http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/craig-martin--an-oak-tree.html
I'm not sure what to believe anymore...
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
I'm a dragon!
Nothing makes me sadder than a smart assed round eyes trying to be a zen master. :lol:
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
I do believe that is the point.
ITS A BIRD, ITS A PLANE, NO ITS BARSTOOL !!!!!!
:barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool: :barstool:
Ah, I did this trick too. Actually did it every friday when I changed whatever I was eating into a hot dog.
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Yet, the catholics are in a line of people who have
created this god. :magick: I guess that shouldn't be underestimated, right? :thumb:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Your impeccable logic forces me to concede the point.
That was a corny joke.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:53:50 PM
That was a corny joke.
Argh! You're making my ears bleed...
Aw, shucks. :oops:
I think that was Michael Craig-Martin's "trolling the art community" period.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
Aw, shucks. :oops:
Alright, that's just fucked up. The first time was excusable, but this is an outright assault, and has been considered an act of war. I will deploy my Kernals at once.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on January 10, 2011, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
Aw, shucks. :oops:
Alright, that's just fucked up. The first time was excusable, but this is an outright assault, and has been considered an act of war. I will deploy my Kernals at once.
I am a maized at hoe quickly this has escalated.
Oh goddamn it. You all suck, you know that right?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on January 10, 2011, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
Aw, shucks. :oops:
Alright, that's just fucked up. The first time was excusable, but this is an outright assault, and has been considered an act of war. I will deploy my Kernals at once.
I am a maized at hoe quickly this has escalated.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- :cramstipated:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 12:09:38 AM
Oh goddamn it. You all suck, you know that right?
I do this once a year by contract. 2011 is now covered. :lulz:
Not according to them, they didn't. And as this piece clearly shows, it's what you claim about it that makes the difference.
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 10:47:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Your impeccable logic forces me to concede the point.
FUCK YEAH I WON A POINT
(also, the puns? maybe let them rest for a while until they become funny again?)
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 12:12:32 AM
Not according to them, they didn't. And as this piece clearly shows, it's what you claim about it that makes the difference.Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 10:47:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Your impeccable logic forces me to concede the point.
FUCK YEAH I WON A POINT
(also, the puns? maybe let them rest for a while until they become funny again?)
Were they ever funny? I only do it because that's the closest thing I can get to punching someone in the face over the internets...
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 12:12:32 AM
Not according to them, they didn't. And as this piece clearly shows, it's what you claim about it that makes the difference.Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 10:47:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Igor on January 09, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Pfff, the Catholics have been doing this for years.
The Catholics claim that God does the transubstantiation thing.
This man managed to do it without the help of a deity.
Therefore, I think his is the greater accomplishment.
Your impeccable logic forces me to concede the point.
FUCK YEAH I WON A POINT
(also, the puns? maybe let them rest for a while until they become funny again?)
Like I said, I do it once a year.
Oh fuck it, too late, YET ANOTHER POTENTIALLY INTERESTING THREAD RUINED.
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 12:53:23 AM
Oh fuck it, too late, YET ANOTHER POTENTIALLY INTERESTING THREAD RUINED.
(i was trying to quietly silence them so it wouldn't actually ruin the thread)
(even though generally I love puns I agree it's getting somewhat out of hand)
...and this is what i return to. :argh!:
Quote....on one occasion when it was barred by Australian Customs officials from entering the country as vegetation, he was forced to explain it was really a glass of water.
QuoteThe text is in red print on white; the object is a French Duralex glass, which contains water to a level stipulated by the artist and which is located on a glass shelf, whose ideal height is 253 centimetres with matte grey-painted brackets screwed to the wall
He's very clever and all that. lifting an oak tree two and a half meters above the floor...
It seems obvious that the whole ''body of christ'' thing has something to do with it.
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 12:52:24 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:53:50 PM
That was a corny joke.
Stop. Now.
Was just two. I haven't done any for a while either. I don't know where "out of hand" came from. :?
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 06:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 12:52:24 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 10:53:50 PM
That was a corny joke.
Stop. Now.
Was just two. I haven't done any for a while either. I don't know where "out of hand" came from. :?
The fact that every interesting thread in recent memory has devolved into a pun war.
No, they just have the 'accidents' of puns and fluff. In reality a seriously deep conversation about the nature of metaphysics has occurred. Why? Because I changed it into one ex-post-facto! :fnord:
Quote from: Telarus on January 10, 2011, 06:36:47 AM
No, they just have the 'accidents' of puns and fluff. In reality a seriously deep conversation about the nature of metaphysics has occurred. Why? Because I changed it into one ex-post-facto! :fnord:
:lulz: :argh!:
Also, crossposting
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 06:10:47 AM
Epistemology calls for a certain amount of honesty with oneself, which means accepting a small amount of "fuck it, I don't know" when it comes to the highest and lowest levels of reality, ultimate questions about why anything, et cetera. Some things can't be known by their very nature. But the important thing is that some things can be known. They really can. The problem I have with oak trees that look like glasses of water is that they turn a small amount of unknowability into a sensational mystery. The fact is that we can never KNOW that anything exists as we see it, but that hasn't stopped us yet. Every theory is a map that assumes a corresponding territory exists, but it only assumes that insofar as the map takes you where you think you're going. The territory need not exist if the map is demonstrably effective. Take quarks. We can NEVER, ever observe them directly, but our best theoretical models and observational data are best explained by their existence. It is possible to make a subatomic particle theory that explains observations without quarks, and if the theory sans quarks worked just as well as ours, it would be EQUALLY TRUE, because a theory is just a model that deals in observations. The oak tree/water glass theory is "not true" because it is conceptually dishonest, observably meaningless, and oh yeah, Fucking Stupid. Epistemologically, realism is far superior; the stance that the thing that looks like a glass of water is actually what it seems, and the shit exists in more than just your mind. "Mind", meaning brain? Maybe. But brains would not evolve to see glasses of water in place of oak trees. There is no evolutionary pressure not to see things as close to what they are as economically possible (the brain makes do with less information than you may think, and it does deceive itself, but mainly for sociocognitive reasons). But better than realism is model-dependent realism, the stance that since no one model can accurately describe reality at all levels, it is acceptable to use many independent theories to model and predict reality, and where they overlap, they agree. For instance, there is nothing about atoms that theoretically portend social psychology, yet theories of social psychology can accurately predict human behaviors. Realism doesn't account for this as well as model dependent realism. As long as your various theories overlap harmoniously, and are each "good" theories, the things in each theory can be said to "exist", to as much certainty as is afforded to us, lacking our god's eye view of things.
