explaining the last post.

1) Definition inherently involves limitation. If a definition crosses cultural or linguistic borders, there remains a limitation of possible meanings. (as in, blue will never equal yellow, if explained properly. Cultural gaps might make blue violet or indigo, but never yellow.)

2) The creating culture of a concept defines it. If that concept is introduced into another culture, that culture will only create an isotope of the original meaning, it will not create something related, but different entirely in explanation. (A culture only exposed to the western concept of time, before a separate one is developed, will not conceive of a meaning of time in which things do not move in a linear fashion, excepting insanely unlikely circumstances.)

3) If a concept is adopted from another culture, it has inherent limitations based on the limitations it brought from the culture that came with it. These may change over time, but they still limit possible meaning. (If up and down are introduced as opposing terms, they may take on different meanings in terms of intensity, but they will likely not become different levels of up. I am not including negative values, obviously.)

4) Just because subtext, and some bias, is lost in translations, in no way means that definition stops having inherent limitations. It just doesn't. This is excepting situations in which things are not explained properly, or not understood properly by either culture.

[Sorry, I just had an excruciating argument with Angus about the last post over msn. I'm sure he was just arguing because he disagreed, but it got beyond irritating. It is bothersome when bringing up fundamental concepts like time as a proof is responded to with a statement that those concepts are fundamental, and therefore different. He might be right, but goddamn is it irritating. The infuriating thing, however, is that Angus is smarter than me, at least most of the time.]