NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 10-17-2017, 06:18 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 161930

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
08-21-2012, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-21-2012 07:47 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #155
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
I like to use the tool of "Taboo" when it comes to considering the likes of reality and fact(s). Taboo, as far as the name, is a game where you have to get your partner to guess a word you've drawn, without saying the specified words (i.e. it's a taboo to use the specified words; a taboo being a ban or a prohibition, forbidden).

When wishing to know (prove/validate) that we're communicating relative to reality or fact(s), contrasted with notions, fantasy, delusion, or concepts, we can also taboo the popular terms/labels/words --and their synonyms. This requires that we get down to the referents i.e. the facts aka empirical reality. Reality being basically what is commonly sensed (e.g. sight, sound, touch, taste, smell).
Germaine Rediger Wrote:You cannot find nourishment by eating a menu. The word "cat" cannot scratch you. The word "sun" cannot warm you or give you sunburn. That kind of reality does not exist in words. [T]he kind of reality that words contain and transmit involves "semantic" reality. This refers to the reality of meanings, significances, and references which occur "in" (or by the processing of) human minds.
[recommended blog read!]

I think part of the trick with words is that they easily become a sort of referent in and of themselves --for tricky reason. In the sense [sic] that words are formed by line shapes (facts called letters and the alphabet'a) and are sounded (made audible) they are reality. But only in a basic visual and audible sense; they are lines and sounds. Noises and marks. The meaning assigned to them is purely conceptual. Historical and perpetual usages establish facts, but the factual aspect is purely in reference to empirical actions. The "words" themselves are but notions agreed to (e.g. a meeting of the minds). Otherwise they're but, in reality, noises and wax (crayon), ink, lead (pencil) scribbles and pixels (computers). [the likes of "ink" being, more to reality, bug guts, milked plants, crushed/burnt animals/soot, etc]

William T. Powers Wrote:We can get very confused, because we think that words must have some secret meaning that we have to figure out. They don't. They are just noises or marks, and they mean whatever experience you have learned to mean by them. People tend to use similar words in similar situations, but unless you have specifically agreed on what the words will mean, in terms of underlying experiences, there's no way to know what another person understands when you use them. The experience you attach to a word when you say it isn't automatically the same as the experience another person attaches to the same word when hearing it.

Our natural and inherent (mental) compression process regarding data (reality experienced), along with our ability to conceptualize, easily allows us by force of habit to shift from a word's (having a) referent to the word as a referent, no? Referents, again, simply being common/universal reality. As one author put it, there are words and there are nonwords --the latter to not necessarily be confused with NonEntity (which is a four-letter word).

Wendell Johnson, as quoted in Language Thought and Action Wrote:The crucial point to be considered in a study of language behavior is the relationship of language and reality, between words and not-words. Except as we understand this relationship, we run the grave risk of straining the delicate connection between words and facts, of permitting our words to go wild, and so of creating for ourselves fabrications of fantasy and delusion.

Eliezer Yudowsky Wrote:When you find yourself in philosophical difficulties, the first line of defense is not to define your problematic terms, but to see whether you can think without using those terms at all. Or any of their short synonyms. And be careful not to let yourself invent a new word to use instead. Describe outward observables and interior mechanisms; don't use a single handle, whatever that handle may be.

Philip K. Dick Wrote:Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Ditto that when you Taboo a word (as a word you believe maps reality/the territory).

additional recommended reads: Replace Your Words With The Substance
37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong
Taboo Your Words

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - eye2i2hear - 08-21-2012 07:32 PM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)