sense is from the idea of a patron giving an example to be copied. By 1700 patron ceased to be used of things, and the two forms became differentiated in sense.

Matter – Middle English : via Old French from Latin materia ‘timber, substance,’ also ‘subject of discourse,’ from mater ‘mother.’

Consult – Early 16th cent. (in the sense of deliberate together, confer): from French consulter, from Latin consultare, frequentative of consulere ‘take counsel.’ (NOTE: I’d have thought: Not con– ‘together’ + + saltare, from salire ‘to leap.’ However, see counsel, below)

  • Insult – Mid 16th cent. (as a verb in the sense of exult, act arrogantly): from Latin insultare ‘jump or trample on,’ from in– ‘on’ + saltare, from salire ‘to leap.’ The noun (in the early 17th cent. denoting an attack) is from French insulte or ecclesiastical Latin insultus. The main current senses date from the 17th century.
  • Somersault – Mid 16th cent.(as a noun): from Old French sombresault, from Provencal sobresaut, from sobre ‘above’ + saut ‘leap.’
  • Counsel – Middle English : via Old French counseil (noun), conseiller (verb), from Latin consilium ‘consultation, advice,’ related to consulere.
  • Conference – Late Middle English (in the general sense of bring together): from Latin conferre, from con– ‘together’ + ferre ‘bring.’
  • Converse – Late Middle English (in the sense of live among, be familiar with): from Old French converser, from Latin conversari ‘keep company (with),’ from con– ‘with’ + versare, frequentative of vertere ‘to turn.’ The current sense of the verb dates from the early 17th cent.

Etymological meditation

Perspective –  Late Middle English in the sense ‘optics’: from medieval Latin perspectiva (ars) ‘science of optics,’ from perspect– ‘looked at closely,’ from the verb perspicere, from per– ‘through’ + specere ‘to look.’Perceive – Middle English : from a variant of Old French perçoivre, from Latin percipere ‘seize, understand,’ from per– ‘entirely’ + capere ‘take.’

Conceive / concept – Middle English : from Old French concevoir, from Latin concipere, from com– ‘together’ + capere ‘take.’

Participate – Early 16th cent.: from Latin participat– ‘shared in,’ from the verb participare, based on pars, part– ‘part’ + capere ‘take.’

*

Whole – Old English hal, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch heel and German heil, also to hail. The spelling with wh- (reflecting a dialect pronunciation with w-) first appeared in the 15th cent.

Holism – 1920s: from holo- [whole] + –ism ; coined by J. C. Smuts to designate the tendency in nature to produce organized “wholes” (bodies or organisms) from the ordered grouping of units.

Organize – Late Middle English : from medieval Latin organizare, from Latin organum ‘instrument, tool’ (see organ ).

System – Early 17th cent.: from French système or late Latin systema, from Greek sustema, from sun– ‘with’ + histanai ‘set up.’

Synthesis – Early 17th cent.: via Latin from Greek sunthesis, from suntithenai ‘place together.’

Synopsis –  Early 17th cent.: via late Latin from Greek, from sun– ‘together’ + opsis ‘seeing.’

Articulate – Mid 16th cent.: from Latin articulatus, past participle of articulare ‘divide into joints, utter distinctly,’ from articulus ‘small connecting part’.

Article – Middle English (denoting a separate clause of the Apostles’ Creed): from Old French, from Latin articulus ‘small connecting part,’ diminutive of artus ‘joint.’

*

Object – Late Middle English : from medieval Latin objectum ‘thing presented to the mind,’ neuter past participle (used as a noun) of Latin obicere, from ob– ‘in the way of’ + jacere ‘to throw’ ; the verb may also partly represent the Latin frequentative objectare.

Subject – Middle English (in the sense of (person) owing obedience): from Old French suget, from Latin subjectus ‘brought under,’ past participle of subicere, from sub– ‘under’ + jacere ‘throw.’ Senses relating to philosophy, logic, and grammar are derived ultimately from Aristotle’s use of to hupokeimenon meaning material from which things are made and subject of attributes and predicates.

