Words Mean Things.

scott777ab wrote: Some people love to talk just to talk regardless of whether or not they are understood.

We have a word for those people, too! "Idiots."

steamboat28 wrote:

scott777ab wrote: Some people love to talk just to talk regardless of whether or not they are understood.

We have a word for those people, too! "Idiots."

Sometimes, those of us who seem to talk, regardless of whether we are understood or not, are optimists, lol....

We are hoping that eventually we will get through, and that our points will get across....

Sort of similar to the point of this thread, yes?

Its an uphill battle, but one we haven't given up on quite yet... lol...

For me, part of the beauty of language is that it is necessarily subjective.

Language for me is a reflection of our interior world. I studied Wittgenstein at length during my degree, and he has a lot of great pithy quotes like "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world", "If a lion could talk we could not understand it" etc etc. Basically that language is about who we are, and whilst we may attempt to give strict definitions of words, they will always mean slightly different things based on (all of) our subjective experience.

I agree that words mean things, and that the choice of word is inherently important. But I don't agree there is some objective, impersonal "meaning" independent of those who conceive of the words. Words, like everything, only exist "in situ" - they're only ever in context, and part of that context is the person hearing/reading them.

Have you heard of epiphenomenal qualia? Another pet favourite philosophical concept of mine. It's about the secondary qualities of things, so to give a very crude example red is a certain wavelength of light, but it's also got a lot more to it than that... it might remind me of passion, danger, roses, blood, war... all of this is in me, not in the colour itself. Similarly the difference between a major and minor musical chord; one sounds happy, the other sad, but it's just certain combinations of vibration. I think language is similar, and just like music, the same combination of words will have different effects on different people.

I think it's a mistake to try and divorce the sign (ie word) from the person it's signing to, and I think the notion of objectivity is always flawed. We find things in-the-world, and their worldliness is an integral part of them. For me, that's one of the beauties of Jediism... that worldliness. Nothing is alone or isolated. It's all part of the wider Force.

Anyway good discussion, thanks Steamboat

tzb wrote: Have you heard of epiphenomenal qualia? Another pet favourite philosophical concept of mine. It's about the secondary qualities of things, so to give a very crude example red is a certain wavelength of light, but it's also got a lot more to it than that... it might remind me of passion, danger, roses, blood, war... all of this is in me, not in the colour itself. Similarly the difference between a major and minor musical chord; one sounds happy, the other sad, but it's just certain combinations of vibration. I think language is similar, and just like music, the same combination of words will have different effects on different people.

And, the point at which red ceases to be red on the color spectrum will be different from person to person....

Some will see the 'red' as orange or purple before the others,as they interpret the colors...

We have a little 'parts box' at our house, I call it yellow, my wife calls it orange... And now we joke about it, but I see it as more in the yellow spectrum than she does... We now joke about it, but when it happened, there was a bit of attitude flared becasue she couldnt find the 'yellow' box, all she could find was the'orange' box... I ask if she was blind... lol...

Same for other things, there are lines that get crossed, different places for different people, that a words definition changes...

Anyway good discussion, thanks Steamboat

Agreed...

One of my favorite kinds...

Oh man, the arguments my wife and I have over blue/green and blue/purple :laugh:

tzb wrote: For me, part of the beauty of language is that it is necessarily subjective.

Language for me is a reflection of our interior world. I studied Wittgenstein at length during my degree, and he has a lot of great pithy quotes like "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world", "If a lion could talk we could not understand it" etc etc. Basically that language is about who we are, and whilst we may attempt to give strict definitions of words, they will always mean slightly different things based on (all of) our subjective experience.

I agree that words mean things, and that the choice of word is inherently important. But I don't agree there is some objective, impersonal "meaning" independent of those who conceive of the words. Words, like everything, only exist "in situ" - they're only ever in context, and part of that context is the person hearing/reading them.

Have you heard of epiphenomenal qualia? Another pet favourite philosophical concept of mine. It's about the secondary qualities of things, so to give a very crude example red is a certain wavelength of light, but it's also got a lot more to it than that... it might remind me of passion, danger, roses, blood, war... all of this is in me, not in the colour itself. Similarly the difference between a major and minor musical chord; one sounds happy, the other sad, but it's just certain combinations of vibration. I think language is similar, and just like music, the same combination of words will have different effects on different people.

I think it's a mistake to try and divorce the sign (ie word) from the person it's signing to, and I think the notion of objectivity is always flawed. We find things in-the-world, and their worldliness is an integral part of them. For me, that's one of the beauties of Jediism... that worldliness. Nothing is alone or isolated. It's all part of the wider Force.

The point I was trying to make with this discussion isn't that language is necessarily entirely objective, but that it is objective and subjective in equal portions, which is a very good metaphor for my beliefs on "official" stances within TOTJO.

for example, the dictionary lists the objective definition of a word--this is a base level that everyone can (mostly) agree upon. if the dictionary says a doghouse is a "small shelter consisting of walls and a roof whose purpose is to shelter canines", we can all agree on that. this would be analogous to stating in an official manner that "TOTJO believes the Force is an energy that connects all living things and binds the universe together."

now, thanks to the beauty of both language and experience, our personal interpretations of doghouses are necessarily going to differ. one person may think that all doghouses must have gabled roofs, another may have grown up with only flat-roofed doghouses. one person may say that it isn't a true doghouse unless it has Rover's name over the door, some will say you can't re-purpose something else into a doghouse (it must be purpose-built), etc. all these different, variant, sometimes contradictory ideas.

