If it is taken that we all have our own paradigms, as we all perceive reality differently, what is true to myself may not necessarily be true to the next person and vice-versa. With this in mind, if "Person A" believes in something and "Person B" believes in something else which contradicts the former's belief, is the former right in affirming their belief to the latter as an absolute? Is prefixing a statement with "In my opinion" every time political correctness to excess? Do we have the right to express our beliefs, however factual and convincing they seem to us, as facts at all?
This is bugging me. Can I take some opinions please.
There is no such right, and no such prohibition.
"IMO" is implicit.
Only if your person C may you attempt anything
Quote from: YattoDobbs on December 18, 2008, 09:45:38 AM
Only if your person C may you attempt anything
that's, like, just your opinion, man
\
(http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd112/trustno1-gr/TheDude.jpg)
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 18, 2008, 02:01:13 AM
If it is taken that we all have our own paradigms, as we all perceive reality differently, what is true to myself may not necessarily be true to the next person and vice-versa. With this in mind, if "Person A" believes in something and "Person B" believes in something else which contradicts the former's belief, is the former right in affirming their belief to the latter as an absolute? Is prefixing a statement with "In my opinion" every time political correctness to excess? Do we have the right to express our beliefs, however factual and convincing they seem to us, as facts at all?
This is bugging me. Can I take some opinions please.
I want to answer your question seriously, but I'm finding it a bit too conceptual without any concrete examples to put with it. So:
Person A hates cold weather. Person B doesn't. PA says to PB, " Damn, this weather is wack, yo" (because PA is down with tha' street). PB replies, "No, good sir, these weather conditions are not inclement. They are, instead, quite agreeable to one's disposition" (because PB is one highfalutin' sonofabitch).
I see now problem in not using IMO here. Same thing with using it:
PA: "The way I sees it, this weather be trippin'." PB: "In my humble opinion, this weather is quite nice." Still seems to work.
Another example, less innocuous:
PA: "God created the world in six literal days, the Earth is just over 6000 years old, and all land-bound animals in the world were within walking distance of a man who made a boat for a flood. God said so." PB: "The universal configuration of bodies formed as the result of some as-yet-unknown process that is presumed to have been a rather large "Bang." The Earth is really fucking old. Like, billions of years. Life progressed from the chance configuration of protein strains to create DNA, which developed over countless millenia into birds and Republicans and stuff. Various archeological and scientific evidences prove so."
In this example, the addition of "IMO" would not change anything of what they are saying, other than to assert the fact that they believe what they're saying (which should, of course, be implied by their statement and how they word it). In this and other instances where one is asserting some that they believe to be true based on various evidences, the addition of "IMO" does not usually seem to add anything significant to the dialogue, other than a way to soften the blow of the assertion one is making. Of course, if one's intent is to persuade or use rhetoric effectively, the appropriate use of "IMO" qualifiers is justified.
All in all, IMO has its uses in minute, rhetorical discourse, but for most interactions it is an unnecessary and implied qualifier that neither adds to nor detracts from the conversation. Well, that's my humble opinion, at least. :)
The greater discursive and behavioral patterns that one should be on the lookout for are the tendency to impose one's data or opinion on another person when that person is unreceptive. It's one thing to have an opinion about something, or to assert that something is true; it's a whole other ballgame if one is to brazenly assert that another is somehow lesser for not believing one's idea.
For example, in the previous instance, PA could have said, following PB's statement, "Well, that's definitely evidence that is unsupported by the will of God as written in the Bible, but I'm curious to learn more. Please continue." And vice versa. Or, PA could have said, "No! You're wrong! You're a dirty atheist, and shall burn in hell if you don't believe in the Word!" And vice versa. The former would have opened up the conversation, and the latter would have shut it down and imposed PA's pattern upon PB.
Short story very long, the important thing to remember about conversing is not to pepper one's language to make it acceptable to others. Instead, the most effective way to communicate is to not try to shut down the discourse by shutting up your brain and shutting out what others have to say.
