A Plea from a Literal Dictionaryologist

[Gordian Knot]

When does the freedom to do as one wants go too far? Here in the U.S. we have warped our right to freedom to mean we believe we are free to decide that what we believe trumps what is true (i.e. that there are observable facts contrary to what we want to believe).

On a grander scale which appears to be worldwide, we have warped the concept of freedom to believe that we have the freedom to choose our own definition of words. When there is practically always facts contrary to what we want to believe.

Definitions do change over time. So we have a Good Book to tell us what current definitions mean today as opposed to, say, 100 years ago.

That Good Book is the Dictionary of course! It bugs me no end when there is a discussion going on, and we end up getting bogged down by 'what is your definition of fill-in-the-blank'.

How can we communicate effectively when we have to constantly stop the discussion to determine what every person in the group sees as their definition of what one word germane to the discussion means?

It leads to chaos. It truncates our ability to have meaningful discussions.

And it is so completely unnecessary as we have generations of our ancestors who have gone through the trouble of having experts compile a book that tells us what any word means. You just have to look it up!

How much better we could communicate if we agree from the start that the dictionary definition is the definition we all agree upon - at least as a starting point.

Sure there are times when there is some ambiguity as to one particular word's meaning. And we can, and should, discuss that. But this should be the exception, NOT the rule.

So this is a plea from a Literal Dictionaryologist (I just made that term up so you can't look it up!) that we agree that the definition of words are what the dictionary states rather than what each one of us wants to believe is the definition.

Thoughts?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It leads to chaos

YES! More chaos!
Actually, I don't think there is any way around it, the world is a very chaotic place. I think definitions are...guidelines. You can't reason and measurement to define what is in a persons heart. Or narrow down the abstract concept that exists in the communal mind of millions of individuals. Well I don't think so.

But I'm not throwing your Good Book out the window, it's a good starting point! Sometimes we just have to work around it. You and I will always butt heads on this one (I'll wear a pillow if you are), but I don't think it's so problematic?

 

[Tadashi]

What? You're espousing the 'literal' interpretation of the words in dictionaries?? That puts you into a literalist fundamentalists' camp! The definition of a word is all relative because each one of us is entitle to our own 'subjective' opinions of it!!! hahaha... kidding...

GK, you make a good point, the obstacle we encounter in our discussions often stems from not understating a certain word in the same way.

"what is your definition of [fill-in-the-blank]".

I think you'd agree that this sentence is technically incorrect (though quite often we say it this way including me). The correct way of saying it is:

"what is your understanding of the definition of [fill-in-the-blank]".

Because, no one is supposed to own a definition of one's own, but dictionaries. So, 'your definition' or 'my definition' doesn't exist, only 'the definition' exists.

'The' definition of a word is supposed to be objective (can't be changed at the individuals' level), but one's 'understanding' of it can be totally subjective and this often causes problems in our conversations.

So, when starting a discussion that involves somewhat complicated concept(s), it is best to state at the very beginning: "Let's see if we both have a right understanding of the definition of the concept..."

So, in the case of the other thread where we're talking about morality (I think that prompted your thought in this thread, right?), I'll try to straighten up those issues as soon as I have the time to do so...


Tad

 

[Namaste Jesus]

When does the freedom to do as one wants go too far? Here in the U.S. we have warped our right to freedom to mean we believe we are free to decide that what we believe trumps what is true (i.e. that there are observable facts contrary to what we want to believe).

On a grander scale which appears to be worldwide, we have warped the concept of freedom to believe that we have the freedom to choose our own definition of words. When there is practically always facts contrary to what we want to believe.

Definitions do change over time. So we have a Good Book to tell us what current definitions mean today as opposed to, say, 100 years ago.

That Good Book is the Dictionary of course! It bugs me no end when there is a discussion going on, and we end up getting bogged down by 'what is your definition of fill-in-the-blank'.

How can we communicate effectively when we have to constantly stop the discussion to determine what every person in the group sees as their definition of what one word germane to the discussion means?

It leads to chaos. It truncates our ability to have meaningful discussions.

And it is so completely unnecessary as we have generations of our ancestors who have gone through the trouble of having experts compile a book that tells us what any word means. You just have to look it up!

How much better we could communicate if we agree from the start that the dictionary definition is the definition we all agree upon - at least as a starting point.

Sure there are times when there is some ambiguity as to one particular word's meaning. And we can, and should, discuss that. But this should be the exception, NOT the rule.

So this is a plea from a Literal Dictionaryologist (I just made that term up so you can't look it up!) that we agree that the definition of words are what the dictionary states rather than what each one of us wants to believe is the definition.

Thoughts?

