I quote loua when he states " words are the thoughts of deeds, the form of the expression". He was referring to the magic of creation as it applies to the use of words. He was commenting on an article titled "Give us a hug you old hag" which looked into the world of cræft and deeper into the world of "hyge-cræft". These are words that predate the modern English language and the article goes on to say that hag and hug are just other words used in different old languages to mean the same thing as hyge and the hyge refers to the ability to create where craft is the creation itself. It goes on to say that hyge is also poiesis and possibly a mutagenesis agent of sort. 

Now there is a starting point for taking a position on the quote by loua.

If this sort of philosophical stuff interests you then read on and see if you agree.

You will find pertinent links at the end of this page.

Comments are always welcomed.

A computer programmer, which I am not, could explain to you how functions, variables, operators, and statements are coded to bring about a program that can prove or disprove almost anything. The proof however is always only as good as the knowledge used to to write the program was. In other words a false beginning or a false variable can lead to a very false result that is accepted as truth by the robot. If humanity buys into that truth then the robot becomes the false prophet since time can only bring out the real truth in any argument.

Robotics is a very interesting field of study and I am certain that we have not seen but the tip of the iceberg in this domain.

The point I am trying to make here is that we have already been given a fictional idea of the possibility that the hyge is nothing more that a giant computer.

Almost everyone knows the story about the computer hacker named Thomas Anderson and code named NEO who goes up against the powers of the sentient machine that uses the electrical energies of the human in order to exist while allowing the human clone to experience an illusion of life.

That is one possibility of what the source of creation is but is it the truth. I personally am biased on that.

On one side I can imagine that because energy attracts and repulses itself through waves of electric charges combined with magnetic gravitational force then it could be possible that the first being was a machine.

But even that machine would have taken eons to develop from the singularity. The evolution process of the machine would have began with a single impulse, then a strand or wire, the process would have provided different types of wires. Eventually two wires would have communicated and formed a mutated version of A + B. Then over time several functions would have come together to become the thinking machine.

On the other side of the same coin I see this as being a very remote possibility.

The biological mutated version of the machine would be us and them ( the aliens who are also biological creatures of the universe).

If this were even remotely possible then we biological units of the universe, would be descendants of a machine. Descendants of the Matrix.

Words are combinations of symbols. Little drawing that have rules combined with other little drawing with more rules. A B C....has been represented historically as hieroglyphs and pictographs. Phonetics have evolved along the same timeline to include sound. Groupings of these little drawings are words. Combinations of words relay thought. Deeds are actions therefore "Words are thoughts of deeds" seem quite appropriate to my understanding.

Actions make the electrical energy move around and when energy moves it affects gravity and the electromagnetic field.

Expressing this activity in words is the power of processing thoughts.

Form is a word. Plato was big on form. In fact the Greek philosopher was so concerned with this concept that he wrote a thesis on it which we can study as the Theory of Form or the Theory of Ideas.

Plato's argument posits that "the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge" is the study of Forms. This concept was huge and involved geometric shapes which later came to be known as the Platonic solids.

The form of expression

Expression to the computer programmer refers to a phrase or a portion of a sentence. An expression does not equal to anything unless it is biased against another expression. Expression A and expression B will equal to something. That something can be a true or a false statement.

The statement is the full sentence and can be used as a further function for argument with another statement or another expression.

So it's A + B = C.

It's also A + B + C = D.

The more numerous the expressions then the more likely the equation is to be wrong or as Plato might have said " knowledge false to the true form of the source".

But Plato didn't know anything about the computer. His source was the quintessential element of aether. Our modern periodic table of elements is complex. In 400 BC the world revolved around a pantheon of overlords and all the masses needed to know in order to get food on their plate was that fire, water, air, and earth could combine to make matter. All else would be provided by the overlords ability to communicate with the source of being. Having an opinion outside of that likely made you an outcast or a radical thinker bent on destroying the system.

Plato goes on to hide the forward thinking concept of form and shows that in the seventh letter where he goes on to state that some things children should never learn about and most adults neither.

He was protecting the concept in order to avoid changing the paradigm. Were the herd made aware of this then the elite overlords would likely have lost their powers through acts of revolution. Acts of expression. Expressing the form, expressing the sensation that something is just not adding up.

Sensing from the source brings about expressions of thought that are relayed in words.

So in my opinion. Sensing the source leads to feeling and the words used to describe that feeling is the expression of thought.

Therefore if I understand loua correctly when he says "words are the form of expression", then I have to disagree.

My understanding is that words express the feeling, or the human level understanding based on the five senses, of what the sense was telling us (the gut feeling). Words are not the form inasmuch as they are the reactive human expression of what was felt at the source.

Either way the source again become the hyge or the super consciousness where only the perfect form of everything exists.

Which, in my opinion, is why Plato states, that words can never truly express the form.

And the American poet Walt Whitman seems to tell us the same thing when he states that "nature never lies".

...now looked what you have done loua. You've sent me on a wild goose chase looking for meaning. 

However it's been my pleasure and I am open to any comments that will challenge my above words.