Should language mean stuff?

[planet news]

ADMIN EDIT: this thread started in The Shoutbox (http://www.movieforums.com/community/shoutbox.php) as a discussion about Alanis Morissette's "Ironic" and whether or not it described things that were, in fact, ironic. It morphed into a discussion about language in general, and this post represents the best cutoff point available for when the discussion took this turn. Enjoy.

And one does not need to be a complete prescriptivist about language to think that words should still mean things, and that we should try to use them consistently.... this is a larger issue. It relates to how much words connect with reality. When words are sustained for their own sake, they loose the dialectical touch with the reality which causes their necessity. Words mean how we use them because we need them to mean those things.

[Yoda]

... this is a larger issue. It relates to how much words connect with reality. When words are sustained for their own sake, they loose the dialectical touch with the reality which causes their necessity. Words mean how we use them because we need them to mean those things.
There's no right answer to this. Obviously a word can be misused so often that it reaches a tipping point where it's more confusing to use it correctly than incorrectly. That can't be helped, and sticklers like myself can and should just deal with that (in most scenarios, at least...not all). But up until that point, we should all be insisting that words be used correctly to begin with.

[planet news]

There's no right answer to this. Obviously a word can be misused so often that it reaches a tipping point where it's more confusing to use it correctly than incorrectly. That can't be helped, and sticklers like myself can and should just deal with that (in most scenarios, at least...not all). But up until that point, we should all be insisting that words be used correctly to begin with.You still haven't convinced me the song uses the word incorrectly. You still assume there is such a thing as a correct or incorrect usage of a word. You still assume that language is something that even comes close to being precise and not ALWAYS arguable.

It ain't math.

[Yoda]

You still haven't convinced me the song uses the word incorrectly. You still assume there is such a thing as a correct or incorrect usage of a word.
You say this like it's not built into the very nature of my statement. Of course you have to assume that there's such a thing as correct usage in order to say someone is using a word incorrectly. And you kind of have to assume it to contradict me, because you can't even say someone is using a word "correctly" if ALL word usage is deemed equally valid no matter what.

[planet news]

Why would you say "equally valid" as opposed to "equally expressive"? The concept of validity is precisely what I'm arguing against. It is not new. I first used it in here to address Ann Coulter. Things she says might be invalid on the assumption of some politically correct baseline. But the expressiveness of her words reveal truth. What should be looked at in a word is the SINCERITY of the word and therefore its connection to reality: not its complicity in some arbitrary and ever-changing set of rules.

The song was expressing something to us which we all understood, regardless of whether or not is was DEFINABLE by some set of rules.

[Yoda]

I think we've been over this. I'll just run through some statements and you can tell me which you disagree with.

1. It is good and important that we communicate with each other.
2. Communication is greatly improved by using objective definitions of words.
3. When people use words differently, it breeds miscommunication and confusion.

These are the only things you need to accept to also accept that correcting people's word usage is sensible. And I, being the stickler, have to in turn accept that at a certain point a mistake in word usage can become so widespread that you have to accept it because using the word in its original sense is now more confusing than in the new one.

[planet news]

Communication is greatly improved by using objective definitions of words.Your main error: the objective definition of a word is the way it is being used by a person.

"I am typing this shout on my mongoose."

I am speaking about this thing in front of me. This thing in front of me is the definition of that word. All other definitions only go around it by referencing countless other definitions. And these could all be wrong. There is one thing that isn't wrong, and that is that there is something in front of me that I am typing on. I call it a mongoose.

[Yoda]

Your main error: the objective definition of a word is the way it is being used by a person.
No, that's subjective. Something is objective if it is unbiased, fact-based, not subject to personal feelings, et cetera. "Objective definitions of words," then, merely means an agreed upon standard.

So, to recap: communication is good. Communication is dramatically more effective when we have agreed upon definitions of words. Ergo, enforcing these standards (however casually) is sensible because it helps maintain clearer lines of communication.

[planet news]

No, that's subjective. Something is objective if it is unbiased, fact-based, not subject to personal feelings, et cetera. "Objective definitions of words," then, merely means an agreed upon standard.If your theory of what constitutes objective or material reality is just what people agree on... :shrug:

Languages don't even work that way in the first place. Languages aren't "agreed upon". They certainly aren't standard. They aren't now and have never been and will never be. Languages are memetic. One person invents a word which then catches on as it is parroted over and over throughout the population. It is a collective flow of material, not a consensus. In the same way, capitalism is a collective flow while its behavioral flux is not a consensus.

Internet memes are themselves such a language, albeit an extremely open, heterogeneous, pictorial one. As we all know, one cannot force a meme. One does not propose a meme. A committee does not get together and decide what a meme is. It develops naturally by an unplanned proliferation of self-replication, i.e. people parroting each other.

Take the infamous "FFFUUUUUUU" meme and its grammatical structure of a four panel comic culminating on an exasperated expression and the first half of the expletive F-word. This structure is standard only in its potential to be altered. It has been modified again and again in order to express many different kinds of anger and sometimes even happiness or simple satisfaction. Indeed, the structure has been modified to the point of contradicting its original intent, but all this was only out of the sake expressing more. Sure, in the beginning, modifiers of the meme were called out for doinitwrong,jpg, but over time the alternatives proved to be just as useful as the original until the meme was not one but several, the general shape of the angry head itself going to become a staple of the emotive human in countless disparate comics and recombinations with other memes. And none of this was ever planned out or agreed upon.

I wonder what your whole agenda with arguing for the standardization of language is. It seems to be a rather liberal stance. Why not just let language roam free? Or is this a sign that you might finally get what I mean when I say that flows like capital and language are schizophrenic while government can GUARANTEE standards such as health care, living wage, etc.

Must have something to do with Austruck. :)

[Yoda]

If your theory of what constitutes objective or material reality is just what people agree on... :shrug:
I can't help but notice that you're not answering my question. I laid out a few claims about language and what makes it useful and twice asked you to pick out which you thought was wrong. Can I take your refusal to do so to mean that you don't think any of them are wrong?

Languages don't even work that way in the first place. Languages aren't "agreed upon". They certainly aren't standard. They aren't now and have never been and will never be. Languages are memetic. One person invents a word which then catches on as it is parroted over and over throughout the population. It is a collective flow of material, not a consensus. In the same way, capitalism is a collective flow while its behavioral flux is not a consensus.
There's no contradiction here. The fact that language is memetic and malleable does not mean it is not also formed by consensus. The fact that nobody votes on what a word means doesn't mean that, in total, we don't have a rough agreement about what they mean. "Agreed upon" does not apply a centralized body or a governing council, it just means that, through the memetic process you've described (and other more formal ones later in a language's development), we form a consensus about what most words mean over time.

Even if you disagree in theory (and I don't see how anyone could, honestly), the result is undeniable. The fact that we understand each other at all when discussing advanced subjects is only possible because we're using words to mean roughly the same thing. It's also embedded in all your disagreements. Notice that when you wanted to achieve a contrast between a thing and its word (computer for mongoose), you were able to do so only because you knew what each word would summon in my mind. You didn't pick something similar to a computer, you picked something completely different to emphasize the contrast betweeen the two that would not be possible if did not know with a great certainity what each word would make me think of.

There is also, of course, the fact that you do not call your computer a mongoose. You call it a computer, because when you call it that, everyone knows what you're talking about.

[planet news]

The debate about usefulness is the same as the debate about language's connection with reality.

Or at least it should be. Religion is a prime example of a language that has been so divorced from reality that it becomes useful to speak of fictions. A new reality -- the reality of the language itself -- is made just as pertinent as material reality.

When a word refers to something that is fictional, i.e. any word, and is sustained through repetition, it immediately looses contact with reality by creating a general category. This is Plato's great mistake. Words do not describe the general. Words create the general by generalizing. However, we may take heed in that -- at least in early times -- words came about out of sheer necessity and utility, i.e. in order to speak of some thing. When society begins to loose contact with this dialectic between the necessity rendered by the real and the sounds we make coming out of our mouths -- reifying those sounds, those mere signs -- into something with intrinsic substance, this is when language fails to be what it is and therefore fails to be useful.

[Yoda]

Except it isn't. You're reading this right now and you know what I mean because language is still very useful.

Language is useful insofar as it helps communicate an idea from one person to another more effectively. It's still very good at that, and it only stays good at it if we agree (informally, for the most part) that this word refers to this, and that word refers to that. This is trickier with ideas than it is with objects, but it still works very well. As far as I can see there's no actual dispute on this point, yes?

