The linguist Sassure postulated that nothing is ever fully translatable, and that, even within the same language, the closest thing to a language that would be fully translatable and interchangeable, word for word, would be a group of people who are in the same age group, from the same city, and just basically fit the exact same demographic profile.
Taken to its extreme end, you could say that even in these circumstances there are still going to be a lot of gaps. For instance, you could have two best friends who have very opposite feelings about the word "drunk" because one of their fathers was a sloppy, brooding drunk and the other had a father who simply never drank. This even makes me think a bit of discussions we used to have in school rooms after reading literature: even in a group of all 17-year olds, everyone a white midwesterner, 9 out of 10 from Protestant backgrounds, you would still end up with big chasms in how a thing would be interpreted.
... This idea also always reminded me of when I would be having a debate and someone would refuse to acknowledge that my idea had merit, and would instead insist that there was something sinister lurking in it. I always envisioned that, upon death, when entering the Kingdom of God, I would be vindicated -- and as each person passed into eternity, they would have a split second to look upon the face of God and be imbued with a new way of thinking where everything that there was became fully translatable, and as they gazed into the eyes of the others in the Kingdom, they would learn what it was to be them and what it was to think as them.
This would not diminish your own mental life, but would enrich it, as it did not ask for an idea to be subsumed to it... It is like an other-worldly pluralism where you understand that there is a great diversity of virtuous thoughts, virtuous systems, and meritorious thinkers, and that the real curse upon us on Earth was the ignorance of having a flawed, mortal brain.
You could perhaps even argue that seeking to understand someone on their terms and in their language is a very important demonstration of the virtue of charity, and the virtue of wisdom. If this is the case, perhaps you could even say that it is a sin to mischaracterize or excessively attack another's position, particularly when there is a blatant disregard for their views.
Of course, there is a lot more to say about this sort of idea, and I believe I will return to this theme in the future... But perhaps it would be useful for us to think about where we are failing in building bridges, and whether we are arguing with the goal of getting better, exercising ourselves, facing challenges, etc., and whether or not we are just engaging in an egotistical and malicious exercise.
@philokalia saidI think one of the issues is that we don't always know what the person we are
The linguist Sassure postulated that nothing is ever fully translatable, and that, even within the same language, the closest thing to a language that would be fully translatable and interchangeable, word for word, would be a group of people who are in the same age group, from the same city, and just basically fit the exact same demographic profile.
Taken to its extrem ...[text shortened]... challenges, etc., and whether or not we are just engaging in an egotistical and malicious exercise.
talking too is saying, but due to our views about them, we fill in the blanks, and it
can be done in a nice way, or a not so nice way, as we run ahead of the evidence
or the point.
I know this was discussed before, but look at political slogans made by a few
different people. "Make American great again" a saying that was used and people
went about coloring it to mean different things, if you liked the guy who said it,
it became all the good things you think he meant, if you disliked the guy who said
it, it became whatever bad things you thought the guy meant. Neither of those
points of views could be close to what the guy meant, but people filled in the
blanks. The words, "Change we can believe in" another slogan that people filled in
the blanks, they assumed he meant this or that, whatever they thought good
change was, that was what he meant, and if your thoughts were negative it was
bad changes, so people believed what they thought were promises on how they
viewed those slogans. Last example, common sense gun control, what does that
mean, everyone has their own version, and many think their views are what being
promoted and attacked.
Running off the mouth with our (me included) motivation mongering we can twist
an innocent statement and turn it into something horrible for no good reason that
has nothing to do with the truth. Calling someone intellectually dishonest is one
of those saying that assumes a great deal and may have no bases on facts.
@philokalia saidI agree, another issues we can shoot ourselves in the foot with, is our attempts to
It's true that we sometimes accuse people of being intellectually dishonest without a good basis.
It is also true that we sometimes make bad conclusions in an attempt to maintain consistency.
maintain consistency! If we are not careful we can miss something incredible, just
because we are not grasping it in full yet.
@philokalia saidDoes this apply in these forums, where the doors to readers minds are guarded by the militia of partisan entrenchement and pridefullness?
The linguist Sassure postulated that nothing is ever fully translatable, and that, even within the same language, the closest thing to a language that would be fully translatable and interchangeable, word for word, would be a group of people who are in the same age group, from the same city, and just basically fit the exact same demographic profile.
Taken to its extrem ...[text shortened]... challenges, etc., and whether or not we are just engaging in an egotistical and malicious exercise.
@kellyjay saidI think people [whose consistency is called into question] going into the rhetorical foetal position is more often what happens rather than them shooting themselves in the foot.
I agree, another issues we can shoot ourselves in the foot with, is our attempts to
maintain consistency!
@philokalia saidAnd “We” being whom?
It's true that we sometimes accuse people of being intellectually dishonest without a good basis.
It is also true that we sometimes make bad conclusions in an attempt to maintain consistency.
Yes, some posters here frequently hold to intellectually fragile conclusions, morally questionable beliefs and construct an unprincipled forum rhetoric to support them.
@fmf saidYou are a nihilist who always posts negatively -- I do not mean this literally, of course, but mean it in the sense that you are never actively asserting a value but working to tear down what others say.
I think people [whose consistency is called into question] going into the rhetorical foetal position is more often what happens rather than them shooting themselves in the foot.
You hardly have to worry about consistency.
You are also famous for literally taking notes on what everyone posts and trying to use it against them months later -- including even when they no longer post in the forum, as if you can conjure them back to existence with some rant. But IDK, it's kind of your thing, right, it's how you think you are displaying some superiority, perhaps. Who knows. We will never know because you do not really expand on anything that you do.
Minimalism. Small targets. Just offense.
Others treat this like a discussion forum and you treat it like a shooting gallery -- just camp, snipe, and keep your strike zone as small as possible like a midget with a baseball bat.
@divegeester saidDivegeester insults another poster (who hasn't even posted in this thread) on the first page.
Channeling Suzianne this morning Kelly?
@velns saidCertainly, when people feel very guarded, they alter what they post, and they emphasize consistency. Sometimes this can be a natural affair -- like, take a man who has gone through a very long list of topics and has largely exhausted them. it is not a big issue for him to display total consistency.
Does this apply in these forums, where the doors to readers minds are guarded by the militia of partisan entrenchement and pridefullness?
But if it is not organic... Perhaps it is helpful for ourselves to even let ourselves get caught in contradictions. Not because it is pleasant, but because it is productive for us.
Wasn't it in Silicon Valley where they wanted to see how they could fail faster beacuse this was the best means for learning how to provide the best product in the end..? It seems somehow relevant.
Instead of being guarded to protect our egos, we should be open to advance our internal dialectic.
@philokalia saidIf by calling "nihilist", you mean I am not religious, not a theist, or not a Christian, then that's OK. If you are using it as a synonym for "atheist" then that's fine. You can use whatever label you like.
You are a nihilist who always posts negatively -- I do not mean this literally, of course, but mean it in the sense that you are never actively asserting a value but working to tear down what others say.
However, I don't think life is meaningless, so I think you are using the wrong vocabulary ~ but you're probably just doing it for effect.
I don't "always post negatively". It's a debate and discussion forum so dissent and disagreement is par for the course. If you think I successfully "tear down what others say", then that is a matter for you ~ it's not my choice of vocabulary.
I have been actively asserting values here for over a decade. I have asserted numerous values - actively - in posts addressed to you in various conversations we have had: posts that you ignored.