I agree with you in principle on that GK. At the same time though, it may be possible to make the argument that matters of faith fall outside the realm of standard definitions. I don't know how viable that is, but it might be something worth considering. After all, as you point out, definitions can and do change. I think one of the reasons for this is that, over time, our perception of a given topic changes. Sometimes to the point that standard definitions for words used to describe it, no longer fit and I don't think the dictionary necessarily keeps up with that change. Just a thought.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I just realised, reading Tads post, that I often "call for definition". When doing this, I don't personally care were the definition comes from, the dictionary is as good a place as any. The reason I call for it is when people use the same word (as if they understand each other) but they might not be talking about the same meaning of that word. Someones nuanced perspective can skew the entire discussion.

 

[Gordian Knot]

The difference I would make with most of what has been said is this. Much of what we discuss is nuanced; phrases and concepts are subject to personal interpretations.

The individual words themselves, however, should not be subjective. One's understanding of a word should not be anything other than its definition. Nor do I believe definitions are merely guidelines which we can interpolate freely.

Not that we can't. We shouldn't. Especially when our discussions are often deeply philosophical in the first place. When what we are trying to impart is complicated. Then more than ever we need a basis from which to begin. That basis is that the words themselves are used as they are defined.

I'm fighting a loosing battle on this issue. I know that. But every once in a while there is a need to tilt at windmills. It is frustrating to see a good discussion get hung up just about every single time because we all start debating what we believe a word means. So just be aware that from time to time this topic will come back to haunt all of you.

And Tea, pillows. Definitely pillows! I'm told I have a very thick skull!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'm not sure were exactly our view starts split, I'm with you through all the basics but come to the opposite conclusion. I find that a lot if people hold themselves and others to a high linguistic standard, simply because rules are rules and we all have to follow them or else. It's self-explanatory for many.

But I have always ben primarily interested in the ideas we share and the tools, language, is secondary. You should have already noticed my sloppy spelling and grammar. It's not unimportant to me but I simply don't have the patience or interest to spend the time, I at times should, on the tool. All my focus go into the idea, at the expenses of everything else.

So perhaps it's our hardwiring that set us apart, our nature?

 

[Thomas]

So this is a plea from a Literal Dictionaryologist (I just made that term up so you can't look it up!) that we agree that the definition of words are what the dictionary states rather than what each one of us wants to believe is the definition.

Bang on, in my book. The best place to start.

In a face-to-face dialogue, I've been told, the spoken word accounts for about 10% of the dialogue going on ... so without that, much goes amiss. We Yanks and Brits are often accused of being 'two peoples divided by a common language'.

+++

There was a mammoth NATO exercise in Europe, the biggest military deployment on the continent since WWII, paid for by the Reagan administration. The military loved it. The CIA opposed it. The Russians (it has since come to light) were fully expecting an invasion.

The Fulda Gap was seen as a position of vital strategic importance. If the Reds came, this would be one of their main lines of advance.

This exercise was a triumph of IT and comms. Everyone, down to squad leader level, was in constant comms with the exercise HQ.

A perceived weak point is always the touch points between different units. On this scale, between the allied 'Blue' armies of the different nations.

Everything was going swimmingly. The Red armies were advancing, but the Blue struck back with a series of co-ordinated attacks which were beginning to show results.

Then one (American) Blue army declared "We have cleared the forrest at ...", which to the commander meant his forces had passed the forrest and were moving in the open country beyond. To the Brits, on the other side of the forrest, the word 'cleared' means troops have swept through the position and there is no longer any enemy presence there.

Not quite the same thing.

So the Brits came up to join their allies. The Reds staged a massive counter-attack from the forrest, and in the end, we lost the war ... millions of dollars spent on an exercise that foundered on a quite basic misunderstanding.

But it gets worse ...
I'm on a bus in South London. I am a martial art nut, as as you'd expect, I know every MA shop in the city. So when I see a 'Martial Arts' sign over a shop that I never knew was there, I jump off the bus, run across the road and through the door.

Lots of strange-looking implements, but not a sword or staff in sight. Loads of exotic attire, but no ninja suits. And the strangest inflatable objects that looked vaguely like near-life-sized pink plastic dolls with an expression of open-mouthed surprise ... hang on ...

Step outside the shop. The sign actually says 'Marital Aids' but my brain, which is prone to make its own assumptions, chose to see 'martial arts'.

(Sheesh! The stuff in that shop! Not so much 'enlightening' as 'eye-watering'.)

 

[Namaste Jesus]

The difference I would make with most of what has been said is this. Much of what we discuss is nuanced; phrases and concepts are subject to personal interpretations.

The individual words themselves, however, should not be subjective. One's understanding of a word should not be anything other than its definition. Nor do I believe definitions are merely guidelines which we can interpolate freely.