It is not enough to say that a thing only exists in your mind. It must exist within a model that sufficiently predicts observations.
Back to the OP...
You know, ten years ago this would have had me foaming at the mouth with rage over the pretentiousness, but now... I don't know, I rather like it. It sort of encapsulates what "art" is to me at this point in my life.
That. Although, ten years ago, a lot of stuff would have had me foaming at the mouth, but even then I think I'd smirk at it. Now, I laugh at it, and appreciate it, and enjoy a thread on PD about it :)
I am positively tickled by the OP
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DbpqRnKDw4s/S8LdYHrv0TI/AAAAAAAAAnE/KfXa5p3dPxI/s1600/pipe.jpg)
what I like about it is that it drew my attention to the gears and sprockets in play behind our language
You see this image on the screen above, it looks like a pipe.
But it is not a pipe.
It is an image of a pipe.
And right now your fingertips are resting on something, probably a keyboard.
But that's not a keyboard.
There are electrical impulses that zip from your fingertips to your spinal column to your brain, letting you know that there is something out there with a specific shape and texture
There is a chemical event happening in your eyeball which is the result of protons bouncing off your keyboard and making the unlikely three point shot into your pupil. This creates a shape in your mind, an image you recognize as a keyboard.
It is easy to forget that our point of view is a collage composed of input from a bundle of very specific observational instruments. But we are not seeing reality any more than a weather map actually shows you a storm. Yeah, the weather map can tell you where the clouds are, how much precipitation is falling, the temperature and wind speed. But that's not reality, that's data about reality. The guy reporting from location gives you another peek. The intent of exposing you to all this input is to give you a sense of the storm, to help experience it and make it real. But leci n'est pas une tempête.
I had an experience a few months ago where, for a time, I became acutely aware of my point of view.
Sometimes you have this experience in a movie theater: you're really absorbed in the film. It's occupying all of your attention, you're really in the moment, feeling what the director wants you to feel.
And then somebody coughs. And you are momentarily back in the theater again, suddenly aware of your seat, and your bladder, and the sticky texture of the movie theater floor.
The experience was like noticing that my identity (Some little homonculous, apparently) is sitting in this theater. And he's been absorbed in the experience on the screen, all the lights and sounds getting pumped into the theater. But then he noticed that he was in a theater - was able to be independent of that input. Able to realize that the director isn't able to show the whole event, just this one point of view.
thanks for the link
to some extent, I'm talking about "ego death"
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
Quote from: themenniss on January 09, 2011, 04:09:46 PM
http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/craig-martin--an-oak-tree.html
I'm not sure what to believe anymore...
This is why I hate people. I fucking hate them.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 03:09:53 PM
I am positively tickled by the OP
It's solopsism dressed up as Zen.
It's crap.
It's a troll. Pretty effective one, too.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
It's a troll. Pretty effective one, too.
Poe's Law, ITT.
It looks like half the shit written on any given Pagan board.
well I had a lot of fun thinking about it, and it drew my attention to the relationship between words and the things they represent. So to me, it wasn't crap or a troll.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
well I had a lot of fun thinking about it, and it drew my attention to the relationship between words and the things they represent. So to me, it wasn't crap or a troll.
Apologies. Since this is another manifestation of Map/Territory, I was quite sure you had already gone down this road before, multiple times.
it's not enough to hear about these things and then walk around all enlightened or some shit - I need constant reminders of my cognitive biases, and that the material plane is only part of the story.
I'm also on a gnostic kick this week, so I'm enjoying revisiting my opinions and ideas from a more gnostic point of view. I'm not usually into spirit/matter dualism, but this week I'm giving it a mental shot. This article seemed like a good way to highlight the conceptual/spiritual world that lurks behind the physical one.
Oh, well then. I guess Nigel really IS a dragon.
if you interpret the OP literally, it does sound silly
This thread is mired in Cartesian Duality.
No, it really actually is this time.
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
:cn:
Damn. I seriously thought this thread was started for the comedy.
Going to my room now.
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:11:12 PM
Damn. I seriously thought this thread was started for the comedy.
Going to my room now.
It was, but then it wasn't, and then it was, and then it wasn't.
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
That's what LSD is for. Take a hit, and spend the next 8 irreplaceable hours of your life seeing everything at once. Hint: It makes you into a moron.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:11:12 PM
Damn. I seriously thought this thread was started for the comedy.
Going to my room now.
Aw, Hawk. You know how this place rolls.
(downhill)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, but it begs the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Funny, I only saw you whining about puns.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, but it begs the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
How long have you known me, Hoops? :lulz:
Also, "challenging conceptions" may be a VERY valid reason for art - not to mention critical thinking - deciding that words don't actually mean anything doesn't actually fall under that description. No, it's more of a "teenagers at Starbucks discussing 'philosophy'" thing.