[Yoda]

Also, I think the distinction between words that describe fictional things and words that describe real things is overblown. Fictional or not, they all describe ideas.

[planet news]

There's no contradiction here. The fact that language is memetic and malleable does not mean it is not also formed by consensus. The fact that nobody votes on what a word means doesn't mean that, in total, we don't have a rough agreement about what they mean. "Agreed upon" does not apply a centralized body or a governing council, it just means that, through the memetic process you've described (and other more formal ones later in a language's development), we form a consensus about what most words mean over time.You don't understand what memetics is then. A meme is like a gene. It flows through space and time. It is always doing so. To equate the meme to a consensus is to render it unintelligible. It is like describing the state of the universe as a consensus among its particles. The purpose of a meme is to directly contradict the notion of a consensus, to cast information itself into the realm of material flow. Similarly, the gene -- upon which, of course, the meme it is based -- does not produce a consensus among species. It is precisely the failure of standardization that causes a misconception of what species are. The Bible describes all the animals of the Earth boarding Noah's ark as if they were set in stone. Now, I know you believe this, but I suppose I'm trying to show you why both are wrong. Animals, like language, are always changing. There was no standardizing force of God to lock them in place or to precisely define their forms. The reality of species is only a failure of our language and sensibility to capture the incredible and constant dynamism of all life. The same goes for language. A desire to standardize is a desire to immanently actualize Platonism into the form of a dictionary. This is fundamentally a move against reality; it is anti-realist and idealist, and therefore cannot ever be a form of pragmatism. The utility becomes subservient to a consistency with the standardization.

[ash_is_the_gal]

oh my god you guys are boring.

[Yoda]

You don't understand what memetics is then. A meme is like a gene. It flows through space and time. It is always doing so. To equate the meme to a consensus is to render it unintelligible.
It sounds like you're assuming that because a word can change over time it therefore does not have a consensus definition at any one point, but that just doesn't follow. "Computer" may mean something different in twenty years, if we all start using it to refer to something different (which seems likely, by the way, as the word becomes hopelessly broad as we computerize more things). But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a meaning RIGHT NOW to a majority of people.

The purpose of a meme is to directly contradict the notion of a consensus, to cast information itself into the realm of material flow.
Again, I don't think this follows. Your example of memes is one person saying something, and another repeating it to mean the same thing. That's how consensus is formed: when enough people repeat the word and decide to use it to refer to a thing. The fact that this happens organically and can change later on does NOT NOT NOT contradict the idea that a consensus is formed for a time.

[planet news]

Even if you disagree in theory (and I don't see how anyone could, honestly)That... is why you fail.

If you don't get what I'm saying, you should ask for a clarification. Sheesh. You can't debate with someone if you can't see how the other person can be right.

The fact that we understand each other at all when discussing advanced subjects is only possible because we're using words to mean roughly the same thing.You said roughly. And yet you're a "stickler". It is not a leap of logic then to suppose you would want to destroy the roughness of language, have everyone communicate perfectly (if possible). This is what a "stickler" is, no?

But you've already made the mistake here. Spoken language isn't rough and inconsistent because it fails to meet some standard of language. It is rough because the world is rough and inconsistent and language itself is a failed generalization of the real of this inconsistency.

To standardize language is to place it on a pedestal above reality, to keep is safe and insulated from the material winds of constant change that seek to modify its expressiveness. Loosing this contact is the death of language.

Try to remember that the way things happen to be at this moment is not the way they have always been.

There is also, of course, the fact that you do not call your computer a mongoose. You call it a computer, because when you call it that, everyone knows what you're talking about.This is part of what a meme is. A meme is a social formation, a code of acceptance into a community. But slang terms arise from local disturbances much like my joke about the mongoose. These slang terms are part of language; a language unto themselves. They too proliferate memetically and yes, they too carry something uniquely expressive about them. Hence their coming about in the first place.

People like you and Austruck seek to stifle this material creativity of language and to lock language into something eternal and sterile (which just happens to be the language that you both are most familiar with or just happen to be born into speaking).

[planet news]

oh my god you guys are boring.ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

[ash_is_the_gal]

actually, this kind of conversation could be interesting, but you guys get so long-winded and keep changing topics. it's too... much... info... in such a short amount of time!

[John McClane]

Guys, STFU! :D

[planet news]

But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a meaning RIGHT NOW to a majority of people.No. I'm glad that you understand this. Because this is precisely the reason why we shouldn't artificially try to standardize language and just let is develop naturally on its own, part of that process being the so-called "misuses" that you are so annoyed by. No. Each misuse is akin to a mutation in genetics: the creative power of evolution. I don't know if you believe in any kind of evolution, but imagine if God, or nature, had locked all the species into a permanent state before humans got a chance to evolve. We would have never done all that we have done. In some sense, God would have squandered the potential of his matter by arbitrarily freezing its flows to, I dunno, make it easier on Him.

And to be sure this kind of standardizing practice is only meant to be easier on the ruling class which ALREADY largely speaks the language. I suppose Ebonics as whole would have to be eradicated as well as all southern dialects and our own beloved Pittsburghese. Notice how it is the lower classes and minorities that specialize their own language. Memes are most fecund in small communities: inside jokes, private sayings, etc. The global, bourgeois, cosmopolitan class seeks to standardize language nationwide and enforce it stringently.

Sounds very liberal elitist to me.

That's how consensus is formed: when enough people repeat the word and decide to use it to refer to a thing.No. You are wrong. There is no critical mass. There are only plateaus. A meme could die at any moment for any reason. A meme could be suddenly altered and never be reverted. A meme could be suddenly superseded by a similar but more expressive meme. There is no pause or tipping point as your subtly worded sentence tries to suggest. Again, this is the fundamental difference between a consensus (top down) and a meme (bottom up). A consensus is made. It is declared. A meme merely reveals itself over time. Any attempts to declare it or render a consensus is an attempt at standardization. You should not equate your own liberal policies towards language with the way language actually functions.

[Yoda]

If you don't get what I'm saying, you should ask for a clarification. Sheesh. You can't debate with someone if you can't see how the other person can be right.
Why would this be true? People can just be wrong about things. I do ask for clarification. I make it very easy, by laying out two or three claims and asking which you disagree with, and why. But that doesn't seem to work.

You said roughly. And yet you're a "stickler". It is not a leap of logic then to suppose you would want to destroy the roughness of language, have everyone communicate perfectly (if possible). This is what a "stickler" is, no?
The word "roughly" is there to acknoweldge that when you translate an idea into a word, you lose something in that translation. I insert these caveats and qualifications because, if I don't, I know I might get a paragraph or two reminding me of such things, and I like to head them off to get to the core of the disagreement as smoothly and quickly as possible.

But you've already made the mistake here. Spoken language isn't rough and inconsistent because it fails to meet some standard of language. It is rough because the world is rough and inconsistent and language itself is a failed generalization of the real of this inconsistency.
Sure. It's also rough because thoughts are too vast and intricate to be summarized in a reasonable amount of words. I don't recall saying anything to the contrary on either point.

To standardize language is to place it on a pedestal above reality, to keep is safe and insulated from the material winds of constant change that seek to modify its expressiveness. Loosing this contact is the death of language.
It depends on how you standardize it. If you create a rigid series of objective definitions that are never allowed to grow or change, then yes, that's silly. But using objective definitions to foster consistent communication and merely encouraging their reference so as to reduce confusion over time has great value.

This is part of what a meme is. A meme is a social formation, a code of acceptance into a community. But slang terms arise from local disturbances much like my joke about the mongoose. These slang terms are part of language; a language unto themselves. They too proliferate memetically and yes, they too carry something uniquely expressive about them. Hence their coming about in the first place.
This is another paragraph that doesn't seem to actually contradict the point it's responding to. I am getting the distinct impression that you're arguing with what you see as some Dictionary Industrial Complex, and not with what I'm actually saying to you...

People like you and Austruck seek to stifle this material creativity of language and to lock language into something eternal and sterile (which just happens to be the language that you both are most familiar with or just happen to be born into speaking).
...and my suspicions are confirmed. I went well out of my way to emphasize multiple times that any sensible insistence on objective definitions has to be open to them changing if it wishes to satisfy its goal of being useful for communication. The fact that you threw the word "eternal" in here is either really blatantly rhetorical, or else a failure to notice a point I've made more than once.