"In my opinion" is honest. It's as simple as that.
It's hard to give a generalized rule when there are so many possible applications. In general, I think more people could benefit from learning to verbally distinguish facts from their opinions. Miscommunication frequently occurs when people say stuff like, "Modern art is crap" when they meant to say "I don't like any of the modern art I've seen". More specific language would resolve a lot of headache for a LOT of people.
But on the other side of the spectrum, when you apply e-prime too much, you end up spending so much time qualifying statements and addressing grammatical minutiae that accuracy becomes an obstacle to communication. Sometimes it seems like the extreme e-prime camp will argue with any statement which isn't so vague that it loses all concrete meaning.
So I think a balance is necessary
Opinions generally seem to involve feelings, or is subjective. "I like Fall Out Boy better than The Jonas Brothers," "It's a good thing when sulpher rains down from the sky," "Your mother is ugly."
You can't really say that it's an "opinion" that an object falls at 32 m/s2 in the earth's gravity field.
I suppose you can get around a lot of e-prime by referencing your sources. "The bible says the earth is 6000 years old" v. "Carbon dating techniques show the earth is 4.5 billion years old."
On the other hand, your mother really is ugly.
Doesn't stop you though, does it? :lol:
This is why God invented paper bags.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 03:35:38 PM
Opinions generally seem to involve feelings, or is subjective. "I like Fall Out Boy better than The Jonas Brothers," "It's a good thing when sulpher rains down from the sky," "Your mother is ugly."
You can't really say that it's an "opinion" that an object falls at 32 m/s2 in the earth's gravity field.
I suppose you can get around a lot of e-prime by referencing your sources. "The bible says the earth is 6000 years old" v. "Carbon dating techniques show the earth is 4.5 billion years old."
On the other hand, your mother really is ugly.
:lulz:
In my opinion, this is hilarious.
I tend to agree with the general concensus here (which may seem odd since I tend to eprime a lot). However, I've found e-prime to be most useful in personal application... that is, when I use e-prime it seems to act as a constant reminder that my Opinion is just that.
Of course, it can be implied that your opinion is IMO... but this bit Do we have the right to express our beliefs, however factual and convincing they seem to us, as facts at all? is a bit different.
First, as with everything else "Do As Thou Will" there is no question of having the 'right'... However, IMO, there is a question of Good Idea/Bad Idea.
Is it a Good Idea to express opinion as fact? I think NO.
First, it may create semantic issues with others as Cram pointed out. Second, it may create neurolinguistic issues with You... you may actually start believing that your opinion IS Truth... and that seems like a very Bad Idea to me.
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 18, 2008, 02:01:13 AM
If it is taken that we all have our own paradigms, as we all perceive reality differently, what is true to myself may not necessarily be true to the next person and vice-versa. With this in mind, if "Person A" believes in something and "Person B" believes in something else which contradicts the former's belief, is the former right in affirming their belief to the latter as an absolute? Is prefixing a statement with "In my opinion" every time political correctness to excess? Do we have the right to express our beliefs, however factual and convincing they seem to us, as facts at all?
This is bugging me. Can I take some opinions please.
:barstool:
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 18, 2008, 04:48:24 PM
I tend to agree with the general concensus here (which may seem odd since I tend to eprime a lot). However, I've found e-prime to be most useful in personal application... that is, when I use e-prime it seems to act as a constant reminder that my Opinion is just that.
Of course, it can be implied that your opinion is IMO... but this bit Do we have the right to express our beliefs, however factual and convincing they seem to us, as facts at all? is a bit different.
First, as with everything else "Do As Thou Will" there is no question of having the 'right'... However, IMO, there is a question of Good Idea/Bad Idea.
Is it a Good Idea to express opinion as fact? I think NO.
First, it may create semantic issues with others as Cram pointed out. Second, it may create neurolinguistic issues with You... you may actually start believing that your opinion IS Truth... and that seems like a very Bad Idea to me.