Not that we can't. We shouldn't. Especially when our discussions are often deeply philosophical in the first place. When what we are trying to impart is complicated. Then more than ever we need a basis from which to begin. That basis is that the words themselves are used as they are defined.

I'm fighting a loosing battle on this issue. I know that. But every once in a while there is a need to tilt at windmills. It is frustrating to see a good discussion get hung up just about every single time because we all start debating what we believe a word means. So just be aware that from time to time this topic will come back to haunt all of you.

And Tea, pillows. Definitely pillows! I'm told I have a very thick skull!

I don't think there's any way around it really. Definitions of individual words are always going to vary. Irregardless of how correct they may or may not be. In the case of the forum however, I think our debates and comments should be based upon whatever definition the person who created the thread is using. Yeah, I know, that's not always clear. Sometimes you just have to ask. Thing is, instead of wasting a lot of time debating their definition. Just accept it, right or wrong and debate on that basis. Otherwise we end up arguing for the sake of arguing. Not very productive.

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

Aloha Intractable One!

Just some of my brief perspective on part of what you shared:

...
Definitions do change over time. So we have a Good Book to tell us what current definitions mean today as opposed to, say, 100 years ago.

That Good Book is the Dictionary of course! It bugs me no end when there is a discussion going on, and we end up getting bogged down by 'what is your definition of fill-in-the-blank'.

How can we communicate effectively when we have to constantly stop the discussion to determine what every person in the group sees as their definition of what one word germane to the discussion means?
...
Thoughts?

FMP (From My Perspective), Language is always alive. A Dictionary provides a snapshot which only comes alive in the experience of the reader.

I use dictionaries a lot, since I'm continually learning new stuff and reviewing old stuff.

Often Dictionary Definitions do not express my intent or perspective. So, then I might remix the definition to my perspective or invent new words.

For example:
One of my main areas of interest is Bliss Mastery. I did find a dictionary definition which came close to my perspective: Serene Joy. Using that definition as a starting point I looked up Serene and Joy.

For Serene, I found: peaceful or tranquil; calm
For Joy, I found: ecstatic happiness

FMP, Bliss includes a range of experiences from low to high energy. Serene = Low. Joy = High.

Thus in my writings, elsewhere, I described Bliss as I described it above.

My point is simple, FMP: If I want to effectively communicate, then the Dictionary is JUST one tool I use. Albeit, a very, very valuable one.

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[Gordian Knot]

I'm not sure were exactly our view starts split, I'm with you through all the basics but come to the opposite conclusion. I find that a lot if people hold themselves and others to a high linguistic standard, simply because rules are rules and we all have to follow them or else. It's self-explanatory for many.

But I have always ben primarily interested in the ideas we share and the tools, language, is secondary. You should have already noticed my sloppy spelling and grammar. It's not unimportant to me but I simply don't have the patience or interest to spend the time, I at times should, on the tool. All my focus go into the idea, at the expenses of everything else.

So perhaps it's our hardwiring that set us apart, our nature?

Emphasis added by me. Tea, I see a contradiction in your thoughts, or, I should say it seems a contradiction to me. Your self stated focus is on the idea of any discussion. Yet it baffles me how you can effectively express your idea if the definitions of words you use to explain yourself are not that important to you.

Do you not damage your primary goal, the discussion of the idea, by being haphazard with how you define your words?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Allen, welcome to our group. I like very much your concept of 'from my perspective' as opposed to 'in my opinion'. If you do not mind I am going to adopt that myself.

As to the dictionary being a snapshot; which by that I presume you mean a 'starting point' for the definition. From which one adds one's personal interpretations to come up with your personal definition.

As you might expect, FMP, this is an unhealthy trend. With everyone doing the same, we end up with as many definitions of a word as there are people involved in the discussion. With the result we see over and over again. We are having a discussion, and it all has to grind to a halt while we all attempt to explain our personal definition of a word germane to the topic.

It is a huge waste of time and energy as well as a very efficient way of stopping what is otherwise often a meaningful discussion dead in its tracks.

Which is why I disapprove. Especially in a forum where we are talking deep philosophical issues (which are open to personal interpretation) we need more than ever to be using the same definitions of words in order to explain our individual perceptions most effectively.

How much better to make up our own words which we can then go on to define for the group. That is an excellent idea. Far, far better than redefining words that already have definitions.

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

Thanks for the welcome.

Allen, welcome to our group. I like very much your concept of 'from my perspective' as opposed to 'in my opinion'. If you do not mind I am going to adopt that myself.

Me: I'm very much an Open Source kinda guy, so I don't mind at all.

As to the dictionary being a snapshot; which by that I presume you mean a 'starting point' for the definition. From which one adds one's personal interpretations to come up with your personal definition.