I think your love for the "creativity of language" is vastly overblown, but whatever your thoughts there, there is a simple tradeoff between saying whatever pops into our heads at any time to mean whatever we happen to be thinking of, and conforming our creativity to an existing standard in order to be understood. Both things have value, and need to be balanced against one another, because being understood is important, and you will not be understood if you don't use most words to mean what most people use them to mean. This will change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that, when you use each one of them, with few exceptions they either fit a consensus about their meaning at that point in time, or not.

And, again: the only reason you can argue against how language is used is because it's being used, right now, the very way you say it shouldn't be. That's pretty much the whole ballgame. I can only understand your objections because you implicitly buy into the meanings of words with every word you type or read. You're sitting on the tree branch you're trying to saw off.

[planet news]

Also, I think the distinction between words that describe fictional things and words that describe real things is overblown. Fictional or not, they all describe ideas.This is the fundamental problem with language. It is limited to ideas. Unfortunately, ideas to not exist in the world except as particles of language. Actually, they don't exist anywhere outside of that.

Therefore, if one standardizes language, one is standardizing a structure of ideas, a web of signs, a pure symbolic order. On word-webs, no matter how many definitions you go through, no matter how far you click, you will never get to a material object. You will only find words upon words upon words upon words. The object is always a leap from ideal to material.

When a word was made for a keyboard, it was not because someone wanted to capture the idea of a keyboard; it was because someone wanted to signal the material object of the keyboard itself. This is how all language forms. Ebonics is largely shaped by the biology of our palate, by certain musical rhythms and an aural style. The same goes for the southern twang. On top of this, they are both beautiful in their own way and expressive of entire worlds and emotions upon their mere utterance.

To standardize language into a proofreader's ideal is to destroy all of this creativity.

[DexterRiley]

no, language shouldn't mean anything, but it does in certain situations.

for instance, i wouldnt suggest calling your mother-in-law out for her c+nty behavior.

that doesn't go over well i can assure you

:D

[Yoda]

No. I'm glad that you understand this. Because this is precisely the reason why we shouldn't artificially try to standardize language and just let is develop naturally on its own, part of that process being the so-called "misuses" that you are so annoyed by. No. Each misuse is akin to a mutation in genetics: the creative power of evolution. I don't know if you believe in any kind of evolution, but imagine if God, or nature, had locked all the species into a permanent state before humans got a chance to evolve. We would have never done all that we have done. In some sense, God would have squandered the potential of his matter by arbitrarily freezing its flows to, I dunno, make it easier on Him.
I understand what you're saying, I just think you are ascribing far more value to this "flow" than is sensible. I think there's a simple tradeoff between standardizing communication and allowing it to develop. I also think this "development" is fairly haphazard and not even necessarily an improvement in most cases, which calls into question just why it's supposed to be so awesomely free to begin with. Nevertheless, there is clearly a tradeoff. Therefore, your disagreement comes from the fact that you think this "flow" is of supreme importance, and any attempt to restrict it is bad. I don't. I think being understood effectively over time is more helpful for a variety of reasons (think about how dense older books are, for example). But either way, our positions are not opposites, because I acknowledge the need for a balance, whereas you take the extreme position that dictionaries are draconian.

It's worth pointing out that the rigid standardization you're talking about doesn't exist in real life. Whatever threat you think there is, it is purely abstract. In real life, we have different dictionaries, and even those adjust over time and add things like Internet speak, slang, etc. over time. They do this when they feel the phrase has become widely understood to mean a certain thing. A dictionary is not so much a book of rules as it is an attempt to describe a language at a given time. It just so happens that communication is a lot smoother if we don't change words around all the damn time, yes? So there is value in standardization as long as you feel that being understood effectively has value, yes?

And to be sure this kind of standardizing practice is only meant to be easier on the ruling class which ALREADY largely speaks the language. I suppose Ebonics as whole would have to be eradicated as well as all southern dialects and our own beloved Pittsburghese. Notice how it is the lower classes and minorities that specialize their own language. Memes are most fecund in small communities: inside jokes, private sayings, etc. The global, bourgeois, cosmopolitan class seeks to standardize language nationwide and enforce it stringently.

Sounds very liberal elitist to me.
Yes, we are oppressing people by saying that mongooses are not computers.

Somebody please put that in your signature.

No. You are wrong. There is no critical mass. There are only plateaus.
Sure there is. There is a point at which a word is used a certain way by MOST people, and at which point you are more likely to be misunderstood than understood if you use it one way over another. This will vary somewhat from place to place, but that doesn't change the fact that, at any point in time, in any place, you will either be more or less understood if you use a word one way as opposed to another. I'm going to keep hammering on this, because I don't feel this point is being at all contradicted or even really addressed much.

Stroll into a convenience store and ask the clerk for a Buick instead of a pack of cigarettes. You will not be understood. Congratulations, you've just expressed the memetic, creative flow of language. You also won't get your cigarettes. This will happen in almost every English-speaking convenience store, which proves that there is a broad consensus about what those words mean. Could this change? Yes. Does that mean there isn't a consensus right now? No. And that's the point. Every other point is extrapolating the discussion beyond the scope of any actual disagreement. Which is okay, as long as we both agree that there's no actual contradiction taking place.

A meme could die at any moment for any reason. A meme could be suddenly altered and never be reverted. A meme could be suddenly superseded by asimilar but more expressive meme. There is no pause or tipping point as your subtly worded sentence tries to suggest. Again, this is the fundamental difference between a consensus (top down) and a meme (bottom up). A consensus is made. It is declared. A meme merely reveals itself over time. Any attempts to declare it or render a consensus is an attempt at standardization. You should not equate your own liberal policies towards language with the way language actually functions.
A consensus does not have to be declared. You're bringing associations to the word "consensus" to make it appear more formal than it is, and then arguing against those formalities.

[Yoda]

This is the fundamental problem with language. It is limited to ideas. Unfortunately, ideas to not exist in the world except as particles of language. Actually, they don't exist anywhere outside of that.
Oh, I don't think so. An idea exists in my head before I give it a name.

Therefore, if one standardizes language, one is standardizing a structure of ideas, a web of signs, a pure symbolic order. On word-webs, no matter how many definitions you go through, no matter how far you click, you will never get to a material object. You will only find words upon words upon words upon words. The object is always a leap from ideal to material.
Yup.

When a word was made for a keyboard, it was not because someone wanted to capture the idea of a keyboard; it was because someone wanted to signal the material object of the keyboard itself.
I'm not sure this distinction is a sensible one. The word signals an idea, but the idea is of a physical object.

This is how all language forms. Ebonics is largely shaped by the biology of our palate, by certain musical rhythms and an aural style. The same goes for the southern twang. On top of this, they are both beautiful in their own way and expressive of entire worlds and emotions upon their mere utterance.
Sure. I like accents. I like Coen brothers movies more because of accents.

To standardize language into a proofreader's ideal is to destroy all of this creativity.
Well, first off, I have to take issue with "proofreader's ideal." I have no idea what connotations you're smuggling inside that phrase, but it sounds a good deal stricter than anything I'm talking about.

Secondly, accents are not the same as mixing definitions around.

Thirdly, while you can certainly come up with fun, folksy, beautiful examples of language and its flow, it does not follow that deciding to use a word to mean something else entirely is similarly fun, folksy, or beautiful. Would it be "beautiful" or "creative" if I used hot to mean cold, or dull to mean exciting? Or would it just muddy the lines of communication?

Again, I think the majority of your arguments make their point very well...if you were arguing with some strict prescriptivist who believed in a static, unchanging set of definitions that never made any allowance for the evolution of language. But you aren't.

[planet news]

If you create a rigid series of objective definitions that are never allowed to grow or change, then yes, that's silly.See, here it looks like I can stop.

But using objective definitions to foster consistent communication and merely encouraging their reference so as to reduce confusion over time has great value.THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID

How can you be a "stickler" who wants to "reduce confusion" (lol, this just means smooth out the roughs) and allow change? This is called a contradiction (pictured above).

I think your love for the "creativity of language" is vastly overblown, but whatever your thoughts there, there is a simple tradeoff between saying whatever pops into our heads at any time to mean whatever we happen to be thinking of, and conforming our creativity to an existing standard in order to be understood.Well, you just don't get the memetic theory of language then, or at least you don't subscribe to it. I guess you think that language was just, I dunno, there and that people just picked it up and started using it all at once. But memes are not structural totalities, they are dynamic flows. They aren't conforming to some standard. There is no standard.

And, again: the only reason you can argue against how language is used is because it's being used, right now, the very way you say it shouldn't be. That's pretty much the whole ballgame. I can only understand your objections because you implicitly buy into the meanings of words with every word you type or read. You're sitting on the tree branch you're trying to saw off.No man. Everything I say is an echo of something I once heard that has been imprinted into my brain so that I think through them.

