Words Mean Things.

Khaos wrote:
Which colorful as it may be what the plurals for words are and how there context and synonyms create a Dr Seuss book, you essentially offered nothing to the topic at hand, and seemed more interested in coming off as clever.

I don't know. I found that it was an amusing reminder of the fact that the language we generally share has a number of interesting quirks and is one of the few languages that routinely defies its own rules of spelling and grammar, and thats before you even get into cultural discrepancies of meaning or spelling.

I got a word that means something!!!!

Dorglebloof

hahahhahahhahahha :woohoo: :laugh: :silly: :lol: :whistle:

Brenna wrote: I don't know. I found that it was an amusing reminder of the fact that the language we generally share has a number of interesting quirks and is one of the few languages that routinely defies its own rules of spelling and grammar, and thats before you even get into cultural discrepancies of meaning or spelling.

That's because it's a complete cluster**** of at least three different language families. If it were just a few individual languages, it would be different. It's why there are three "accepted" (though two of them are technically incorrect) plurals for "octopus." Then again, you have some morons mucking it all up by combining words together from different languages that don't belong.

I'm looking at you, "television".

I don't know. I found that it was an amusing reminder of the fact that the language we generally share has a number of interesting quirks and is one of the few languages that routinely defies its own rules of spelling and grammar, and thats before you even get into cultural discrepancies of meaning or spelling.

I'm glad you were amused.

It's still irrelevant.

I mean, really, have you ever seen a duck billed platypus?

I could use that for all sorts of silly, amusing, anecdotes.

The challenge of communication is not lost on me.

However, as I have observed, at least here, miscommunication is done more by design then by any fault of the actual language.

For one thing, the vocabulary here is pretty basic, also , you can look up any word instantly and reference it to the poster if it is too esoteric.

Even culturally, there are fairly accurate translators,etc.

Eventually, one day, people are going have have to take responsibility for there own limitations rather than blame it on a language(s).

Really, if people put as much effort into the words they choose to use, and the sincerity to communicate and be understood, rather than the amount they will put into saying it's impossible, unlikely, limiting,etc...why, I wonder how big of a problem it would really be.

Now, one problem is that here people consistently do try to express the ineffable, which is bound to go wrong for people who recoil at definitions as a knee jerk response.

Probably why I don't discuss the Tao, the force, God, spirituality,etc.

Those are conversations going down a one way road to nowhere fast.

Khaos wrote:
It's still irrelevant, in my opinion.

Fixed it for you! You seem to have left some words off the end there. :woohoo:

An expert in any field will use the relevant language perfectly because its a tool of some application to that field, but whenever people push boundaries into things they are not already experienced with, then its going to be more... interesting.

Flying is an example. Communication is very important and so word's and phrases have specific meanings designed to avoid misunderstanding with other instructions, to the extent that even if partially received they are meant to be still understandable. Obviously the point there is safety. If you don't understand what's going on then its going to get very interesting very quickly.

It makes perfect sense to me that a place where people are focusing on self development, discovery and learnings will end up with a strange assortment of words and approaches to ideas. Wouldn't criticizing people who make those mistakes seem to be creating an atmosphere where one of the main purposes of the Temple is not encouraged!?

Criticism could be seen as 'teaching' I guess, but it seems more like shoving something down someones throat. I don't think that is the point at all...

Have you undertaken the IP Khaos? It's not about teaching, its about opportunities to learn.

There is that tea cup analogy, when your cup is too full, well the same goes for the other end of it, facilitating personal development. The idea is not to pour things into people!! Firstly because we do not know how big peoples cups are, and secondly because the student must do the pouring!!

All I can think of why this would be an issue is perhaps some people aren't interested in real personal development, and instead are collecting styles of training - but that would be a shame as it misses the point entirely. No wonder vagueness and esotericism would be annoying in those circumstances.

But as said previously, sometimes words need specific meanings associated to them for functional reasons. I guess its why many legal documents have 'definitions' prior to the actual content. It's no reason to require it everywhere all the time, in my opinion.

I think this is as good a time as any to point out there is a difference between a koan and a load of bullsh*t, and that if we look at the most respected teachers of enlightenment throughout the ages, what we find most often are not riddles, but plain-speech analogies so that everyone can come to understand. The koans and doublespeak are left for times when (like the discussion of the nature of the Tao) something is truly otherwise ineffable.

We eff a lot of things up because we try to make the effable ineffable here.

steamboat28 wrote: I think this is as good a time as any to point out there is a difference between a koan and a load of bullsh*t, and that if we look at the most respected teachers of enlightenment throughout the ages, what we find most often are not riddles, but plain-speech analogies so that everyone can come to understand. The koans and doublespeak are left for times when (like the discussion of the nature of the Tao) something is truly otherwise ineffable.

We eff a lot of things up because we try to make the effable ineffable here.

I'm wondering who 'we' is but it probably doesn't matter. Meaning can arise where none was before... for example its where the term ignorance is bliss came from. The ignorant person operates in circumstances without knowing the meaning of it and only when they learn it, they realize some important aspect of it which changes their behaviour in the same circumstances. Some language operates with different meaning to words, and with different meanings comes different associations and resultant messages. In Tibetan Buddhism I think its what they call a sandhabhasa, a twilight language - secret and metaphorical. In that example it needed to be secret because the teachings were considered dangerous and required a preciously managed oral teaching to unlock the power of the teaching. Of course to anyone else it doesn't make sense, but that is no reason not to discuss or try and understand the concepts at work. Again, its not learning that is often discussed in spiritualities, but experiences... and sometimes those have to be gradually revealed for health reasons, cultural reasons or just complexity itself.

Words mean things.
Words signify the substance of a material object?
Words signify the essence of a thing?
What is it to signify? What is the essence? What is a "thing"?

Show me cup-ness. You can't show me cup-ness because as soon as you show me a cup, you have not shown me cup-ness but a cup. You can't point to a cup as an example of cup-ness because sure enough I can find a cup that is not the exact same shape, size, color, or material but it will still be a cup. Can you describe to me what is inherent to a cup? What is the essence of cup? At some point, my guess is, you will end up defining cup by what it is not. In the Middle Ages, philosophers trying to describe God employed an extension of this called Negative Theology with the added complication that God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.

And I could play these philosophical games of word meanings, but what I get really tired of hearing is people assuming that is at the present place and time has been true for all time across all places. Though one can acknowledge a certain abstract understanding of facts that contradict that, their visceral logic (that is, the logic which they fall back on when their beliefs are challenged) points to a belief that what they see as current is believed to also have been for all time past.

Forums are actually a pretty good example of the fact that meaning is subjective to historical, cultural, and a whole host of socio-political factors. How many times have people gotten angry, hurt, or disillusioned by something that was said to mean one thing and interpreted as something entirely different by another person? How do we resolve these conflicts? Usually it requires mutual willingness to listen, a willingness to loosen their grip on what they think they know, and finally a compromise in which one party acknowledges the possibility that the other party did not mean anything malicious by their communication and the other party acknowledges how their communication could have come across as hostile/offensive. Entire conflict resolution strategies, negotiation tactics, and problem-solving techniques are reliant on the subjectivity of meaning.