I feel the same way about number theory, incidentally. 2+2=4, and if you can't prove that on your fingers, you're either an amputee, or someone looking for a grant.
FFS, it's only the internet. Don't like what people post, then don't read it. Blowing it up into a board war and starting spin-off threads is only increasing the drama.
FFS
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:00:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
well I had a lot of fun thinking about it, and it drew my attention to the relationship between words and the things they represent. So to me, it wasn't crap or a troll.
Apologies. Since this is another manifestation of Map/Territory, I was quite sure you had already gone down this road before, multiple times.
The concept may be old hat for us, but a lot of people never think about this stuff, I appreciate anyone attempting to make people think about it more often. Of course, those that never think about it probably largely overlap with those people who pay no attention to modern art, so each probably cancels the other out, but... I still like it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:23:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, but it begs the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
How long have you known me, Hoops? :lulz:
Also, "challenging conceptions" may be a VERY valid reason for art - not to mention critical thinking - deciding that words don't actually mean anything doesn't actually fall under that description. No, it's more of a "teenagers at Starbucks discussing 'philosophy'" thing.
I feel the same way about number theory, incidentally. 2+2=4, and if you can't prove that on your fingers, you're either an amputee, or someone looking for a grant.
I know, I know, and to be honest I expected the reaction... but I have to play my part too, right? :wink: :fnord: :?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Funny, I only saw you whining about puns.
So, I'm not allowed to lurk if I don't have anything particularly relevant to say?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Funny, I only saw you whining about puns.
So, I'm not allowed to lurk if I don't have anything particularly relevant to say?
Sure you are, but if you say you're ridiculing the ridiculous, you should maybe, y'know... actually
do that.
Phox is Toots?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:31:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Funny, I only saw you whining about puns.
So, I'm not allowed to lurk if I don't have anything particularly relevant to say?
Sure you are, but if you say you're ridiculing the ridiculous, you should probably, y'know... actually do that.
Because I can't do it to myself, or my friends, or some other corner of the internet?
No, just a senior moment. Nothing to see here.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:32:28 PM
Phox is Toots?
No.
Okay, was confused there for a minute.
Wha? Did I miss something?
Toots was a previous user, who was a bit of a shit. From the great 2004/2005 Civil War.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:35:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:31:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
Art is intended to challenge conceptions and provoke discussion... your mind is clearly made up on this particular matter, and that's perfectly fine, which then begs raises the question: why are you still wasting your time in this thread?
Because some of us like ridiculing the ridiculous.
Funny, I only saw you whining about puns.
So, I'm not allowed to lurk if I don't have anything particularly relevant to say?
Sure you are, but if you say you're ridiculing the ridiculous, you should probably, y'know... actually do that.
Because I can't do it to myself, or my friends, or some other corner of the internet?
Eh?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:32:28 PM
Phox is Toots?
No.
Okay, was confused there for a minute.
Wha? Did I miss something?
Toots was a previous user, who was a bit of a shit. From the great 2004/2005 Civil War.
I referred to you as "toots" a few posts up, then thought better of it and deleted that word. RWHN is just fast on the draw, too fast for me. It was dumb, pay no attention, these aren't the droids you're looking for.
What was this thread about?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:32:28 PM
Phox is Toots?
No.
Okay, was confused there for a minute.
Wha? Did I miss something?
Toots was a previous user, who was a bit of a shit. From the great 2004/2005 Civil War.
I referred to you as "toots" a few posts up, then thought better of it and deleted that word. RWHN is just fast on the draw, too fast for me. It was dumb, pay no attention, these aren't the droids you're looking for.
Wait. Now *I'M* Toots? :lol:
IIRC, Toots was Diabo, which was funny, but she was also good pals with Hugh and Eldora, and spent more than a bit of time fucking with me. Not worth the funny, IMO.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
It's a troll. Pretty effective one, too.
Poe's Law, ITT.
It looks like half the shit written on any given Pagan board.
I'm kinda torn, if I look at it from the angle of satire/parody, I think it's great, and the Q/A interview does a really good job of it. [could be a parody to Catholic transubstantiation, or just the whole concept as discussed ITT].
But you made me look again, trying to see if I could find any hints that would clearly show it's satire, but I couldn't find any. That makes me think. It could still be satire, but if it isn't, well it's still not the same as the shit written on a Pagan board IMO. Considering the interview, the artist seems to have a really solid grasp on the subject matter, he picked his words
really carefully and hedged his statements quite well. A pagan would have slipped up and put some slight hint of supernatural in there. The artist obviously doesn't have any supernatural beliefs about the piece, so in that case he's trying to make a point about the philosophy involved in this subject. Well, then there's two roads, either he's making fun of such philosophy by showcasing something that is obviously quite ridiculous, OR he actually believes that and this is the way he chooses to look at the world*, and in that case he's more like a pompous prick, knowing fully well that nobody can ever disprove what he claims, similar to someone prancing around with the "solipsism argument", kind of reminds me of that butthurt smelly old fart from MLA, thinking he is all clever and shit cause he can bend words.
Well, if it's satire, I think it's hilarious.
If it's not satire, he's probably a pompous prick, I still think it's hilarious. [against the artists intentions]
(*is that gnosticism, then? I never quite got what gnosticism actually
is. Cram?)
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:46:01 PM
What was this thread about?
It was about how words don't mean anything.
Now it's about Toots, a POS from yesteryear.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2011, 07:32:28 PM
Phox is Toots?
No.
Okay, was confused there for a minute.
Wha? Did I miss something?
Toots was a previous user, who was a bit of a shit. From the great 2004/2005 Civil War.
I referred to you as "toots" a few posts up, then thought better of it and deleted that word. RWHN is just fast on the draw, too fast for me. It was dumb, pay no attention, these aren't the droids you're looking for.