Internet memes have also been imprinted into my brain somewhat. Sometimes I'm frustrated and the images of the angry raging face comes up in my mind. I literally think through memes.

Your casting of the fact that you can understand me and I you as some kind of positive for being a "stickler" is almost insanely myopic. It's as if language for you is so much of a fixed structure that we constantly need people like Austruck around holding it together or else it will break apart like in the Tower of Babel. As if without a standardized language none of us will ever understand each other or communicate anything.

[Yoda]

See, here it looks like I can stop.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID

How can you be a "stickler" who wants to "reduce confusion" (lol, this just means smooth out the roughs) and allow change? This is called a contradiction (pictured above).

Well, you just don't get the memetic theory of language then, or at least you don't subscribe to it. I guess you think that language was just, I dunno, there and that people just picked it up and started using it all at once. But memes are not structural totalities, they are dynamic flows. They aren't conforming to some standard. There is no standard.

No man. Everything I say is an echo of something I once heard that has been imprinted into my brain so that I think through them.

Internet memes have also been imprinted into my brain somewhat. Sometimes I'm frustrated and the images of the angry raging face comes up in my mind. I literally think through memes.

Your casting of the fact that you can understand me and I you as some kind of positive for being a "stickler" is almost insanely myopic. It's as if language for you is so much of a fixed structure that we constantly need people like Austruck around holding it together or else it will break apart like in the Tower of Babel. As if without a standardized language none of us will ever understand each other or communicate anything.
Ooooo. I think I'm onto something. It's something you're not actually saying, or else not communicating effectively (how funny would that be?). Need some time to process it (but mainly, to eat pizza and watch more Justified). But I'll be back. This post could end up being tremendously clarifying. More later.

[planet news]

I'm not sure this distinction is a sensible one. The word signals an idea, but the idea is of a physical object.This guy.

This guy right here . . .

. . . is the idealist/materialist debate or the whole Matrix thing where the world is in your head. There is more in your mind than ideas. I can touch this keyboard. I can feel it pushing up against my fingers. Now, whether or not these are all ideas or material flows of chemical signifier is, well, one of the more difficult debates throughout history.

Secondly, accents are not the same as mixing definitions around.Thirdly, Ebonics and Southern dialect are not merely accents. Listen to rap.

Thirdly, while you can certainly come up with fun, folksy, beautiful examples of language and its flow, it does not follow that deciding to use a word to mean something else entirely is similarly fun, folksy, or beautiful. Would it be "beautiful" or "creative" if I used hot to mean cold, or dull to mean exciting? Or would it just muddy the lines of communication?An instructive example: Michael Jackson's Bad. Was it made better or worse by how "bad" standardly means terrible, but in this case "bad" meant its very opposite "good" in terms of "cool" or "bad ass"? I think this kind of reversal is extremely creative, don't you? The very fact that slang often takes on the very opposite meaning of the standardized meaning is breathtaking to me.

And yes, it is a class issue. The only people who want to standardize language are upper class intellectuals who write, read, or proofread for a living.

Again, I think the majority of your arguments make their point very well...if you were arguing with some strict prescriptivist who believed in a static, unchanging set of definitions that never made any allowance for the evolution of language. But you aren't.Maybe. But I was also thinking that you're a programmer, which means you interact with a certain kind of artificial language every day, which means that you must find it comforting that things can be coded in such a precise, mathematical way. However, normal language just isn't like this, because our minds are not computers.

But I can see how programmers, scientists, and mathematicians like that kind of clarity. But to be clear, these languages are constructed from the ground up by people for people. They are artificial languages. They do not develop and evolve like ordinary language.

When I word is taken from these technical languages into ordinary language, it becomes a buzzword and is often seen as a pretentious or amateur abuse of that word. However, the word is taken only because the person abusing it saw something meaningful in it (perhaps something conveying technicality or knowledge even) so that it was necessary to use that work instead of a more quotidian term. This is how ordinary language works. By necessity. Not by streamlined design.

You could say that there's an INVISIBLE HAND at work. :)

[honeykid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
Ed Byrne's breakthough "Ironic" routine.

[Deadite]

Language primarily serves as a reference system. There are atomic words from which further meaning cannot be extracted, and there is a governing syntax which are the rules of proper form ie. consistent language constructs which are considered grammatically coherent by us.

However, beyond its practical value, language can be employed (and frequently is) to allow unique subjective connections between seemingly disparate referents. While not strictly literal, such metaphorical play is likely the basis for much of human artistry.

Even so, when we get right down to it, all language is figurative, so the distinction between objective language with solid, concrete referents and subjective language that is expressive of individual perception is not so absolute.

An interesting thing to consider is the view of reality itself as a language operating via the subject-object distinction, with that distinction not being absolute in reality either.

To elaborate, consider reality as an innately self-referential status quo -not so difficult to do, and the logical conclusion if one defines reality as all-inclusive. If reality is all-inclusive, meaning it contains all "real things" or all existence, then reality is also self-contained ie. it contains itself since it is by definition real.

So, if we view reality as self-contained (as would be logical), then it is of necessity a self-referential system, so the subject-object line would not be fixed but rather act as a dynamic interpretative process in which reality is representing itself via metaphorical relationships.

[rufnek]

When words are sustained for their own sake, they loose the dialectical touch with the reality which causes their necessity.

Give us an example, Planet.

[Yoda]

I will do some specific replying, and I will do some general replying. First, the general, stemming from this one quote:

It's as if language for you is so much of a fixed structure that we constantly need people like Austruck around holding it together or else it will break apart like in the Tower of Babel. As if without a standardized language none of us will ever understand each other or communicate anything.
Okay, now, I'm going to go off on a little gimmick of sorts where I argue something it sounds like you may be arguing (or should be arguing, or will eventually argue). Sorry if that's confusing.

One thing that is obviously undeniable is that we have to have a rough agreement as to what words mean to have a conversation. I've been saying this from the beginning, and while you clearly have objections on a much larger scale, I don't see how this point is disputable. And since you haven't really disputed it, I'll assume you agree. If I say the word "house" and I mean "banana" (which I'm totally saying just because I'm in a house and have a banana on my desk right now, by the way), you will not understand me, and our conversation will be the poorer for it. This does not mean that house must always mean what it means now, or that we can't have slang, etc. But it does mean that we need this common ground to talk to each other. Good? Good.

Moving on. I can (and have) easily constructed examples about how it'd be pointless and stupid if we were just randomly making up what a word meant at any given moment. On the other hand, you can (and have) offered examples of how messing around with language can be interesting, fun, and any other number of delightful things. So we've established, I hope, that words need to have a degree of consistency, but not too much. We need some consistency to communicate, but too much stifles a kind of cultural osmosis and evolution that helps make life a little more vibrant and interesting. Great.

So, how does this happen? Well, you seem to be suggesting (I don't think you've made this argument explicitly yet, but you seem to be headed this way) that it should happen naturally. Which is interesting, because it's very, very subtly at odds with your arguments. In other words, it's one thing to say there should be no restrictions or regulation of language, and another to say that it should, ideally, self-regulate, which would seem to follow from your position. I will assume, for the moment, that you believe this.

If you do, then Austruck simply becomes a part of that self-regulation. And so do you. And so does Michael Jackson. The balance is achieved both by Michael Jackson saying "bad" to mean "fearsome," and by me sitting in the Shoutbox and saying "that's not what irony means." That's how we, as a culture, regulate our language. Sometimes the usage is fun, obvious, interesting, and disseminates to the rest of the culture quickly. And sometimes people are just ignorant or sloppy about word use, and aren't really expressing much of anything, and they only add to confusion and poor writing if we all just go along and say that whatever they use a word for, that's what it can mean.

But more important than any of this, I think, is that these restrictions are not necessarily at odds with creativity. Structure does not kill art, it breathes an entirely new kind of life into it. Is poetry the lesser because we insist that it have a meter? Is literature hurt by simple forms of structure like periods, or capital letters? Does Jackson Pollock exist at all if he doesn't exist in a world alongside people who think paintings should look like things?

Art is pervasive. It is not more or less beautiful because of the restrictions it lives under: it weaves itself around them, like ivy. It incorporates all hurdles to become something new, something often more beautiful in oppressive places than open ones, whether that oppression is life-threatening and specific, or a trivial grammatical correction.