*

Individual – Late Middle English (in the sense of indivisible): from medieval Latin individualis, from Latin individuus, from in– ‘not’ + dividuus ‘divisible’ (from dividere ‘to divide’ ).

Atom – Late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’

Collective – Late Middle English in the sense of representing many individuals): from Old French collectif, –ive or Latin collectivus, from collect– ‘gathered together,’ from the verb colligere.

Cooperate – Late 16th cent.: from ecclesiastical Latin cooperat– ‘worked together,’ from the verb cooperari, from co– ‘together’ + operari ‘to work.’

Collaborate – Late 19th cent.: from Latin collaborat– ‘worked with,’ from the verb collaborare, from col– ‘together’ + laborare ‘to work.’

Coerce – Late Middle English : from Latin coercere ‘restrain,’ from co– ‘jointly, together’ + arcere ‘restrain.’

*

Apprehend – Late Middle English (originally in the sense  of grasp, get hold of (physically or mentally): from French appréhender or Latin apprehendere, from ad– ‘toward’ + prehendere ‘lay hold of.’

Comprehend – Middle English : from Old French comprehender, or Latin comprehendere, from com– ‘together’ + prehendere ‘grasp.’

Contain – Middle English : from Old French contenir, from Latin continere, from con– ‘altogether’ + tenere ‘to hold.’

Content – Late Middle English : from medieval Latin contentum (plural contenta ‘things contained’ ), neuter past part. of continere.

*

Influence – Late Middle English : from Old French, or from medieval Latin influentia ‘inflow,’ from Latin influere, from in– ‘into’ + fluere ‘to flow.’ The word originally had the general sense of an influx, flowing matter, also specifically in astrology of the flowing in of ethereal fluid affecting human destiny. The sense of imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes was established in Scholastic Latin by the 13th cent., but not recorded in English until the late 16th cent.

Inspire –  Middle English enspire, from Old French inspirer, from Latin inspirare ‘breathe or blow into,’ from in– ‘into’ + spirare ‘breathe.’ The word was originally used of a divine or supernatural being, in the sense of imparting a truth or idea to someone.

Intend – Middle English entend (in the sense of direct the attention to), from Old French entendre, from Latin intendere ‘intend, extend, direct,’ from in– ‘toward’ + tendere ‘stretch, tend.’

Extend – Late Middle English : from Latin extendere ‘stretch out,’ from ex– ‘out’ + tendere ‘stretch.’

*

Responsible – Late 16th cent. in the sense of answering to, corresponding): from obsolete French, from Latin respons– ‘answered, offered in return,’ from the verb respondere.

Conditions – Middle English : from Old French condicion (noun), condicionner (verb), from Latin condicio(n-) ‘agreement,’ from condicere ‘agree upon,’ from con– ‘with’ + dicere ‘say.’

Context – Late Middle English (denoting the construction of a text): from Latin contextus, from con– ‘together’ + texere ‘to weave.’

Situation – Late Middle English: from French, or from medieval Latin situatio(n-), from situare ‘to place.’

Circumstance –  Middle English : from Old French circonstance or Latin circumstantia, from circumstare ‘encircle, encompass,’ from circum ‘around’ + stare ‘stand

Environment – Middle English (formerly also as inviron): from Old French environer, from environ ‘surroundings,’ from en ‘in’ + viron ‘circuit’ (from virer ‘to turn, veer’ ).

Surroundings – Late Middle English (in the sense of overflow): from Old French souronder, from late Latin superundare, from super– ‘over’ + undare ‘to flow’ (from unda ‘a wave’ ); later associated with round . Current senses of the noun date from the late 19th cent.

Interest

Consider the etymology of “interest”, and ask yourself: Isn’t it a case study of how meaning drains from words over time? Inter + est. Nowadays the word “interest” implies that we stand apart from a thing and regard it objectively. That is we stay apart from it and keep it “whole against the sky”, as opposed to entering into its being – really being with it. At least we’ve preserved some formal grammatical clues: we remain interested in something, not interested about it, or on it, or toward it.