Wait. Now *I'M* Toots? :lol:
IIRC, Toots was Diabo, which was funny, but she was also good pals with Hugh and Eldora, and spent more than a bit of time fucking with me. Not worth the funny, IMO.
Sorry, I meant to address that to Phox.
DIABO!!!! :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:12:10 PM
If words don't actually represent the things they're supposed to represent, then communication is impossible, and we should all go drown ourselves in patchouli.
so the map (language) is always an accurate representation of the territory (experience)?
communication isn't impossible, but it sure is difficult! We live in the information age, where words and their connotations are powerful weapons.
Terrorist,
socialist,
freedom,
homeland security,
patriot act,
purity,
drugs,
fairness,
equality...
people get really confused by these words. If you're not aware of these manipulations of connotation, you are easier to control.
Marcel Duchamp's "this is not a pipe" piece succinctly draws our attention to that.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ESC4bygtp2M/SREL54-nRLI/AAAAAAAAGtA/TjVpM11bzZU/s400/Magritte+The+Two+Mysteries+1966.jpg)
I know this is all old hat to many of us, and I apologize for being interested in thinking about it if this is boring tripe to you cats
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 07:47:23 PM
and in that case he's more like a pompous prick, knowing fully well that nobody can ever disprove what he claims,
Which is different from Pagans (especially "conservopagans" :lol: )...HOW?
Quotesimilar to someone prancing around with the "solipsism argument", kind of reminds me of that butthurt smelly old fart from MLA, thinking he is all clever and shit cause he can bend words.
This.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Apple apple farthing stamp?
I have changed your sentence into the following sentence: FRANK ZAPPA IS A MUSICAL GENIUS AND I LOVES HIM DEARLY.
While you will notice that your original words have not changed, the entire content is now different. You're welcome.
@Hoops: I don't have always much more to say than "that's ridiculous", so I don't necessarily put the effort into typing it. That doesn't mean I don't read and respond to the content.
ETA: Wow epic quote fail, somehow.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Apple apple farthing stamp?
I have changed your sentence into the following sentence: FRANK ZAPPA IS A MUSICAL GENIUS AND I LOVES HIM DEARLY.
While you will notice that your original words have not changed, the entire content is now different. You're welcome.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: bravo
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
Marcel Duchamp's "this is not a pipe" piece succinctly draws our attention to that.
Heh. That's one for the "Misattributed Quotes" thread. Extra funny because the image url has "Magritte" in it.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
So the map (language) is always an accurate representation of the territory (experience)?
When used properly, yes. Or so close to always as to not make any difference.
Quote
communication isn't impossible, but it sure is difficult! We live in the information age, where words and their connotations are powerful weapons.
Terrorist,
socialist,
freedom,
homeland security,
patriot act,
purity,
drugs,
fairness,
equality...
people get really confused by these words. If you're not aware of these manipulations of connotation, you are easier to control.
Or they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
@Phox:
Um, ok. Carry on then.
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
Marcel Duchamp's "this is not a pipe" piece succinctly draws our attention to that.
Heh. That's one for the "Misattributed Quotes" thread. Extra funny because the image url has "Magritte" in it.
Also,
(http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/this-is-not-a-pipe.jpg)
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Apple apple farthing stamp?
I have changed your sentence into the following sentence: FRANK ZAPPA IS A MUSICAL GENIUS AND I LOVES HIM DEARLY.
While you will notice that your original words have not changed, the entire content is now different. You're welcome.
That made me laugh and want to punch a leukemia patient at the same time.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
Marcel Duchamp's "this is not a pipe" piece succinctly draws our attention to that.
Heh. That's one for the "Misattributed Quotes" thread. Extra funny because the image url has "Magritte" in it.
d'oh! yeah I got my surrealists/dadaists mixed up thar :oops:
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
It made me want to punch a philosophy major, which is also not wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
It made me want to punch a philosophy major, which is also not wrong.
It may even be more right! :lulz:
Punching phil majors is NEVER wrong.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 07:49:22 PM
Apple apple farthing stamp?
I have changed your sentence into the following sentence: FRANK ZAPPA IS A MUSICAL GENIUS AND I LOVES HIM DEARLY.
While you will notice that your original words have not changed, the entire content is now different. You're welcome.
That made me laugh and want to punch a leukemia patient at the same time.
Mission accomplished.
The OP made me want to buy them a better camera. Or teach them how to use the focus function.
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
Because if it doesn't you get low functioning autism.
Yup.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
That's the thing... a person can be both words at the same time.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
When dealing with people like this - the bottom 40%
1 - you pretty much have to spell it out.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
No skepticism is required. By any legal or literal definition, he's a journalist. It's when you muddy up the language and the logic that he can be a "terrorist".
Same with stupid shit like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's apples and fucking oranges. A freedom fighter is one who fights for freedom, regardless of means (the act of fighting for freedom, BTW, does not exonerate a person for crimes committed during that fight), and a terrorist is one who uses terror to attain his/her ends. They can be the same person, but never the same thing from two different views. It's like saying "one man's blue car is another man's fast car".
1 "You know how stupid the average person is? Well, by definition, half of them are dumber than THAT!"
- Orton Nenslo
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 08:04:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
That's the thing... a person can be both words at the same time.
Yes. That is true. But the meaning of the words isn't/shouldn't be the point of contention.
If the intention of the OP is to introduce the concept of subjective semantics, I feel the piece misses the mark.
You really have to already have a basic knowledge of what he's trying to do to understand what he's doing. Someone with no concept of "words as conceptual placeholders" will not "get" the piece.
[Edit to remove "I disagree" as the starting sentence, because it is too vague]
Quote from: Hoopla on January 10, 2011, 08:04:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
That's the thing... a person can be both words at the same time.