Similarly, the fun twisting of language you value is only possible with rules. Using a word in a new way ceases to be interesting, clever, or unique if there is no standard against which this new use trangresses. If everybody were playing free association all the time, it wouldn't be creative, it would be chaos. Limitation is a huge part of art, not only because of the ways in which it can resemble a more technical discipline, but because it can't break boundaries that aren't there. Or, to use a Chesterton quote that I think actually mostly means something else: "All art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame."

[Yoda]

Okay. Now for a few specific stands. Though I think most of this becomes moot depending on how you respond to the previous post.

Thirdly, Ebonics and Southern dialect are not merely accents. Listen to rap.
Aye, but they're also still mostly the same words I use, in the same way. I don't know if we can use occasional examples or accents to say that words don't have to mean things. It's just an argument for not being a total prescriptivist.

And yes, it is a class issue. The only people who want to standardize language are upper class intellectuals who write, read, or proofread for a living.
The fact that one class is usually for something and another class is not does not mean one class is oppressing another. If anything, if this formalized English is considered the "business" form of the language (and it undeniably is), then it's in their interest to have fewer people well-versed in it, no?


Maybe. But I was also thinking that you're a programmer, which means you interact with a certain kind of artificial language every day, which means that you must find it comforting that things can be coded in such a precise, mathematical way. However, normal language just isn't like this, because our minds are not computers.

But I can see how programmers, scientists, and mathematicians like that kind of clarity. But to be clear, these languages are constructed from the ground up by people for people. They are artificial languages. They do not develop and evolve like ordinary language.
I like this observation. It ventures towards psychoanalyzing, which I usually hate in any discussion, but it's fair, polite, and probably somewhat accurate. But allow me to ask, in response: which types of languages more obviously progress? Spoken languages, or computer languages?

I could also, of course, argue that being a programmer simply means I'm more acutely aware of the ways in which it is superior. It is as likely to give me special insight into these ideas as it is to color them unduly.

[KasperKristensen]

I think formal stuff should be perfect terminology. But if I'm speaking with someone I know well, in chat or in actual conversation, there's always that "you know what I mean factor". If it's someone I'm not that friendly or fluid with, or if the person is a pretentious douche (if you take offense calm it down or let it go) it's the "but you ******* know what I mean!" factor.
It becomes more prominent in writing, I think. Sometimes what's ironic is also funny or just something to think about and sometimes it's easy to get the two mixed up. If you throw grammar and punctuation into the mix it becomes a hole other story. See?

[Deadite]

Pitiful lesser beings need their language crutch until they realize there is no spoon.

[Sedai]

Le sigh. Silly argument...

Is this really an argument about whether or not words actually mean something?

Buahahahahahahaha.

[Yoda]

Is this really an argument about whether or not words actually mean something?
Well, of course mumbo dog fish banana patch. That'd be stamp wisely!

[John McClane]

I just want you all to know that I hate philosophy of language. Some people take it way too far and it's one hellva mind-****.

[planet news]

Some peopleLike all of contemporary American academia? Yeah, I agree. Especially people like John Searle who attacked Derrida for trying to bring up just the very mildest notion that logic and language might not be the end of everything, calling him a charlatan and all the other stuff usually lobbed at postmodernists.

Hate you, Bertrand Russell.

[John McClane]

What I meant was some people *cough*you*cough* take it too far by saying language is voodoo hoodoo. That's not the point of Derrida's work. ;)

[planet news]

It ain't hoodoo, but it's more complex than most people make it out to be, especially in how it relates to reality, which is the most important part of what PoL is.

[mark f]

I have to admit that I've been trying to avoid this thread, and before I go back and read everything, I'm going to do what I normally do. I'm just going to make a comment based on the title and "my vibe". Yes, "language should mean stuff". The problem is that the stuff doesn't even have to be true. Language can be a way to confuse or misdirect people; codes, for example. Spoken language can usually be explained, at least if the person you're talking to cares enough to figure out something they don't understand. Written language is really the key, killer idea to me though because you will probably have more people read what you say than hear what you say, at least unless you're a teacher or some kinda boss in the workplace. I try to make my written language very clear, but I'll admit that it can be a problem when I'm trying to convey more than one thought to different groups of people by only speaking one set of words. That's when you really learn if "language means stuff', and based on my experience, it doesn't as much as it should. Powdered Water gets me most of the time though. HA!

[Used Future]

Far be it for me to even attempt to sound profound on this jive; so I'll just try and sum up my thoughts with a few quotes from some other...clever-er-er cats...

What words say does not last. The words last. Because words are always the same, and what they say is never the same. ~Antonio Porchia

No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous. ~Henry Brooks Adams

The existing phrasebooks are inadequate. They are well enough as far as they go, but when you fall down and skin your leg they don't tell you what to say. ~Mark Twain

[planet news]

Misc. reply:

Is this really an argument about whether or not words actually mean something?Nah, that's just Shout Tyrant's way of poisoning the well. It's actually about whether language should be top-down standardized. For once, Yoda is a liberal.

it doesn't as much as it shouldHow much should it mean then? What is the standard? The point I'm trying to make is that it can only mean so much, and it means as much as it can when it is allowed to flow.

There are atomic words from which further meaning cannot be extracted . . .Like what? Do these logical atoms also correspond to materials? I think this is a highly contentious way to open your post. The existence of basic propositions would render everything I'm saying absolutely moot.

[will.15]

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae244/willedelman/_ayawning__1220901657_91071.jpg

[planet news]

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gif
http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gif
http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gifhttp://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306775766349.gif

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLqaPjsdpM&NR=1

[planet news]

I feel more has been said in these past three posts than in this entire thread.

[Deadite]

Like what? Do these logical atoms also correspond to materials? I think this is a highly contentious way to open your post. The existence of basic propositions would render everything I'm saying absolutely moot.

Well, it is a meaningful term in linguistics. I'm sorry if you feel I'm somehow stepping on toes. Language is intrinsically referential and there are certain fixed concepts derived from human perception which are the basis for atomic words. However...

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language are irrational and of a magical nature." -Jorge Luis Borges

I'm not sure you really understood the gist of my previous post, however, since I was not absolutely claiming language is inflexible.

Words themselves are compound symbols, symbols only valid insofar as the mind can recognize their content. Meaning itself is most likely established collectively, and the individual cannot grossly neglect shared definitions although there is always a reasonable amount of "wiggle room" for idiosyncratic expression.

[Deadite]

Anyway, I'm no expert, but I tend to think that form/biology itself must dictate to some extent a cross-language similitude in basic structure and ideation. I speculate that subject/object formulations are fundamental to language even when masked by cultural semantics.

To return to the matter of the language/reality relation from my earlier post, I would add that I think said natural bipolarity of language is reflective of the nature of the mind itself, and that that mental nature is also reflective of the nature of reality.

[Deadite]

So, yes, I would say there is a foundational logical/atomic structure to language which corresponds to the material universe.

[planet news]

Your Borges quote speaks strictly against logical atomism.

It is not merely that language can be flexible. It is that its very basis is either nonexistent or only retroactively made existent and only then for a very short amount of time as memes diverge.

There is also the matter that words are never precise either in themselves or in a sentence.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm somehow stepping on toes.It is only insofar as late Wittgenstein stepped on the toes of early Wittgenstein.

It is very contentious to claim the existence of basic propositions. I can't say I have a strong opinion on the matter yet other than the matter is not at all clear.

[Deadite]

I should point out, this can also apply to mathematics as a language. The fundamental informative dialectic duality is present there, as well.

[Yoda]

fundamental informative dialectic duality
Oh, you two are going to get along just fine.

[planet news]

Yeah. No system like that can be complete and fully self-consistent. And if any system was going to be like that, it would have been maths. Language is already a clusterf*ck just looking at it. Our grammar in particular is super adaptable. Languages like Japanese emphasizes word order more, which definitely cuts down on the ambiguity.

[mark f]

Misc. reply:

How much should it mean then? What is the standard? The point I'm trying to make is that it can only mean so much, and it means as much as it can when it is allowed to flow.

When you mention "flow" do you mean two or more people having a discussion where everyone is listening and nobody is interrupting, or do you mean something we can all read and where we visually see the flow? I believe they have two different intents and meanings. In a conversation, someone can always correct a misinterpretation if desired, but not so much when reading a novel, article or post. Remember, I just checked into this thread so excuse me if I missed it.

I'm also not as articulate as will.

[planet news]

I meant how we learn new words. It's rarely that someone teaches them to us. We pick up on the meaning through its usage. And it can never be fully understood apart from this usage. Take dictionary definitions, example sentences are key. A word without a sentence is hardly anything.