I have nothing wrong with the above, and in fact have said as such myself.
I think many times, though, someone states something STRONGLY as IF it were fact in their heads, and even though you can pretty much take it for GRANTED it's opinion, and it's never stated otherwise, there's a general thought that the speaker's in doubt about this. And therefore needs to be told it's JUST their opinion. When that's all they've been saying all along, but instead of hearing "it's just your opinion," they hear "you're wrong and everything you say is wrong."
It's an extreme disconnect on BOTH sides.
Also, unless someone is referencing sources, I usually assume as they are speaking it's their opinion coming out.
Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.
For example: "AIDS is a punishment by God."
What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well. Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong". But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.
religion makes any argument somewhat predictable in discursive viewpoints--you believe or you don't...though the AIDS thing is perhaps a bit on the extreme side.
Ok, less harsh.
"The Beatles fucking suck."
Same argument applies. They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.
...unless you're ECH.
Heh.
Srsly,
Address the issue.
the "is AIDS a punishment from god" in a more meta perspective is not so much an opinion as it is a reality tunnel "reality sphincter" true in some sense meaningless in some sense etc, if you live amongst Fundy's and using this map greases the skids of your social interaction with them it is a working map and serves a purpose if it keeps you from engaging in risk behaviors it serves a purpose or is a working map , if you live amongst liberals it throws sand in the gears of your socialising with your neighbors it is a bad or non functioning map. the idea it self is valuable "or not" based on its use and ability work in the circumstance where it is being used.
Fundy's and those that would say that aids is not a punishment are both confusing map with territory "maybe"
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 06:54:15 PM
Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.
For example: "AIDS is a punishment by God."
What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well. Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong". But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.
Yes, you say, that's your opinion. But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"? Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 07:29:39 PM
Ok, less harsh.
"The Beatles fucking suck."
Same argument applies. They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.
Ok, so you say, that's a pretty strong opinion to have. You realize millions disagree, and have done so enough to make those jokers very rich. Got anything to back that up?
Give some meat to the opposite, and see if they can chew it.
The only time an extreme opinion is indefensible seems to be like the religious one (because of what FME described above) or when the person is just incapable of it because they lack the communication skills (like saying the Beatles suck because they have a feeling rather than an opinion about it--they find it distasteful but can't describe why).
Quote from: Jenne on December 18, 2008, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 06:54:15 PM
Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.
For example: "AIDS is a punishment by God."
What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well. Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong". But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.
Yes, you say, that's your opinion. But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"? Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?
having lived in Fundy country where statements like this get thrown around on a regular basis i will do one of two things, #1 "let it slide" making a mental note to my self about it being a map applicable in some cases. or #2 when its possible and the audience is potentially receptive i will try to explain my view of maps and territory or use the language of meta views to convey how this map does apply in this case but not in that.
Quote from: F.M.E on December 18, 2008, 08:02:10 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 18, 2008, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 06:54:15 PM
Well, it seems like you get to a point where you need to either disagree, or tacitly agree.
For example: "AIDS is a punishment by God."
What do you say? Sure, it's only his opinion, but in a way, it's a challenge, as well. Technically, if it's an opinon, it can't be "wrong". But at the same time, you're not going to agree with him.
Yes, you say, that's your opinion. But, do you say, "That's not a fact, therefore you can't argue that"? Or do you say, "Sorry, but that's indefensible simply because I don't hold that opinion myself"?
having lived in Fundy country where statements like this get thrown around on a regular basis i will do one of two things, #1 "let it slide" making a mental note to my self about it being a map applicable in some cases. or #2 when its possible and the audience is potentially receptive i will try to explain my view of maps and territory or use the language of meta views to convey how this map does apply in this case but not in that.
Dude, you are brave for doing even that. I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."
Cheers guys, some great feedback here.
And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.