...but they all start from the same objective place. they all start knowing a doghouse is a house for a dog. our perceptions are unique, given our viewpoints in the world, but without us interfering, a doghouse is just that.

i don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging objective definitions or objective truths, because they have precious little impact on our subjective definitions and subjective truths. They can peaceably co-exist, like science and religion, once you understand the place that each one occupies is different but equally important. the objective and the subjective aren't opposites, they are complements

I am by no means saying, in this thread, that we must all agree to change our subjective definitions for the purpose of communication, only that we lay out on the table which definitions we are using, so that others understand. Jestor, if I knew what you called "yellow", I wouldn't have asked for the "orange" box like your wife did. And if tzb and I got into a conversation about colors, and I told him that in my opinion "purple" is more blue and "violet" is more red, or that "grAy" is darker and "grEy" is lighter, I'm relatively certain we wouldn't have color misunderstandings, either.

Part of the problem with asking this, though, is that it forces people to

1. understand the concept that objective and subjective can work together, which is not something everyone will or can agree on
2. be introspective enough to figure out how they define things, so that they can properly communicate it to others

and that's why this is pure optimism, Jestor. Because I'm not sure that the number of people who are willing to do both of those things is high enough to see what i'd like to see accomplished.

lol, Ilike thesekind of discussions, and said so intheother one, lol...

I am by no means saying, in this thread, that we must all agree to change our subjective definitions for the purpose of communication, only that we lay out on the table which definitions we are using, so that others understand. Jestor, if I knew what you called "yellow", I wouldn't have asked for the "orange" box like your wife did. And if tzb and I got into a conversation about colors, and I told him that in my opinion "purple" is more blue and "violet" is more red, or that "grAy" is darker and "grEy" is lighter, I'm relatively certain we wouldn't have color misunderstandings, either.

Once they wife and I understood what the other meant, the pissyness stopped, and now it is a joke...

But, that didnt stop itinthe beginning becasue we both agreed that canary yellow was yellow and and orange is orange...

We didnt discuss the 'tweens'...:lol:....

Part of the problem with asking this, though, is that it forces people to
understand the concept that objective and subjective can work together, which is not something everyone will or can agree on
be introspective enough to figure out how they define things, so that they can properly communicate it to others
and that's why this is pure optimism, Jestor. Because I'm not sure that the number of people who are willing to do both of those things is high enough to see what i'd like to see accomplished

Are the levels of "what we wouldlike to see EVER high enough?

The best we can do, is try...

Im interested to see what you offer inthe way of a communication module...

IM opptimistic too bud...

Dont think my going back and forth with you is me telling you it will fail, I am on your side...

But, things can be, and are, so subjective becasue when you add the other person, things 'shift'...

Its why you and your debates had rules... that were outlined before it began...

This is the internet, and as I also said in the other thread, those who need it most are new, and have not read this part, lol...

for example, the dictionary lists the objective definition of a word--this is a base level that everyone can (mostly) agree upon. if the dictionary says a doghouse is a "small shelter consisting of walls and a roof whose purpose is to shelter canines",

Unless we are talking about the metaphorical doghouse I get in when I am in trouble with Mrs. Jestor... LOL....

I would say that when I am 'in the doghouse', Im not literally in the four walled, roofed building...

Just busting your chops buddy, LOL....

Jestor wrote: And, the point at which red ceases to be red on the color spectrum will be different from person to person....

Some will see the 'red' as orange or purple before the others,as they interpret the colors...

We have a little 'parts box' at our house, I call it yellow, my wife calls it orange... And now we joke about it, but I see it as more in the yellow spectrum than she does... We now joke about it, but when it happened, there was a bit of attitude flared becasue she couldnt find the 'yellow' box, all she could find was the'orange' box... I ask if she was blind... lol...

I'm pretty sure there was a time when 'orange' wasn't even a word in the English language (before 1600s I think), we used 'red' for hues including 'orange' (hence the robin red-breast who actually has an orange one).

Words are not always reliable descriptions for our meanings

Maybe one day we'll have different word for orangey-yellow!

Edan wrote: I'm pretty sure there was a time when 'orange' wasn't even a word in the English language (before 1600s I think), we used 'red' for hues including 'orange' (hence the robin red-breast who actually has an orange one).

Totally off-topic and franchise-hopping, but the Klingon language shows Okrand's genius because they've only got a handful of color words. Firstly, there are no proper adjectives, really, so all the color words are verbs. Secondly, there's one color word that means "to be red or orange," and one that means "to be blue, green, or yellow."

There's speculation in the community whether Okrand meant to hint at anatomical differences or just cultural ones with this, but I think it's interesting.

steamboat28 wrote: The point I was trying to make with this discussion isn't that language is necessarily entirely objective, but that it is objective and subjective in equal portions[...]

I don't even agree with this much. Yes, words mean things, but only because they were arbitrarily assigned meanings. Now we don't think of them as having arbitrary meanings because we're far removed from the truly arbitrary ascribing of meaning to a vocalization which became more formalized into what we call syntax, vocabulary, and grammar. There's a historical precedent for why we use certain sounds and sound combinations (which we call "words"), but that doesn't mean there is something inherent to those sounds. Moreover the importance we place on the definition of words and our fear of language "going to the dogs", as it were, is not a new invention. When the printing press became a thing people feared that the democratization of the power to publish written works would diminish the "art" of language to a commoners' pastime (yes, linguistic purism is rooted in elitism). It's the same thing happening over and over again with new technological developments. I'm not even sure I understand why people think that language must have permanency to have meaning when the very idea of permanency is an illusion and at best we understand that concept in terms of metaphor.

But I think what bothers me most is about linguistic purism is that it pretentiously holds up the importance of linguistic integrity while failing to recognize that historically only about 1% of the world's population has even had the luxury of being educated. It's an intellectual position of power and privilege to preside as judge, jury, and executioner over trials of linguistic purity.