Children aren't really taught words per se. We do have vocabulary lessons, but those more or less strengthen our actual capabilities to learn words then serve as the basis for learning words. Children learn through mimicry and this never changes. Every phrasing in my last sentence has been some kind of mimicry. No one taught me how to do it. It couldn't be taught. One of the hardest things to teach is writing. One just has to have an "ear" for it. This of course includes words, grammar, and style.

So mimicry is the flow and anything can be mimicked.

[Deadite]

Your Borges quote speaks strictly against logical atomism.

Yep, and I wrote "however" before it.

It is not merely that language can be flexible. It is that its very basis is either nonexistent or only retroactively made existent and only then for a very short amount of time as memes diverge.

There is also the matter that words are never precise either in themselves or in a sentence.Objectivity and subjectivity form a continuum of reference.

"Precise" description is more a matter of practical functionality, since these are arbitrary semantic abstractions approximating their referents. When description is isomorphic to that which is described, it can be said to be equal to reality.

It is only insofar as late Wittgenstein stepped on the toes of early Wittgenstein.

It is very contentious to claim the existence of basic propositions. I can't say I have a strong opinion on the matter yet other than the matter is not at all clear.

Contentious, hm? To you? :)

I've pointed out that objective/subjective basis repeatedly.

[Deadite]

Yeah. No system like that can be complete and fully self-consistent. And if any system was going to be like that, it would have been maths. Language is already a clusterf*ck just looking at it. Our grammar in particular is super adaptable. Languages like Japanese emphasizes word order more, which definitely cuts down on the ambiguity.

I'm guessing that some ambiguity is essential and unavoidable.

[planet news]

Objectivity and subjectivity form a continuum of reference.Or there is no distinction between them at all. Why assume such a thing?

"Precise" description is more a matter of practical functionality, since these are arbitrary semantic abstractions approximating their referents. When description is isomorphic to that which is described, it can be said to be equal to reality.None of this is obvious. You already link language to reality in such a simple way as if every word has a referent. It is clear that many commonly used words have no referents whatsoever. How might we account for these words? Where are the logic atoms here?

Contentious, hm? To you? :)To the entire philosophy of language since the death of the Vienna Circle.

I've pointed out that objective/subjective basis repeatedly.It's less a basis than a series of assumptions.

By the way, what is your position? For logical atomism?

I'm guessing that some ambiguity is essential and unavoidable.My current idea is that ambiguity itself speaks a point. That ambiguity is the only thing that can speak. This is why languages must flow rather than just happen to flow. It is essential not in its unavoidability but in its constitutive role for meaning itself.

[Deadite]

Or there is no distinction between them at all. Why assume such a thing?

You do realize what a negation of subject/object ultimately entails, right? Not to mention the absurdity of using a logical structure to deny a logical structure.

None of this is obvious. You already link language to reality in such a simple way as if every word has a referent. It is clear that many commonly used words have no referents whatsoever. How might we account for these words? Where are the logic atoms here?Not every word has a physical referent, no. But they at least refer to an abstract function.

Or do you assume that abstractions do not exist?

To the entire philosophy of language since the death of the Vienna Circle.

It's less a basis than a series of assumptions.

By the way, what is your position? For logical atomism?Obviously, as I stated previously, I think there are certain fixed concepts derived from human perception which are the basis for atomic words.

Subject and object duality, for example.

Furthermore, I think that duality is also a universal, not just an artifact of perception.

The alternative, if you choose to take it, would be to suppose that there is no objective differentiation whatsoever, which then only leaves you solipsism, and you're welcome to it.

My current idea is that ambiguity itself speaks a point. That ambiguity is the only thing that can speak. This is why languages must flow rather than just happen to flow. It is essential not in its unavoidability but in its constitutive role for meaning itself.Well, that isn't so far removed from the idea of a dualistic object/subject basis in which content is arbitrary and structure primary.

[Deadite]

BTW, don't get mad if we miscommunicate, PN, it's necessary for the evolution of language. :D

[Deadite]

Now, if you're following me, you'll then want an example of a non-anthropic duality, and if you're really thinking it through, you'll already have it figured out.

[planet news]

You do realize what a negation of subject/object ultimately entails, right? Not to mention the absurdity of using a logical structure to deny a logical structure.Well, it certainly wouldn't be using logic. It would be using phenomenology, which is also what such a negation entails. It ends up not being absurdity at all really but the average experiences of everyday life, which are too often ignored by logicians.

Not every word has a physical referent, no. But they at least refer to an abstract function.

Or do you assume that abstractions do not exist?

Obviously, as I stated previously, I think there are certain fixed concepts derived from human perception which are the basis for atomic words.All I've been saying is that this is a task to prove.

Subject and object duality, for example.Might not be a duality. Might not be a subject.

Furthermore, I think that duality is also a universal, not just an artifact of perception.This is a big claim. If there is one thing I am firmly against at this point in my life it's binary distinctions even if I might speak of them casually. I would never attest to their existence.

The alternative, if you choose to take it, would be to suppose that there is no objective differentiation whatsoever, which then only leaves you solipsism, and you're welcome to it.This is correct only assuming that there is a subject.

Well, that isn't so far removed from the idea of a dualistic object/subject basis in which content is arbitrary and structure primary.It's absolutely not based within any structure. It's on the boundary where structure ends and nonsense begins. It's that space just on the edge of comprehension. The space of paradox and riddle. This is the space I would like to champion with my idea of flow and opposition to logical atomism (which would absolutely justify a standardization of language).

[Deadite]

Well, it certainly wouldn't be using logic. It would be using phenomenology, which is also what such a negation entails. It ends up not being absurdity at all really but the average experiences of everyday life, which are too often ignored by logicians.

Sounds like semantic BS to me. :D

All I've been saying is that this is a task to prove.I gotcha. :)

Might not be a duality. Might not be a subject.Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

This is a big claim. If there is one thing I am firmly against at this point in my life it's binary distinctions even if I might speak of them casually. I would never attest to their existence.

Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

But I can understand that the avoidance of those distinctions is your personal choice. :)

This is correct only assuming that there is a subject.I guess we're both either correct or incorrect depending if we assume the existence/nonexistence of duality. :)

It's absolutely not based within any structure. It's on the boundary where structure ends and nonsense begins. It's that space just on the edge of comprehension. The space of paradox and riddle. This is the space I would like to champion with my idea of flow and opposition to logical atomism (which would absolutely justify a standardization of language).Any form of bipolarity is a structure, including sense/nonsense.

There's an interesting Jung quote that you might like:

“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong”

[Deadite]

Anyways, to what extent does your aversion to duality reach?

Are you also allergic to true/false formulations? Because that would pretty much annihilate your whole argument.

[planet news]

>semantic BS

The man in my avatar has been accused of worse before.

>Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

In what way do or can either exist? What constitutes an existence for you? Quantities in what sense? As measured? That is merely a quality subjected to a count for one. Qualities in what sense? As experienced? Well that cannot be denied. But what do you think this question should reveal?

>Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

What readings would you suggest?

>Any form of bipolarity is a structure

Sense cannot be part of a structure. It is what makes a structuring possible. It is an a priori condition for structure. In other words, a non-structure cannot be a structure.

[planet news]

Anyways, to what extent does your aversion to duality reach?It reaches infinitely as long as we are talking about the true nature of reality.

Are you also allergic to true/false formulations? Because that would pretty much annihilate your whole argument.Truth and falsity are ways of reconciling language with itself. What I am saying should stay at the furthest border of language where it begins to break down, where language cannot account for it. This failure to account for something is the moment of truth, which is different from mere linguistic consistency. It is so different, it deserves a different font.

[Deadite]

>semantic BS

The man in my avatar has been accused of worse before.

:)

>Do you deny the existence of qualities and assert only the existence of quantities?

In what way do or can either exist?I would say, perhaps, that quantification is objective and qualification is subjective.

What constitutes an existence for you?What constitutes an existence for me? Oh, something that encompasses both the general/abstract and the specific/concrete, maybe.

Quantities in what sense? As measured? That is merely a quality subjected to a count for one. Qualities in what sense? As experienced? Well that cannot be denied. But what do you think this question should reveal?Perhaps, hm, units of cognition or meaning? I'd say there is a definite dynamic there that ought not be ignored.

>Oh, it's not so big if you do some reading on the subject.

What readings would you suggest?Wow, that would be tough. There are many. many sources I've drawn upon over my lifetime and synthesized into my own eclectic hodgepodge stew. :)

Alan Watts, Max Tegmark, Michio Kaku, Lao Tzu... That's just a few off the top of my head.