Well, sure, if Assange is blowing up day care centers between leaks. But the act of posting the leaks is not terrorism, and saying that it is, is either sloppy thinking or deliberate mud slinging.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
And declaring that "nothing means anything" doesn't help that situation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:09:11 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
And declaring that "nothing means anything" doesn't help that situation.
Absolutely.
We could just compromise and say that anybody who says words have no meaning aren't allowed to act like they do.
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver. A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated. The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
We could just compromise and say that anybody who says words have no meaning aren't allowed to act like they do.
Nope. I staunchly defend every human's right to be goofy, even if it makes the vein on my head stick out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver. A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated. The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.
Yep. Otherwise, AM radio would be an abomination, because that's where Rush Limbaugh spews his garbage. The medium is irrelevant.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver. A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated. The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.
This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver. A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated. The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.
This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Says you. They were probably advertisements.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
But even colloquialisms mean something, and if that meaning is understood by the listener then there shouldn't be a debate over the meaning of the word. A vivid example would be the Greek conception of χάος, and the Roman conception of Chaos. χάος was void. Empty void. Chaos was a jumbled mass of matter with everything out of place, despite being a direct borrowing of the Greek word. Even so, if you would say chaos to a Roman, they would understand it as their conception, and not quibble about what the Greeks thought, even if they were educated enough to know. Cross-cultural communication may suffer, but internal communication does not. Unless someone decides to be an ass and says "But, Ovid, the Greeks thought...."
I lost my point somewhere, but I think I was trying to say that we shouldn't further complicate it by trying to fuck with the definitions of words we already understand.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:21:45 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
I wonder.
Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?
/tangent
Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver. A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated. The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.
This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Says you. They were probably advertisements.
"Fresh Wooly Mammoth Meat. $1.50 per pound."
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Nonsense. The ability to communicate complex ideas is language's greatest accomplishment. Sometimes, you may have to use more words than you would like to, but it is not language's fault. To be more specific, language does not contain the (majority) of the flaw, the users of language inject the flaw.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:23:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
But even colloquialisms mean something, and if that meaning is understood by the listener then there shouldn't be a debate over the meaning of the word. A vivid example would be the Greek conception of χάος, and the Roman conception of Chaos. χάος was void. Empty void. Chaos was a jumbled mass of matter with everything out of place, despite being a direct borrowing of the Greek word. Even so, if you would say chaos to a Roman, they would understand it as their conception, and not quibble about what the Greeks thought, even if they were educated enough to know. Cross-cultural communication may suffer, but internal communication does not. Unless someone decides to be an ass and says "But, Ovid, the Greeks thought...."
I lost my point somewhere, but I think I was trying to say that we shouldn't further complicate it by trying to fuck with the definitions of words we already understand.
IF. Such a horrible word.
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."
Communication is challenging.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Nonsense. The ability to communicate complex ideas is language's greatest accomplishment. Sometimes, you may have to use more words than you would like to, but it is not language's fault. To be more specific, language does not contain the (majority) of the flaw, the users of language inject the flaw.
This.
Give man a medium, and he can flood it with stupidity.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:20:40 PM
Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.
Nonsense. The ability to communicate complex ideas is language's greatest accomplishment. Sometimes, you may have to use more words than you would like to, but it is not language's fault. To be more specific, language does not contain the (majority) of the flaw, the users of language inject the flaw.
I tried to poke a hole in this, but it's stick-proof.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:26:24 PM
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."
Communication is challenging.
Only if you can't write a complete sentence. The above states that you and your uncle gave a horse a hand job.
"I helped my uncle Jack down off a horse." says that you assisted your uncle Jack descend from the back of a horse.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:26:24 PM
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."
Communication is challenging.
In Kentucky this is a perfectly acceptable statement.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:25:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:23:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.
But even colloquialisms mean something, and if that meaning is understood by the listener then there shouldn't be a debate over the meaning of the word. A vivid example would be the Greek conception of χάος, and the Roman conception of Chaos. χάος was void. Empty void. Chaos was a jumbled mass of matter with everything out of place, despite being a direct borrowing of the Greek word. Even so, if you would say chaos to a Roman, they would understand it as their conception, and not quibble about what the Greeks thought, even if they were educated enough to know. Cross-cultural communication may suffer, but internal communication does not. Unless someone decides to be an ass and says "But, Ovid, the Greeks thought...."
I lost my point somewhere, but I think I was trying to say that we shouldn't further complicate it by trying to fuck with the definitions of words we already understand.
IF. Such a horrible word.
Yes. It is. And I chose it because of what it implies.
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
LSD can, sometimes, provide this experience.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:26:24 PM
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."
Communication is challenging.
In Kentucky this is a perfectly acceptable statement.
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 10, 2011, 08:30:42 PM
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
LSD can, sometimes, provide this experience.
LSD always gives you that experience, as I already posted.
It also makes you a complete fucking moron for 8 hours.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
It's only excuseable in spoken English ("Shoot John" vs "Shoot, John").
And yes, they'd fuck it up.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:26:24 PM
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse."
Communication is challenging.
In Kentucky this is a perfectly acceptable statement.
:lulz:
A perfect example. You chose to see this as a funny and it was intended to be serious. Many stud owners will not risk damaging their studs and use this method to produce the sperm.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
AND IT'S AN INVALID FUCKING EXAMPLE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
Thanks to this thread, I am now going to go make Ken lose his shit.
FFS.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Poor Ken.
Quote from: Niamh on January 10, 2011, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Rule 34
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
Thanks to this thread, I am now going to go make Ken lose his shit.
FFS.
well, we could always go back to word puns.......
