If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
the flaw in your argument is that we wouldnt do that
yes i was, i was still thinking of a rock
and as for the language, learn to calm down you foul mouthed ignorant and looking like you dont understand a thing kinda person
From what I have read the whole principal of the idea is that groups of people have meanings for words. Absolute madness if you can't find any two who can agree.
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
People think they have agreement but unless they get very very specific that isn't possible. Also there are thngs I can become aware of that have no names and need none unless I wish to talk about them. The idea that language traps thought in this way is fine if you think auditorily but not everyone does.
Who holds "meaning" if I don't?
very true, thats why as informed as you think you may be, you can stil be wrong
But you've been arguing in other posts that language does trap thought. Make up your mind!
It is not only you who holds "meaning", otherwise, as I said, communication would be impossible. Language is a shared structure. I must admit, I'm almost out of my depth here, I don't know a huge amount about linguistics, but you appear to have drowned a long time ago!
it then goes on to say
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/meaning1.html
(italics mine)
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html#criticism
Only I hold MY meanings. Unless we were to get very very specific about what I mean then my meanings are not shared.
Language does trap thought if you use it to think with. I don't - it's slow and digital. I prefer the visual system which is much quicker and also is anologue so has many more grades of experience.
Agreed. Although changing "meaning" for automatic learned responses is nearer the mark.
Nope. Communication is accessing someone elses memory to get those automatic responses we want. Mary had a little _____.
Nope they are in the message receivers. The "user" might also have a meaning but it's doubtful hey are the same.
Words are a type of hypnotic "anchor" to reaccess past experience. They "mean" nowt.
You can use language to create brand new experiences for people so that's out. You can also get specific and duplicate someone elses experiences. what would happen if you were to imagine something that is the opposite of green leather?
The word that accesses past experience may change but the past experiences don't.
Usually true but you can force the issue.
Huh?
I covered the points raised quite well. Not exhaustive by any means, but what are you having trouble with?
Aspects are shared. When you talk about a rock, we both have a mental experience of certain 'rocky characteristics'.
And that affects ANYONES day-to-day life how?
This sounds to me like teenage philosophy. Really deep to those who say it but pointless in the extreme to anyone else.
LOL!
Semiotics itself is a tool for analysing and looking for meanings within culture. Quite useful if you're into that sort of thing. But yes, klintock's points are useless, non-sensical and on the level of 6th form debate.
You don't think that going and replicating a millionaires "meaning" of money is useful?
How about a seducers understanding of "seduction"?
How about taking a "phobic" and showing them how the unafraid have "meaning" for the thing they fear?
Uh - huh. What about a word with no sensory overlap, like "democracy"?
I'm starting to think you have some kind of mild psychosis.
Makes no difference. We still have a core of the concept which will be the same.
Yes, I do think thats useful, but what words you choose to describe those actions dont really matter as long as you are understood.
As i said before, it's not a topic i know anything about but i think it would be constructive to this debate and to my understanding of what you think Klintock has wrong.
See here
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Semiotics
for more defintions.
This
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html
is very useful. Thanks for the link klintock and well done for failing to actually read and understand any of it.
no, even spekaing is analogue
Unless its recorded.
depends on if you use a digital device
Very interesting thread...
Ian.
See that wasn't analogue now was it? You can't have more or less of a word spoken.
now if i went
WORD
That might have a different effect. The different effect isn't from the "meaning" of the word itself it's from the way in which it is presented. So you can have analogue in the visual system but it's much trickier to have analogue in the auditory one. It's also much much faster to visualise internally than it is to speak internally.
Form is more important than "meaning". A person with a phobic response might be making big bright pictures (internally and very quickly) of the thing they fear (i.e. being bitten by a snake). the quickest way of reducing the fear is for them to take conscious control of those internal represntations. The most consistent way I have found of doing this is to reduce the size of the image, change it's distance relative to the viewer and drain the colour out of it.
There are many other ways of doing this however.
I am afraid I don't know much about flat earth theory either. Who came up with it how it works tends to be irrelevant when you know it's bollox from the off.
Read a couple of histories of hypnosis, particularly Dr. Erickson's work in the 50's and Bandler and Grinders use of chomsky's ideas of transformational grammar on his technique. Especially deep structure derived from surface structures and how to get a client to recover them.
Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D Vol 2 is very useful in this regard.
I did read it. I dismissed it as being horsehit for reasons already stated.
Not really common sense, more a way of analysing and interpreting culture.
Which is kinda what I said lol. Perhaps the use of "common sense" was a bit inappropriate in this context. I guess a lot of people now consider the Theory of Evolution to be common sense just because of the way it seems to be "right" (at least to most people
Ian.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
This makes no sense either. Written words are visual symbols, that's the whole point. You're using terms like analogue and digital without understanding what you mean by them
More nonsense. What do you mean by "form"?
This is not the point. What you are arguing is very similar to semiotics. Semiotics was/is a very important theory of how meaning arises, for you, who claims to be a world expert on linguistics, to never have heard of it, is quite astounding.
Give me a quick precis, I don't really have the time to track down and read it. Also try and locate your views in a philosophical and intellectual context, because they do have one (semiotics being a case in point). This is very much like how you tried to argue your own concepts of freedom without being able to locate them in a context - you end up appearing very very foolish.
You have attempted to dismiss it (which didn't actually amount to anything more than "it's bollocks") based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of it.