>Any form of bipolarity is a structure

Sense cannot be part of a structure. It is what makes a structuring possible. It is an a priori condition for structure. In other words, a non-structure cannot be a structure.Non-structure would indicate non-existence. Anything that exists has structure, even if not a physical structure.

Also, let me suggest that there may be a nesting dynamic to reality that would allow exactly that seeming impossibility you say.

[Deadite]

It reaches infinitely as long as we are talking about the true nature of reality.

:D You're cute.

Truth and falsity are ways of reconciling language with itself. What I am saying should stay at the furthest border of language where it begins to break down, where language cannot account for it. This failure to account for something is the moment of truth, which is different from mere linguistic consistency. It is so different, it deserves a different font.

Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of absolute truth? :)

[Deadite]

Oh, and I would also recommend Chomsky and Langan, though I've not read much of either my own self. :)

[Monkeypunch]

so this entire debate was based on the fact that Alanis Morrisette has no clue whatsoever what irony is?

No offense, but if you're going to use a word, know what it means.

[planet news]

I would say, perhaps, that quantification is objective and qualification is subjective.This is simply an assertion. I don't believe the distinction is there, to be honest. You'd have to demonstrate.

What constitutes an existence for me? Oh, something that encompasses both the general/abstract and the specific/concrete, maybe.This assumes that there are such categories as general and specific. I myself would deny such a hierarchy. After all, I am speaking of the world beyond logic.

Perhaps, hm, units of cognition or meaning? I'd say there is a definite dynamic there that ought not be ignored.Ignoring it I am not. But I am also not attempting to make any claims about what qualifies cognition or subjectivity.

Alan Watts, Max Tegmark, Michio Kaku, Lao Tzu... That's just a few off the top of my head.Oh, and I would also recommend Chomsky and Langan, though I've not read much of either my own self. :)If possible, could you provide specific works rather than names? Each thinker has written many works on many topics.

But it would be much better if you could briefly discuss their ideas regarding our current discussion first, so I know what I am getting into.

But of the names I do recognize, I think pointing me to works of science is misleading, as what I am speaking of exists outside of science or at least its language. Of the names you listed, I am most familiar with Chomsky's work and have read brief portions of recommended to me by others of his Minimalist Program. His championing of a universal grammar and the normalizing ability of linguistic flow may or may not be opposed to my ends. They also may or may not be true. Of course, I will have to investigate more to determine my solidarity with him.

Non-structure would indicate non-existence. Anything that exists has structure, even if not a physical structure.What is your definition of existence? Furthermore, what is your definition of structure? I believe the latter only refers to something within language. To merely assert existence is not assert any knowledge of a structure. I believe earlier you said that existence was constituted by "encompassing" both the general and specific, neither of which seem able to exist outside of language and therefore could simply be fictions.

Also, let me suggest that there may be a nesting dynamic to reality that would allow exactly that seeming impossibility you say.Please expand on this idea.

Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of absolute truth? :)I clearly do believe in it. I just do not believe language can access it in the way you claim it can. I do not believe language can be atomized to correspond to material reality. In fact, I believe that language, if atomized in this way, would quickly devolve into a set of fictions, albeit useful fictions, but math is useful while triangles and circles cannot exist. I would never claim that math is not true in its own way, but part of its truth lays in how people buy into its language. Without a powerful standardizing force, math would be as chaotic as ordinary language.

[Deadite]

This is simply an assertion. I don't believe the distinction is there, to be honest. You'd have to demonstrate.

To say the distinction does not exist is also simply an assertion.

So. Where does that leave us?

This assumes that there are such categories as general and specific. I myself would deny such a hierarchy. After all, I am speaking of the world beyond logic.Oh, I see. The world beyond logic. :D

Ignoring it I am not. But I am also not attempting to make any claims about what qualifies cognition or subjectivity.I wasn't referring to you specifically. :)

If possible, could you provide specific works rather than names? Each thinker has written many works on many topics.

But it would be much better if you could briefly discuss their ideas regarding our current discussion first, so I know what I am getting into.

But of the names I do recognize, I think pointing me to works of science is misleading, as what I am speaking of exists outside of science or at least its language. Of the names you listed, I am most familiar with Chomsky's work and have read brief portions of recommended to me by others of his Minimalist Program. His championing of a universal grammar and the normalizing ability of linguistic flow may or may not be opposed to my ends. They also may or may not be true. Of course, I will have to investigate more to determine my solidarity with him.Why do I get the feeling I'm getting my chain jerked? It's obvious to me from the above that you can do well enough on your own.

If you've been paying attention at all, you'd understand that I've already made clear that I don't see these subjects as unrelated.

What is your definition of existence? Furthermore, what is your definition of structure? I believe the latter only refers to something within language. To merely assert existence is not assert any knowledge of a structure. I believe earlier you said that existence was constituted by "encompassing" both the general and specific, neither of which seem able to exist outside of language and therefore could simply be fictions. Jeeez. Explain definitions to you....

Point out the objective examples of general and specific reality....

You want fries with that?

Please expand on this idea.Like an essay? :rolleyes:

Think of it as an inclusion/exclusion principle of a global/local status quo in which teleological causality manifests locally, but globally there is a self-causative entity or totality.

I clearly do believe in it. I just do not believe language can access it in the way you claim it can. I do not believe language can be atomized to correspond to material reality. In fact, I believe that language, if atomized in this way, would quickly devolve into a set of fictions, albeit useful fictions, but math is useful while triangles and circles cannot exist. I would never claim that math is not true in its own way, but part of its truth lays in how people buy into its language. Without a powerful standardizing force, math would be as chaotic as ordinary language.Oh, I think language can represent reality because reality is in itself symbolic ie. discrete physical reality is representational of a more inclusive general state of affairs.

[Deadite]

One last offering, and then I'm out. This is getting repetitive.

You mention envisioning a hierarchical status quo. Let me give you a little something that may help adjust your understanding of what I'm referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy

[planet news]

To say the distinction does not exist is also simply an assertion.The object and the subject are contiguous because there is nothing within subjectivity that cannot be accounted for by objectivity. There is therefore no distinction between them. This is my reasoning. If you would like to provide counterexamples, please go ahead. This is the nature of discussion.

Why do I get the feeling I'm getting my chain jerked? It's obvious to me from the above that you can do well enough on your own.I don't know why you can't recommend me specific works. If you don't want to recommend me anything just say so, but I only wanted to understand further the reasoning behind your assertions. You claimed that these authors helped you understand without explaining their ideas to me. How am I supposed to discover which of their works led you to think what you think? You are simply not being helpful.

If you've been paying attention at all, you'd understand that I've already made clear that I don't see these subjects as unrelated.It isn't clear to me, and I've been reading every word you've written. Your ideas are very sparse and filled with technical terminology. I wish you would explain them to me, but if you don't want to so be it.

Point out the objective examples of general and specific reality....Can you give me at least one example of a general and a specific reality?

Think of it as an inclusion/exclusion principle of a global/local status quo in which teleological causality manifests locally, but globally there is a self-causative entity or totality.This is very difficult to understand, as I'm sure anyone would agree. I hate to trouble you, but could you please expand on this using less technical words?

Oh, I think language can represent reality because reality is in itself symbolic ie. discrete physical reality is representational of a more inclusive general state of affairs.Is there any way to reach this more general state of affairs or to speak about it? In what way does what you call "discrete physical reality" represent this general state of affairs? What is the relation between the two?

You mention envisioning a hierarchical status quo.When did I mention this? What are you referring to? Is this an example of what I have been discussing? Is this meant to be a counterexample against something I have said? Because it is clearly not. What is the relation of this page towards what I have been saying? In other words, what should I get out of this page?

[Deadite]

I like you, PN, but there is no way I'm up for continuing this conversation. I'm glad you're interested and you're obviously intelligent but I think I've reached my limit on trying to articulate these ideas. I can only say you should keep on with your own inquiries and read more about what we've discussed here. I, however, must call it a day as far as this conversation is concerned.


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/6/4/6aadd818-d9f5-48af-ab1f-bc90af036628.jpg

:)

[planet news]

Well, to be perfectly honest, you have been entirely incoherent these past few posts -- responding immediately to my questions with answers that do not reflect the question, name-dropping authors without corresponding ideas or purpose, and ridiculing/dismissing things I wrote in all seriousness with smart responses.

