Words Mean Things II... The Revenge...

You don't think suggesting someone is "openly and shamelessly lying to everyone's faces" is rude?

Here's another definition:

Definitions are very important if the goal of a conversation is constructive dialogue. I think this is mostly because words are only important in the context of what their reference is. Something like 'faith' is a word referencing an abstraction, and individual experience that is going to mean something different to everyone because everyone's experience of faith is based on their own unique consciousness and experience. If there is no definition agreed to at the outset there will be no movement in the conversation because we will be left trying to read each other's minds.

I'm reminded of a quote from President Bill Clinton during his deposition in the Monica Lewinsky Impeachment Hearings. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Read a story about it here.

Sure, definitions can be very important to understanding, but citing them constantly and quibbling over exact terms can also be nothing more than a deliberate distraction from the actual matter at hand. We are not lawyers negotiating binding contracts.

Having a discussion about 'faith' should and will occur in this Temple regardless of which dictionary we choose to cite. Some of us don't even speak the same language and manage to have conversations in which both parties can learn something new.

I will happily engage anyone who is here to question and learn or share their wisdom and experiences with the rest of us. For those who wish to sow discord, seek controversy, or argue for the sake of being contentious, may I suggest running for a seat in the U.S. Congress. You will be free to argue all day and accomplish very little in the process.

Targeran Arynal wrote: Definitions are very important if the goal of a conversation is constructive dialogue.

Agreed.

I think this is mostly because words are only important in the context of what their reference is. Something like 'faith' is a word referencing an abstraction, and individual experience that is going to mean something different to everyone because everyone's experience of faith is based on their own unique consciousness and experience.

I can see where you’re coming from.

If there is no definition agreed to at the outset there will be no movement in the conversation because we will be left trying to read each other's minds.

I believe this to be a true statement. And the general assumption is that we speak the same language and would then share a common frame of reference, being that language. But due to, I guess, a lack of education or the evolution of particular words, in certain regions to have altered accepted meanings, this is sometimes not the case. And I don’t think it has much of anything to do with education as ‘educated’ people use words for other purposes than their original; intended use. Then you have people as myself that are dyslexic and couldn’t spell the right word if I had to! So you never really know what I’m talking about… and half the time I don’t either.
But if a “definition agreed to at the outset” of every conversation were to take place we would probably spend more time arguing over what each word meant and never actually get to the conversation.
Hahhahahhaha :woohoo:

I think the real problem is that people want to debate (a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints) topics and not share ideas or just talk about things. Not referring to any one person in particular, just mentioning observations.

No, I don't yet think that that is rude. Its not impolite nor is it bad-mannered as far as I can see. Now, it may or may not be offensive, and I frankly don't really care if it is this time, because if anything, I should be the one offended for being not merely misrepresented but so blatantly lied about. But, again, in order to be rude, it has, according to the definition you quoted, be impolite or bad-mannered in an offensive fashion. Wouldn't bother me a lot this time if it is, but lest I become rude when I wish not to be, I'm genuinely curious as to how exactly I am.

Senan wrote: I will happily engage anyone who is here to question and learn or share their wisdom and experiences with the rest of us. For those who wish to sow discord, seek controversy, or argue for the sake of being contentious, may I suggest running for a seat in the U.S. Congress. You will be free to argue all day and accomplish very little in the process.

Do you understand that some of us argue in order to learn something, because agreeing sure doesn't help there? Do you understand what confirmation bias is and how discourse and challenge is a way of avoiding it? Some of us care to talk and listen such that somebody somewhere gains something from it. Sure, some probably just want to hear themselves speak. But that's likely not those who will argue. Nobody needs to be contrarian just to hear themselves speak.

Here in America I was taught to spell the word 'program' a certain way. Here at TOTJO it is spelled 'programme'. As I type it, my spell check underlines this as incorrect, and yet plenty of English speakers would agree that this is in fact the correct spelling. Does this mean I'm working on a different 'Initiate Program' than those working on the 'Initiate Programme'? Do I have to start over? :blink:

I would rather like to think that we are able to look past some differences that are inconsequential and focus on the actual matter at hand.

Gisteron wrote:

Senan wrote: I will happily engage anyone who is here to question and learn or share their wisdom and experiences with the rest of us. For those who wish to sow discord, seek controversy, or argue for the sake of being contentious, may I suggest running for a seat in the U.S. Congress. You will be free to argue all day and accomplish very little in the process.

Do you understand that some of us argue in order to learn something, because agreeing sure doesn't help there? Do you understand what confirmation bias is and how discourse and challenge is a way of avoiding it? Some of us care to talk and listen such that somebody somewhere gains something from it. Sure, some probably just want to hear themselves speak. But that's likely not those who will argue. Nobody needs to be contrarian just to hear themselves speak.

I know what confirmation bias is and I also happen to agree that discussions here should ultimately result in some type of learning for all involved. I do not discourage argument for the sake of learning. I specifically mentioned 'sowing discord', 'seeking controversy', and 'being contentious'. There is a difference between challenging an idea and challenging the way someone expresses the idea.

Wescli Wardest wrote: But if a “definition agreed to at the outset” of every conversation were to take place we would probably spend more time arguing over what each word meant and never actually get to the conversation.
Hahhahahhaha :woohoo:

Yes! It is a cumbersome undertaking for day to day, practical conversation. In the context of a lot of discussion here at the Temple I have to agree with Jestor, conversations of philosophical persuasion only benefit from taking the time to establish meaning and definition. In my short week here I have seen many people taking the time to do this, and do it well.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I think the real problem is that people want to debate (a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints) topics and not share ideas or just talk about things. Not referring to any one person in particular, just mentioning observations.

And yes!

Senan wrote: Sure, definitions can be very important to understanding, but citing them constantly and quibbling over exact terms can also be nothing more than a deliberate distraction from the actual matter at hand. We are not lawyers negotiating binding contracts.

Having a discussion about 'faith' should and will occur in this Temple regardless of which dictionary we choose to cite. Some of us don't even speak the same language and manage to have conversations in which both parties can learn something new.

Sure it will Senan...

And I dont have issues with it.... "Faith" being used here....

In conversations around the temple, thoughts are often examined, and questioned throughly...

If we cannot agree on a base, how can we build?

"Faith" was tha last one, and I said that two guest have it, as I define it... And I was told that it was not the case... And, that I shouldnt say that, and I was lying there, as well...

:lol:....

Im not trying to pick fights, but "seek to understand"... So, I have to ask questions, and provide fuel for the conversations...

Btw, I am a politician... At a low level, but, the law is a difficult mistress at any level...

It is all about interpretation, and perspective...

What an incredibly rude thing to say.

How so? :blink:

Nah, its ok....

Wow, here I go out of my way to agree with a definition and even explain why I agree and you are saying I don't. The second definition of "complete" still goes in perfect accordance with what I said, so you know I do agree with the first definition of faith, but you say I don't anyway.
You are right, this is not getting anywhere. At least one of us is openly and shamelessly lying to everyone's faces. I shall carry on without a conversation with the OP henceforth.

Did I say you dont agree, or am I seeking to make sure we are still speaking the same language, and by the same definitions?

I didnt say this wasnt going anywhere, but maybe you were speaking to another?

So,

"complete trust and confidence" = "to the greatest extent or degree, [of trust and confidence]; total [trust and confidence].

Ok, sure....

It doesnt mention "with" or "without" evidence does it?, does it? That is your personal definition...

At least one of us is openly and shamelessly lying to everyone's faces.

Sorry if I seem aggressive or antagonistic...

I have not lied, at least by dictionary definition...

But if you are using a more personal definition, please feel free to share.... So, we can continue to discuss....

Or dont...

But, if you dont, I will just assume you really are not wanting to have a discussion, and an exchange of ideas...

At least on this topic...

Speaking Publicly, and not aimed at anyone...

It seems speaking nicely, or politely is seen as a weakness...

Dont make that mistake...

Anyone...

I let things drop here all of the time, becasue tactics like those shown by some, including myself against Khaos not that long ago can seem like an attack...

And I care to have more people share points of view, than to be silent for fear of ridicule...

Khaos thought he might be banned if he kept it up with me, but, as long as no rules get broke, I can keep at it all day...

I have...

It is ridiculously hard to get banned by me, I have even had trolls quit posting because I can keep this up for incredibly long times, becasue I really do seek to understand...

So, keep in mind that everyone here is a person, who has feeling and if a little unsure, may not share even in a friendly environment because of insecurity...

Asking questions to the point of silence does not help anyone...

Sharing views, and ways of looking at things, does...

Keeping you mind open, and flowing from concept to concept...

Encouragement, or nurturing does....

Ideas and conversations are like gardening...

If you keep clip the imperfect leaves off, then the imperfect branches, soon you will have an imperfect trunk that needs removed too...

But, like a bonsai tree, if you trim a little here, and shape a little there, it can really grow into something great...