Hawk,
runs away.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
We're discussing English. The Belgians will have to look out for themselves.
Fucking phlegms.
This whole thing brings to mind a certain sort of noob - we had one recently - that insists that language is just a convention...And that to show how outlandish they are, they're going to ignore that convention.
Stick it to the man.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
When someone says "Get off that", I don't take them to mean I should sexually gratify whatever I'm on. It is commonly understood.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
This. English is a language, just like math. "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
Ahem. Yeah, it is a rule. In my field. :lulz:
But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.
I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason. There is no
can't, truly, in the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism). What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean. And so on.
/linguist hat
*edited to add a preposition
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
This. English is a language, just like math. "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".
Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.
Like Ecole Francaise for the French.
Americans have no such "ecole."
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:44:30 PM
When someone says "Get off that", I don't take them to mean I should sexually gratify whatever I'm on. It is commonly understood.
It's commonly understood that the Earth was created in 6 days, and that evolution is "just a theory". It's commonly understood that Obama - a corporate whore if ever there was one - is a "socialist". It's commonly understood that climate change is just something some of those durned librul eggheads dreamed up.
"Commonly understood" most often means "everyone is wrong at once".
And it's no excuse for poor English. It certainly doesn't mean that words don't have exact meanings most of the time. It also doesn't excuse shit like claiming a glass of water has become an oak tree.
Unless you're Yoko Ono.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 10, 2011, 08:30:42 PM
Quote from: themenniss on January 10, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Hooray for René :lol:
I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. :cry:
Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? :argh!:
LSD can, sometimes, provide this experience.
LSD always gives you that experience, as I already posted.
It also makes you a complete fucking moron for 8 hours.
Yeah, I found your post after I made mine. I think that it making you a moron is absolutely connected with it removing your filters.
I doubt that it would be possible to remove all of someone's filters without making them into a moron. The young infants used as the first example are a good one here, what do they do? drool, vomit, and shit themselves.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
This. English is a language, just like math. "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".
Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.
Like Ecole Francaise for the French.
Americans have no such "ecole."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 10, 2011, 08:49:25 PM
Yeah, I found your post after I made mine. I think that it making you a moron is absolutely connected with it removing your filters.
I doubt that it would be possible to remove all of someone's filters without making them into a moron. The young infants used as the first example are a good one here, what do they do? drool, vomit, and shit themselves.
I fucking hate agreeing with you, BH. :madbanana:
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
Ahem. Yeah, it is a rule. In my field. :lulz:
But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.
I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason. There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism). What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean. And so on.
/linguist hat
Ok, point taken. I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:49:48 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
This. English is a language, just like math. "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".
Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.
Like Ecole Francaise for the French.
Americans have no such "ecole."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Does not equate ecole...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:51:08 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
Ahem. Yeah, it is a rule. In my field. :lulz:
But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.
I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason. There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism). What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean. And so on.
/linguist hat
Ok, point taken. I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.
IT IS UP TO TGRR TO ENFORCE THIS.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:51:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:49:48 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:48:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
This. English is a language, just like math. "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".
Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.
Like Ecole Francaise for the French.
Americans have no such "ecole."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Does not equate ecole...
It's close enough. Words have meaning. The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:40:08 PM
We're discussing English. The Belgians will have to look out for themselves.
Fucking phlegms.
:lulz:
It still happens in English, it's just not "supposed" to.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
Yes, and no. The rules of language aren't defined by the textbooks, as much as that would make things simpler. Common use is what makes a language, as problematic as that is.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
Ahem. Yeah, it is a rule. In my field. :lulz:
But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.
I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason. There is no can't, truly, in the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism). What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean. And so on.
/linguist hat
*edited to add a preposition
This.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:48:48 PM
It's commonly understood that the Earth was created in 6 days, and that evolution is "just a theory". It's commonly understood that Obama - a corporate whore if ever there was one - is a "socialist". It's commonly understood that climate change is just something some of those durned librul eggheads dreamed up.
"Commonly understood" most often means "everyone is wrong at once".
And it's no excuse for poor English. It certainly doesn't mean that words don't have exact meanings most of the time. It also doesn't excuse shit like claiming a glass of water has become an oak tree.
Unless you're Yoko Ono.
Also this.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:51:08 PM
Ok, point taken. I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.
And this.
Goddamn you people. I'm too fucking late to the party! :crankey:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:51:08 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
Blatant example, but it generalizes well. If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.
Laziness has nothing to do with semantics. "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of". Don't blame semantics for that.
Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.
Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.
"Commonly understood" is not a rule. When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar. Like I said, laziness.
Ahem. Yeah, it is a rule. In my field. :lulz:
But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.
I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason. There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism). What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean. And so on.
/linguist hat
Ok, point taken. I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.
Better. :lulz:
I mean, it's an academic conversation at this point anyway. People WILL use language as a means to their own ends. But with the use of it comes the responsibility of being UNDERSTOOD.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
It's close enough. Words have meaning. The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.
No, it actually isn't. You see, when I say there's a school, it's an actual legislative BODY that says what you CAN and CANNOT say. What words REALLY actually mean.
Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we REALLY want that? Sure, you get a looser meaning, what some might call "watered-down" version, of the language and the words and their combinations used.
But what are we attacking when we assign "right" and "wrong" to usage? THIS cannot MEAN *THAT*! What does that actually say?
It's securing a finite detail to a large potential. When we restrict meaning to the point that we disallow creativity, we are trying to squeeze the mind into a crevice. And we all know what happens to humans when they're trapped.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 09:06:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
It's close enough. Words have meaning. The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.
No, it actually isn't. You see, when I say there's a school, it's an actual legislative BODY that says what you CAN and CANNOT say. What words REALLY actually mean.
Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we REALLY want that? Sure, you get a looser meaning, what some might call "watered-down" version, of the language and the words and their combinations used.
But what are we attacking when we assign "right" and "wrong" to usage? THIS cannot MEAN *THAT*! What does that actually say?
It's securing a finite detail to a large potential. When we restrict meaning to the point that we disallow creativity, we are trying to squeeze the mind into a crevice. And we all know what happens to humans when they're trapped.
I already addressed the idea of making clear speech mandatory...It's wrong. We should rely on mockery, not legislation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 09:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 09:06:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
It's close enough. Words have meaning. The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.
No, it actually isn't. You see, when I say there's a school, it's an actual legislative BODY that says what you CAN and CANNOT say. What words REALLY actually mean.
Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we REALLY want that? Sure, you get a looser meaning, what some might call "watered-down" version, of the language and the words and their combinations used.
But what are we attacking when we assign "right" and "wrong" to usage? THIS cannot MEAN *THAT*! What does that actually say?
It's securing a finite detail to a large potential. When we restrict meaning to the point that we disallow creativity, we are trying to squeeze the mind into a crevice. And we all know what happens to humans when they're trapped.
I already addressed the idea of making clear speech mandatory...It's wrong. We should rely on mockery, not legislation.
That can work, too. :D
sorry, been busy at work, missed a bunch of the conversation.... a few pages back...
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: RogerOr they could just use a dictionary. People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard. Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems. Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.
so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?
I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.
I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:05:20 PM
No skepticism is required. By any legal or literal definition, he's a journalist. It's when you muddy up the language and the logic that he can be a "terrorist".
the meanings are clear to you, for now
but we do not live in a dictionary
someone with a microphone and an agenda can turn a journalist into a terrorist in a few semantic steps
(just add "espionage")
The MEANING behind any communication has a few components
1. the definition of the words in play
2. its connotations
3. what its juxtaposed with
"liberal" is a good example. It means something to me, something else to self-identified liberals, it means something entirely different to the tea party. The dictionary definition is practically irrelevant in its modern usage.
If you're reading a tea-party website, the dictionary definition of the word "liberal" or "socialism" or "progressive" will not help you understand what they are communicating to their audience.
We have to guard ourselves against manipulation through communication -- connotation and juxtaposition are powerful tools! Why do you think Giuliani used the word 9/11 so many times during his presidential campaign? (this backfired when enough people realized what he was doing) Why do you think Bush used the phrase "Axis of Evil"? This is exactly what RAW was warning us against in his description of Fnords - tricky little words like "security" and "american values" and "traditional" that speak to your guts and not your brain.
And even if you can read the news with a critical mind, you're still getting exposed to tons of bias, and this
does affect how you think about the issue. Nassim N. Taleb talks about this in Black Swan, how journalists cannot accurately predict which parts of a situation are important and should be included in the story. You end up inheriting some of their biases no matter what.
so I say
be apprehensive about things you hear.
be aware that many definitions are subjective, and not rigid. In short,
be aware that the map is not always the territory.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 09:37:52 PM
someone with a microphone and an agenda can turn a journalist into a terrorist in a few semantic steps
(just add "espionage")
Which is why it's so important for each of us to know the actual definitions of words...So some fat, pill-addled demagogue can't fool us as easily.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 09:37:52 PM
And even if you can read the news with a critical mind, you're still getting exposed to tons of bias, and this does affect how you think about the issue. Nassim N. Taleb talks about this in Black Swan, how journalists cannot accurately predict which parts of a situation are important and should be included in the story. You end up inheriting some of their biases no matter what.
This is why I go to Cain for my news.
Watching the press declare Giffords dead and a bazillion casualties from a dangerous "alleged Mexican"
1 on a rampage had me giggling in fits, especially when they changed the story to fit the facts without so much as a retraction.
I automatically assume they're lying to me, and I try to pick the bits out of the story where the truth leaked through.
1 Yes, they said "alleged Mexican". :lulz:
that's also why I use this board for my primary news source :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
It made me want to punch a philosophy major, which is also not wrong.
That's NEVER wrong.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different.
I would not suggest repeating the bolded assertion in the presence of terrorism scholars.
It is in fact a law of political science that every book on terrorism must:
- devote one chapter on the near impossibility of political scientists, law enforcement, intelligence and governments to define terrorism satisfactorily.
- devote at least one chapter involving an abridged history of terrorism which includes the Zealots and Assassins, before suddenly blooming into the 19th century anarchist first wave of modern terrorism, yet not refer to the Mongol take on total war, political violence in the Roman Republic or the sack of Rome by the Landskneckts. Or indeed any other potential form of terrorism throughout history, as we know only Jews, Muslims and Pinkos are terrorists.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different.
I would not suggest repeating the bolded assertion in the presence of terrorism scholars.
It is in fact a law of political science that every book on terrorism must:
- devote one chapter on the near impossibility of political scientists, law enforcement, intelligence and governments to define terrorism satisfactorily.
- devote at least one chapter involving an abridged history of terrorism which includes the Zealots and Assassins, before suddenly blooming into the 19th century anarchist first wave of modern terrorism, yet not refer to the Mongol take on total war, political violence in the Roman Republic or the sack of Rome by the Landskneckts. Or indeed any other potential form of terrorism throughout history, as we know only Jews, Muslims and Pinkos are terrorists.
You've given me new reason to hate "political scientists", Cain. Not that I needed more reason, mind you. Though, you raise a valid point about the difference in linguistic meaning and field-specific meaning.
Some people would consider me a political scientist, but I'm really just a historian pretending.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 10:02:23 PM
Some people would consider me a political scientist, but I'm really just a historian pretending.