Me: Actually, I mean that Language is continually moving, evolving and a dictionary provides a still frame in time, like a single frame from a movie strip.

I use several dictionaries. None on paper. From the Web I use TheFreeDictionary which provides definitions from multiple sources, such as American Heritage and Collier.

What I intend when I write "starting point": I assume the online dictionaries contain the most current definitions. If one of the definitions matches my intent I will use that definition.

If not, I will search for other words. If I do not find a satisfactory word, then I may use an existing word and explain how my definition varies, as I did for the word Bliss. Or, I may invent a new word, like what I did with FMP.

As you might expect, FMP, this is an unhealthy trend. With everyone doing the same, we end up with as many definitions of a word as there are people involved in the discussion. With the result we see over and over again. We are having a discussion, and it all has to grind to a halt while we all attempt to explain our personal definition of a word germane to the topic.

It is a huge waste of time and energy as well as a very efficient way of stopping what is otherwise often a meaningful discussion dead in its tracks.

Which is why I disapprove. Especially in a forum where we are talking deep philosophical issues (which are open to personal interpretation) we need more than ever to be using the same definitions of words in order to explain our individual perceptions most effectively.

How much better to make up our own words which we can then go on to define for the group. That is an excellent idea. Far, far better than redefining words that already have definitions.

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

As you might expect, FMP, this is an unhealthy trend. With everyone doing the same, we end up with as many definitions of a word as there are people involved in the discussion. With the result we see over and over again. We are having a discussion, and it all has to grind to a halt while we all attempt to explain our personal definition of a word germane to the topic.

Unlike you, I regard this as a healthy trend. My primary intent when I write, or talk, is for my audience to understand what I'm sharing on their terms, not mine.

Subordinate to my primary intent is to share a common understanding of the words I'm, and they're, using to express our understandings and knowings.

It is a huge waste of time and energy as well as a very efficient way of stopping what is otherwise often a meaningful discussion dead in its tracks.

In expressing myself my nature, and scientific background, provide me with a propensity to be terse. A lot of folks don't get it. A few do. So, I often find myself restating to bring more folks into accord, if not agreement, with what I'm sharing.

I'm retired. I enjoy wasting time and all I ever do with energy is play.

Which is why I disapprove. Especially in a forum where we are talking deep philosophical issues (which are open to personal interpretation) we need more than ever to be using the same definitions of words in order to explain our individual perceptions most effectively.

How much better to make up our own words which we can then go on to define for the group. That is an excellent idea. Far, far better than redefining words that already have definitions.

FMP, Part of the confusion comes in when translating words from one language to another. For example, most translators of the word Ananda from the Sanskrit "Sat-Chit-Ananda) chose the English word Bliss. For years I felt uneasy with that translation. Something was missing for me.

When I started my writings I felt compelled to bridge an existing English word, Bliss, with a new definition which could be placed in existing Dictionaries as an additional definition: Evolutionary, not Revolutionary.

I feel comfortable doing this because, many dictionaries have multiple definitions for a single word.

The key, for me, is for myself and my audience to resonate, to be on the same page. Whatever works...

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Do you not damage your primary goal, the discussion of the idea, by being haphazard with how you define your words?

It's not a contradiction, it's a flaw in my process. I was using myself as an example as to how different people are. I would much rather you focus on the first part of my post, because I don't set my way of doing things as the way it should be done, but how it is done by this individual.

 

[Nicholas Weeks]

Speaking as a devoted, proofreading non sequiturist - "I'm fighting a loosing battle on this issue."

The word is LOSING - unless one is 'loosing' arrows a la Robin Hood.

But the battle may have been loost already.

 

[Thomas]

As a typographer, I'm with you ... where are the proof-readers when you need them?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Lol! So true. Especially in the USA. I often correct people who refer to Americans as English speaking. One need only visit an English common wealth to clearly realize, we do not speak English at all... we speak American!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Earlier in this thread I expressed my belief in miracles and that God could indeed change the laws of nature if he so desired. I stand by that, but on reflection, something occurs to me. The term, 'Laws of Nature' is merely a way for man to define the parameters set forth by God for life to exist. As the creator however, God falls well outside the boundaries of these parameters and is not governed by them. Therefore, there would be no need to alter them in order to facilitate a miracle.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Earlier in this thread I expressed my belief in miracles and that God could indeed change the laws of nature if he so desired. I stand by that, but on reflection, something occurs to me. The term, 'Laws of Nature' is merely a way for man to define the parameters set forth by God for life to exist. As the creator however, God falls well outside the boundaries of these parameters and is not governed by them. Therefore, there would be no need to alter them in order to facilitate a miracle.

Dang! Posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry......