Words Mean Things.

I think he meant that if he'd used "start" instead of "stop", your reply (a form of communication) wouldn't exist.

I must however point out that if he (or anyone else) didn't understand your reply, there would still not be any communication. Besides, history agrees. It's not like wars are started out of communication and understanding.

ren wrote: It's not like wars are started out of communication and understanding.

So, could you say, however, that communication came out of the process of those wars and the disagreements that lied at the root of them? Treaties, pacts, etc, and even cultural influences?

I don't feel I've ever learned much from a teacher who told me things I already understood and agreed with from the get go. I would have to have not known before I could know, and not understand before I could understand.

My neighbors are mexican and they speak a lot of spanish. I don't know hardly any spanish, but after being around them for a while I begin learning it, and also learn new ways of expressing ideas, and giving them a somewhat different kind of meaning or understanding through that difference of expression, all out of originally not understanding. Yet, I cannot tell them that their way of using a word is wrong just because it's not used exactly the way I use is in my language. Who is to say which of us is wrong? We both can learn a new understanding of the same thing between the two of us. Is that not at the heart of communication?

Words to music....

That comparison is a little misleading, but so are throwing in a comparison to painting...

That feels like we are comparing different things, to find similarities...

Apples to oranges, lets say...

When we speak of language, well, its the same stuff, and we are comparing the differences....

Red delicious apples to gala apples....

Overall, we do understand each other....

It is the fine points of the language where people seem to get upset... lol...

Not really upset, but, hung up on...

We are looking for similarities, when objects obviously differ...

And differences, when obviously are similar...

The key to understanding, to communication, won't be exact definitions of words...

But patience and understanding to seek those similarities to understand, and communicate...

Proteus wrote:

ren wrote: It's not like wars are started out of communication and understanding.

So, could you say, however, that communication came out of the process of those wars and the disagreements that lied at the root of them? Treaties, pacts, etc, and even cultural influences?

I don't feel I've ever learned much from a teacher who told me things I already understood and agreed with from the get go. I would have to have not known before I could know, and not understand before I could understand.

My neighbors are mexican and they speak a lot of spanish. I don't know hardly any spanish, but after being around them for a while I begin learning it, and also learn new ways of expressing ideas, and giving them a somewhat different kind of meaning or understanding through that difference of expression, all out of originally not understanding. Yet, I cannot tell them that their way of using a word is wrong just because it's not used exactly the way I use is in my language. Who is to say which of us is wrong? We both can learn a new understanding of the same thing between the two of us. Is that not at the heart of communication?

You learn to communicate, then you communicate. That's why your teacher uses words you already know and understand: so that you may learn of things you do not know or understand, things of far greater importance than the unlimited ways in which you can produce sounds or scribbles. Learning ways in which to communicate is wasted breath when you have nothing to say.

I just love that everybody on these boards tries so damn hard to be cool and esoteric and sage that they wind up spouting gibberish in an attempt to be openminded and inclusive. The main thing this Temple has taught me so far is that it doesn't matter how many knowns, concretes, or objectives there are in this world, somebody, somewhere, will always argue that (however proveable) they're actually unknowns, abstracts, or subjectives for the sake of sounding more mystic than thou.

If that is the "main" thing that the Temple has taught you, then it could be guessed that your addiction to the known, the concrete and the objective has gotten in your way of other things you could be learning ... It is thoroughly amazing that the rest of us have not recognised the incredible opportunity that we have been missing to learn to be so clear.

:huh:

Many of your remarks are just simply insulting, Steamboat ... I don't know who is being "more mystical than thou", but I do find that you could stand to study other perspectives than your own before you go making such remarks.

What's interesting to me, is that the thoughts that I share are (or intend to be even if it seems like it fails) very respectably inclusive and considerate of people who have a different view than me. For example, what I've been mentioning here in this thread is supporting your right and justification to disagree and see things in your own way, in the process of communicating and helping the rest of us understand that view of things... and yet, while you reply with the exact behavior that I'm pointing out, you rather humorously reject what you are currently doing with your very reply at the same time. lmao!!

What you insist tends to be exclusive to other's point of view, while others mention things that are inclusive of your's if you Really think about it... I hope you are not surprised as to why people tend to tilt their head when they hear replies that basically say "no, there is no room in reality for your view of this topic, or this topic, or this topic, there is only what I have learned which is true."

I am learning that it is rather futile to propose things exclusive to others' views because while your view for example is part of reality, it is only part, and part of a larger one, and it matters, even if I at first do not understand it, or once agreed with it and have since moved beyond it myself. I think that is where communication is able to happen - when someone is able to be open enough to consider that what they insist is right, might not be all there is to things.

steamboat28 wrote: I just love that everybody on these boards tries so damn hard to be cool and esoteric and sage that they wind up spouting gibberish in an attempt to be openminded and inclusive. The main thing this Temple has taught me so far is that it doesn't matter how many knowns, concretes, or objectives there are in this world, somebody, somewhere, will always argue that (however proveable) they're actually unknowns, abstracts, or subjectives for the sake of sounding more mystic than thou.

Is that aimed at me?

Lol...

I will have you know, I speak like this all the time...

Drives those around me crazy too, lol...

I started this reply, long before now, but had to leave for a while, so I've forgotten what my tangent was, :lol:...

And, most of what I wrote disappeared, so, hopefully I can get it close...

Comparing language to music, or art, seems to me like comparing apples, to oranges....

Language to language, is to compare apples to apples...

Now, we've stopped looking at the similarities, and have begun looking at the differences....

Isn't it interesting that the student often thinks the teacher is mental, a bit off their rocker... Doesn't know jack...

Looking at our own fiction:

Luke's thoughts on Yoda or Ben..

Outside of our fiction...

-Bilbo's thoughts on Gandolf....
-Daniel-son's thoughts on Mr. Miagi....
-our own thoughts about our own parents....
-and more....

++++++++++
I am no better than anyone, and am only myself...

I don't try to be anything.....

If you think others are trying to be more "holier/mystical than thou"...

Well, as I said, if its me, I thank you for your concern....

I don't know if that was aimed at you jestor, but steam definitely touché'd alex and pro.

As long as people are genuine in trying to improve themselves I wouldn't let it worry me if someone thought I sounded holier then thou, as it would say more about them then me.... unless I was being slack and falling into a habit of it for external effect (over internal development).

Word's mean things for sure as they imply nothing without context, but as context grows through pairings, sentences, paragraphs, human expression, etc they can actually mean more then the sum of the words grouped together. Punctuation seems to be an approach to shape the intended context as a model of human expression, but human expression itself is received not as a literal analysis but as a human experience, part understanding the deliverer and part understanding what is being delivered. I guess we might be wired to just not naturally trust people enough to take them literally! Things would be so much clearer if we spoke in mathematical/logical term's with definitions, but it might be less human and more machine. Any expert's on grammar? What would a structure look like??? Declarative, Command, Question and Exclamation comes to mind but I missed the week we were supposed to learn grammar!!