The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds. Unfortunatley, the world has made me weary of my fellow man, more specifically, in his reaction to new data and I have found him to become quite irate sometimes when presented with a new idea. Sometimes the rejection of the new data is punctuated physically (or at least the threat of such action), yet despite this I still feel compelled to try and share. I guess I just wanted to know whether I was going about it the right way, but it seems the underlying questions really are "Should I even bother?" and "Is it really worth the risk?"
Thanks.
Quote from: Jenne on December 18, 2008, 08:16:34 PM
Dude, you are brave for doing even that. I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."
i would be viewed as a heretic even if i said nothing so in most cases nothing lost.
if you invite some Mormons or jw's into your house :argh!: you can learn some cool tricks for presenting people with information they might otherwise be non receptive to, start with a point of agreement posed as a question and then lead them to your conclusions/ideas with a series of questions that are structured in a way that most people will answer in the affirmative..
the study/practice Eprime removing "is" from your language eliminates many of the arguments caused by my is IS different from your is.
the use of questions mentioned above also "when done well" creates a "we are seeking wisdom pursuing truth together feel to the conversation".
and having the respect of those you speak to, my Fundy friends acquaintances view me as being a good/moral/responsible adult, they would trust me to have a key to their house watch their kids and my weird philosophical religious ideas don't cost me their respect.
Quote from: F.M.E on December 18, 2008, 09:13:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 18, 2008, 08:16:34 PM
Dude, you are brave for doing even that. I've learned to just smile and nod while saying, "Well, I disagree."
i would be viewed as a heretic even if i said nothing so in most cases nothing lost.
if you invite some Mormons or jw's into your house :argh!: you can learn some cool tricks for presenting people with information they might otherwise be non receptive to, start with a point of agreement posed as a question and then lead them to your conclusions/ideas with a series of questions that are structured in a way that most people will answer in the affirmative..
Oh, I guess I do a form of that with my fundie relatives and in-laws. My husband's a fucking proverbial bull in the china shop, so while I soften what he says, we both send out a message of "let's remove the religion from your stance and see if it still holds water."
i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.
in some circumstances it would feel good to just shit on others stupid with no regard for anything. the Internet is a great place to be on those days :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2008, 07:29:39 PM
Ok, less harsh.
"The Beatles fucking suck."
Same argument applies. They're not wrong, but you also don't want to appear to agree, either.
Walk away or change the subject.
Or give some quaint answer like "theres no accounting for taste".
The best answer I ever heard to racism in a professional setting was as follows.
Professor sits down at a table with a bunch of other professors. All members are caucasian. Suddenly the talk turns to something about blacks being one of the "lesser races" and how science shows it.
Professor gets up with his lunch, walks over to a table of black professors, sits down and begins conversation.
Non-aggressive, non-argumentative and effective in making a point.
Quote from: F.M.E on December 19, 2008, 01:30:47 AM
i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.
I think this might be relevant.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18809.0
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 18, 2008, 09:08:31 PM
Cheers guys, some great feedback here.
And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.
The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.
Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?
Quote
Unfortunatley, the world has made me weary of my fellow man, more specifically, in his reaction to new data and I have found him to become quite irate sometimes when presented with a new idea. Sometimes the rejection of the new data is punctuated physically (or at least the threat of such action), yet despite this I still feel compelled to try and share. I guess I just wanted to know whether I was going about it the right way, but it seems the underlying questions really are "Should I even bother?" and "Is it really worth the risk?"
Thanks.
In short, if its making you weary, getting you threats and its not appreciated by the people you're trying to communicate with... then you might be Doing It Wrong.
Oh, spags may be weary,
Them spags, they do get weary...
\
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/otis.jpg)
I considered that I may be doing it wrong.
But I am amazing, and I am also the centre of the universe, so it can't be that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 19, 2008, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 18, 2008, 09:08:31 PM
Cheers guys, some great feedback here.
And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.
The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.
Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?
Would this principle indicate that anyone sharing thier beleifs with another is a cosmic schmuck? If so then there isn't a single (non-lurking) member of this forum that isn't one.
No.
Good, I was sweating a little there.