The fact is, I have no idea what your position is at all. The ideas you have tossed out don't correspond in any way with each other that I have detected. For example, if you are indeed a proponent of "heterarchy", you should know that it can essentially be said to be a view of nature in terms of flows. This has been my view all along.

But this cannot possibly be your view, since you are supposed a proponent of structuralism, general/specific hierarchy, and most of all logical atomism. All of these ideas I have tried to confront here tonight, but you have not been willing to meet me at all during this confrontation.

These are difficult questions, and they perhaps do not belong on a movie forum, but it happened and they were raised. I too feel this has not been at all a productive exercise but mostly because you have been avoiding me instead of addressing me.

Goodnight, Deadite.

[Deadite]

Very well, I'll add JUST ONE MORE post as food for thought. :)

This assumes that there are such categories as general and specific. I myself would deny such a hierarchy. After all, I am speaking of the world beyond logic.


The general and specific aspects of reality are not solely hierarchical.

Simultaneously, it is true that specification and generalization are mental attributes.

That's it, I'm out. :)

[Deadite]

Well, to be perfectly honest, you have been entirely incoherent these past few posts -- responding immediately to my questions with answers that do not reflect the question, name-dropping authors without corresponding ideas or purpose, and ridiculing/dismissing things I wrote in all seriousness with smart responses.

The fact is, I have no idea what your position is at all. The ideas you have tossed out don't correspond in any way with each other that I have detected. For example, if you are indeed a proponent of "heterarchy", you should know that it can essentially be said to be a view of nature in terms of flows. This has been my view all along.

But this cannot possibly be your view, since you are supposed a proponent of structuralism, general/specific hierarchy, and most of all logical atomism. All of these ideas I have tried to confront here tonight, but you have not been willing to meet me at all during this confrontation.

These are difficult questions, and they perhaps do not belong on a movie forum, but it happened and they were raised. I too feel this has not been at all a productive exercise but mostly because you have been avoiding me instead of addressing me.

Goodnight, Deadite.

Reality is both discrete and continuous, my friend.

I was not ridiculing you at any point. I think you're quite smart.

Good night. :)

[planet news]

Reality is both discrete and continuous, my friend.Perhaps, but I was speaking of the subject/object distinction. These kind of vague, wiser-than-thou statements are simply obfuscatory and attempt to redirect the discussion elsewhere. It is possible that discrete entities exist, but the discussion here is whether or not the subject is one of them. It would serve you well in the future to address my points instead of glossing them over with an unrelated statement with no explanatory power. Save the aphorisms for Nietzsche and Adorno. They also had some theory to go along with their poetry.

The general and specific aspects of reality are not solely hierarchical.I would go as far as to say that they are not hierarchical at all but composed of an entirely different relation. This relation is not capable of logical mediation.

Simultaneously, it is true that specification and generalization are mental attributes.Language too is a mental attribute. And indeed, the general/specific distinction is firmly rooted in the very structure of language. The thing I want to do is to get out of this structuring.

If logic could reveal the true nature of reality, a fully standardized ideal language should surely be constructed. However, if the opposite is true as I claim -- if it is in fact the very failings of language that reveal the true nature of reality -- then we must certainly never try to aim for an ideal language but instead allow language to exist fluidly as an endless becoming.

[Deadite]

You are still failing to grasp the implications of what I have written.

Seriously, I'm done now. No offense intended at all.

[planet news]

If I am truly failing to understand, then I require help, because I am reading everything you are saying.

The only person who can provide that assistance is you. I am very curious to see what you truly mean, but alone I can progress no further. You need to give me more than two sentences per post for me to understand. This is just the nature of my understanding. It requires examples or instantiations of what you are professing. If you could just give me one example of what you mean by general and specific, I would be very grateful.

[Deadite]

I think it probably would be futile of me to continue... you seem annoyed and we aren't communicating very well at all.... but let me ask you a question instead:

Is reality absolute or relative?

[planet news]

Reality or The Real is absolute and it is material.

Our access to that absolute is what is at stake here; specifically, our access to that absolute through language.

I claim it cannot be done within language. You claim it can through the disclosure of logical atoms, which I do not believe exist, and you certainly have not shown to exist or given an example of or resembling one.

Now it is I who have to go to sleep. I did enjoy this to the extent that your answers were not boring, but they were so "interesting" that they failed to actually connect with anything I was trying to say, and ultimately what you were trying to say as well.

Oyasuminasai. :cool:

[Deadite]

You are half-right. :)

[Deadite]

"Ye knowe ek that in forme of speche is chaunge.

Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho

That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge

Us thinketh hem, nd yet thei spake hem so,

And spedde as wel in love as men now do."

Translation: "You know that the form of speech will change within a thousand years, and words that were once apt, we now regard as quaint and strange; and yet they spoke them thus, and succeeded as well in love as men do now." -Chaucer

[Yoda]

Hey, whatever happened to this (I noticed lines reading it this morning)? I never got to hear what planet thought about the "you can't break boundaries that aren't there (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=731714)" stuff. I think we may have moved the conversation to our respective profiles, but I'm not sure if that was before or after this.

I still think words mean stuff! You memetic language people paradoxically need us to disagree with you!

[earlsmoviepicks]

After recently making an insurance claim, I came to the conclusion that in the case of our salesman, words meant absolutely nothing.

[mark f]

Should language mean stuff?
Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, it depends on what "mean" and "stuff" means.

[planet news]

i've changed my views (maybe)

i'm afraid to read what i wrote

[Yoda]

i've changed my views (maybe)
I am interested in this.

i'm afraid to read what i wrote
Courage.

[Tyler1]

Words, by themselves, are meaningless. The mere utterances that come out of one's mouth are but soundwaves, and different languages with different utterances could mean the same thing. It's strange because there are other animals that use the frequency to communicate, eg. Dolphins. We humans don't ascribe meaning to just how the word "sounds" like.

I still subscribe to the theory of 'constant conjunction'. Words derive their meaning by the way we use them. Use comes first, followed by meaning. Behaviourists believe that human beings acquire language through the combination of classical and operant conditioning. The former refers to how successful the particular utterance is used to achieve a particular response. When you step on my foot, I say "ouch!", and the word "ouch" is reinforced with someone in pain. Over time the conjunction is programmed into our brains. The latter explains the learning of more complex words such as 'if', 'but' or 'however'. It refers to the reward/punishment for using the word rightly or wrongly. Now this is almost impossible for our early primate ancestors, but progressively across millions of years we acquire rudimentary skills for communication (I suspect about 6 million years ago since we last shared a common ancester with chimpanzees). Steven Pinker has written a brilliant book on the Darwinian theory of language, which I think is the best explanation that we currently have, called The Blank State. Once we understand how language comes about in our species, that they are repeatly reinforced successfully as part of our increasingly complex goal-directed behaviour, then can we say that words should indeed mean 'stuff' with respect to our self-directed goals that we strive to achieve. Natural selection has been kind to our early language endeavors, ensuring the survival of those groups who cooperate with a common language, and hence the passing down of 'successful' words.

The philosophical approach I'm not too aware of. But if I'm not wrong, Wittgenstein once said words get their meaning by being conjoined with the other words in a phrase; the meaning arises from their relationship with the other words. So the word 'cat' is not a fact. But 'cat on the mat' shows the relationship (namely cat + mat = cat on the mat) of 'facts'.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdVqMhqOFLU

[Yoda]

Just to follow-up on this, I read something that illustrated one of the costs to having an especially fluid language: it creates a barrier between us and the rest of history. It makes it harder to understand older writings. This has political implications as well as cultural ones.

There are some instances in which this can be nice, to be sure; older poetry may benefit from this layer of separation. But even that comes as the expense of making it harder to read, more intimidating, etc. Whether it's a net good or not, there are definitely downsides.

[will.15]

Was Shakespeare understandable even in his own time?

[Sedai]

Shake the Spear of Knowledge at the dragon of ignorance.

[planet news]

sedai, you're an idiot.

will, you're an utter fool.

yoda, you're really dumb.

dexter, you're a real dunce.

someone close this thread now please.

[Yoda]

Nah.

[planet news]

you're really dumb.

like, so, so dumb. it astounds me how completely stupid you are.

:eek:

[Yoda]

Nice try.

[planet news]

you know what this means now don't you? i have free reign to insult anyone in here as viciously as i want.

[Yoda]

Eh, I've got lots of options. Delete the posts, temporary ban, etc. The system is not so easily gamed.

[planet news]

i will find a way

[planet news]

you dolt

[Deadite]

Language is meaningful insofar as it is referencing something beyond itself. :)