I don't consider you a political scientist, so you weren't included in that group. I'm sure I have plenty of other reasons to hate you, though. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:49:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 07:47:23 PM
and in that case he's more like a pompous prick, knowing fully well that nobody can ever disprove what he claims,
Which is different from Pagans (especially "conservopagans" :lol: )...HOW?
Most Pagans believe a lot of things that are also easily disprovable.
But there's probably some tricksy Pagans that pick their words carefully and only claim unprovable supernatural pagan things.
I think that's still different from this guy--in the case that it's not satire, but he actually believes what he says in the interview--because it's extremely limited, he chose his words very carefully, and him having this belief doesn't actually have any effect in the real world, apart from him making this one art piece. Compare that to the tricksy Pagan, they go about lighting candles and charging athames and dream about going to the woods to change into a rabbi, or whatever it is they do. And they do it over and over again, and believe that what they're doing is useful somehow. Now if this artist is going to make a habit of "changing" things in the manner described in the interview, yeah, then I'd completely agree he's not very different from a Pagan. But--and yeah I may be wrong--I think that even if he believes the whole philosophical mindgame that comes along with it, he knows perfectly well it's not useful for anything, except for making this art object this one time, and publishing about it.
But, and I think I understand now what you are getting at, maybe if he actually believes the mindgame, he might have also bought into some "magick" type stuff, where the
intent of enacting this "change" is somehow blablabla reality blah the universe cosmos etc. And yeah, in that case he's not that dissimilar from a lot Pagans.
It's a lot of if's, but definitely a possibility.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 10, 2011, 09:37:52 PM
And even if you can read the news with a critical mind, you're still getting exposed to tons of bias, and this does affect how you think about the issue. Nassim N. Taleb talks about this in Black Swan, how journalists cannot accurately predict which parts of a situation are important and should be included in the story. You end up inheriting some of their biases no matter what.
This is why I go to Cain for my news.
Watching the press declare Giffords dead and a bazillion casualties from a dangerous "alleged Mexican"1 on a rampage had me giggling in fits, especially when they changed the story to fit the facts without so much as a retraction.
I automatically assume they're lying to me, and I try to pick the bits out of the story where the truth leaked through.
1 Yes, they said "alleged Mexican". :lulz:
WTF is an alleged Mexican?
Christ on a fucking stick,
this shit makes me sick.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 10, 2011, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Niamh on January 10, 2011, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Rule 34
first page of hits for an image search for "jesus fucking christ" with SafeSearch turned off: (all of them NSFW, obviously)
http://i.imgur.com/2MN9v.jpg
http://bigmentaldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/jesus-fucking-christ.jpg
http://www.eagerbeavershirts.com/img/p/19-87-thickbox.jpg
http://archiv.roumen.cz/archive/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/93780-86535/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
hilarious :D
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 11:11:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 10, 2011, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Niamh on January 10, 2011, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Rule 34
first page of hits for an image search for "jesus fucking christ" with SafeSearch turned off: (all of them NSFW, obviously)
http://i.imgur.com/2MN9v.jpg
http://bigmentaldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/jesus-fucking-christ.jpg
http://www.eagerbeavershirts.com/img/p/19-87-thickbox.jpg
http://archiv.roumen.cz/archive/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/93780-86535/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
hilarious :D
Oh boy. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Terrible minds think alike too. :lol:
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
It made me want to punch a philosophy major, which is also not wrong.
That's NEVER wrong.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 07:59:08 PM
Punching phil majors is NEVER wrong.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 11:11:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 10, 2011, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Niamh on January 10, 2011, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Rule 34
first page of hits for an image search for "jesus fucking christ" with SafeSearch turned off: (all of them NSFW, obviously)
http://i.imgur.com/2MN9v.jpg
http://bigmentaldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/jesus-fucking-christ.jpg
http://www.eagerbeavershirts.com/img/p/19-87-thickbox.jpg
http://archiv.roumen.cz/archive/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/93780-86535/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
hilarious :D
Oh goddamn it. Seriously, God, get up off of your fat lazy ass and damn these blasphemous images to Hell.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 10, 2011, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 10, 2011, 11:11:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on January 10, 2011, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Niamh on January 10, 2011, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 10, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 08:35:11 PM
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Thanks to this thread, I am now envisioning the son of God sodomizing his clone.
I would call that porn rule I can't remember on this but I'm pretty sure the Vatican would send someone out to kill us both...... :lulz:
Rule 34
first page of hits for an image search for "jesus fucking christ" with SafeSearch turned off: (all of them NSFW, obviously)
http://i.imgur.com/2MN9v.jpg
http://bigmentaldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/jesus-fucking-christ.jpg
http://www.eagerbeavershirts.com/img/p/19-87-thickbox.jpg
http://archiv.roumen.cz/archive/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/93780-86535/jesus_fucking_christ.jpg
hilarious :D
Oh goddamn it. Seriously, God, get up off of your fat lazy ass and damn these blasphemous images to Hell.
He won't do it. Jehovah enjoys it. Closet homosexuals always publicly damn the porn they indulge in privately.
Blight,
Breaking one of his New Years resolutions ITT.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 11:45:59 PM
Terrible minds think alike too. :lol:
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2011, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 10, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
About the OP.
It's art, designed to elicit a response from the viewer. It elicited humor from me, and since art is viewed from a personal level I am not wrong.
It made me want to punch a philosophy major, which is also not wrong.
That's NEVER wrong.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 10, 2011, 07:59:08 PM
Punching phil majors is NEVER wrong.
:lulz:
BUMP
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbc2arlJM41qae692o1_500.gif)
:crankey:
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 10, 2011, 09:38:15 AM
BUMP
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbc2arlJM41qae692o1_500.gif)
OH MY GOD!! THAT OAK TREE IS SHAKING!!