I also didn't realise that Cosmic Schmuckery was a principle, i just thought it was a label.
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 19, 2008, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 19, 2008, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 18, 2008, 09:08:31 PM
Cheers guys, some great feedback here.
And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.
The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.
Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?
Would this principle indicate that anyone sharing thier beleifs with another is a cosmic schmuck? If so then there isn't a single (non-lurking) member of this forum that isn't one.
"
The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize that you have recently been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again then you will probably go on acting like a Cosmic Schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, you might begin to become a little less Schmucky than the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution." - RAW "Natural Law, or Don't Put A Rubber on Your Willy"
Sharing beliefs doesn't make you a Cosmic Schmuck, necessarily... Heaping your beliefs upon the heads of other monkeys as though they were Truth, might. Not recognizing that you're doing it... may be an even larger indicator.
QuoteThe search for certitude - like the pretence or moral righteousness - appears to me as a medieval habit that should have vanished long ago. None of us knows enough to be certain about anything, usually, and none of us are nearly as "moral" as we feel obliged to pretend we are in order to be acceptable in "Decent" Society. If we are not totally stupid and blindly selfish on all possible occasions, we are about as bright and ethical as anybody in history has ever been. The greatest batters in the history of baseball all had batting averages well below 0.500, which means they missed more than half the time they swung. Medieval morality and theology have left us with the hypocritical habit or pretending batting averages close to 0.999 in both knowledge and ethics. (The Absolutists go around talking
and acting as if their averages were actually 1.000 or sheer perfection.) On average, I think I score under Babe Ruth, and I
suspect you do, too. There thus appears to be a great deal of conceit and self-deception in the habitual poses of intellectual
certitude and ethical perfection among the educated classes. It would appear more in keeping with honesty, I think, to recognize,
as analogous to Murphy's Law, the unscientific but useful generalization I call the Cosmic Schmuck Principle.
Are you being honest about your batting average on:
Quotea great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2008, 01:00:16 PM
Quote from: F.M.E on December 19, 2008, 01:30:47 AM
i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.
I think this might be relevant.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18809.0
yes exactly relevant.
Thanks Rotastak.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 19, 2008, 05:28:19 PM
Are you being honest about your batting average on:
Quotea great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)
And yes. I guess either way I'm a cosmic Schmuck.
Quote from: cosmic spagtazm on December 19, 2008, 07:26:13 PM
Thanks Rotastak.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 19, 2008, 05:28:19 PM
Are you being honest about your batting average on:
Quotea great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)
And yes. I guess either way I'm a cosmic Schmuck.
GOOD! That's the best answer possible... WE ALL ARE COSMIC SCHMUCKS, we all, at least occasionally forget we're stuck in a Black Iron Prison and believe that we can clearly see the Truth just outside our window (and we forget that the bars might be in the way of some important data).
In my opinion, if you talk like you Know The Truth... you might start believing that you Know The Truth and you may begin to forget that you're a Cosmic Schmuck. The whole argument for e-Prime came from General Semantics and the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. This concept argues that the nature of the language used by a speaker, influences the thinking (and perception) of that person.
If we speak in absolutes, we may begin to think in absolutes. If we speak as though we know the Truth, we may forget that we're hyper talkative chimps with only five senses, managed badly by a neurological system that was best designed for survival, rather than understanding the mysteries of the Universe. If we postulate that X IS TRUE... then we must first express belief in the foundation of X. Much like, to believe that Christianity is True, one must accept that Jesus was more than human. To accept that our perception of Time-Space is True, requires that we believe things like causality... which might be true, might be false, or might be currently somewhat misunderstood.
Now, there are some arguments that Count Korby read way too much into the power of language over thought... however, its opposite (that language doesn't affect thought) seems pretty unlikely to me. So, since I started thinking along those lines, I've found it beneficial to not speak like I Know The Truth, but rather to (at least try) to speak like I have an opinion, idea, halfway informed perception etc.
Defending a position is one thing and may be beneficial for convincing someone, or forcing you to think through a position...
saying "
I'ma Gonna Think This Is True, Till You PROOF Otherwise", IMO, is much less useful.
yes ratatosk has hit the mark, this is what i was trying to get across in my posts on the previous page.
well he`said it better
:P
i like him more than you, i want to play with him now. everyone else go away.
he is the squirrel of discord.
i am just a stand-in holding his place while we wait for him to show up.
i don't like you either
Quote from: F.M.E on December 19, 2008, 08:32:43 PM
i don't like you either
(http://www.animationplayhouse.com/babycry.gif)
Quote from: Cramulus on December 18, 2008, 03:28:15 PM
It's hard to give a generalized rule when there are so many possible applications. In general, I think more people could benefit from learning to verbally distinguish facts from their opinions. Miscommunication frequently occurs when people say stuff like, "Modern art is crap" when they meant to say "I don't like any of the modern art I've seen". More specific language would resolve a lot of headache for a LOT of people.
But on the other side of the spectrum, when you apply e-prime too much, you end up spending so much time qualifying statements and addressing grammatical minutiae that accuracy becomes an obstacle to communication. Sometimes it seems like the extreme e-prime camp will argue with any statement which isn't so vague that it loses all concrete meaning.
So I think a balance is necessary
I like the direction of this thread. Cram's comments reminded me of the "Do you believe in a soul?" thread, so I'll quote my pertinent comments from that thread:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18406.msg612899 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18406.msg612899)
Quote from: 'Telarus'This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
...
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live.
Quote from: 'Telarus'My no-nonsense neo-pagan not-a-witch friend rolled into one of the local herbariums here in Portland. Upon chatting the cute, dreadlocked pagan behind the counter, said employee says, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
Stop.
Matrix pan to the right, as the scene flickers and revolves my friend finds herself thinking, "This chick is a fluffy idiot. Of course you have to trust some doctors, or the basis of society begins to breakdown as highly contagious diseases ravage large geographic areas. This person is stoooopid, and I don't need to take her seriously anymore."
Meanwhile, the cute register girl has merely made the semantic mistake of using language that references some imaginary state of 'Reality' where all medical professionals will cut your kidney out to sell on EbayChina, when what she really meant to express was: "Gee, some doctors I've gone to have refused to treat me like a human being, and that makes me Angry. Agree with me and we can hang out, 'cause our memes like each other and we can bitch about the medical profession, except this one cute doctor I saw..yadda, yadda, yadda."
Needless to say my friend left without buying anything, and she kept the grrrArghStoopidItHurts karma back home long enough to complain about it on liveJournal.
But public school and society has taught the cute register girl only to use language that references an external-objective reality and not internal-subjective space, so it goes through the USA2008 Filter and comes out, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
I figure nearly 40-60% of human miscommunication is due to the participants crunching incoming language signals through the wrong Grid, internal-emotional-I-space or external-nonsimultaneously~apprehended-objective-space. See, cute register girl was still making an accurate statement about part of Universe.... just the part in her brain-sack and meme-collection.
This is one of the most overlooked themes in NLP and most Occult systems, and 'is' the dualism embedded in our language that practices such as Zen sitting and walking meditations (and getting hit with sticks) tries to escape, if ever briefly, from.
WHERE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW
Meme Collections: Gotta Catch them All.
~Hi, I'm Telarus, and I'm a Zenarchist Discordian, Erisian Pope, Illuminatus Primi, and Commodore to the Floating Republic of Mu. This comes in handy as I lounge in New Alamut, discussing LULZ and SRS BSNS with my Discordian, Subgenious, Satanic, Thelemic, Technocculty, Occultnik, Non-Linear, Weird friends. We hit each other with sticks. We're not fluffy and we never wear fuzzy bunny ears, except when we do. We're all Absolutely Infallible, except when we're not. Welcome to the EndGame, Aftermath, 2008. War is a fiction, join a Faction.
As always Telarus...
:mittens: