Do words have a fixed meaning?

[HankD]

Thanks rsr.

An amazing conversation, I didn't know Humpty was a theologian.

Just kidding.

HankD

 

[rsr]

Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was trained as a deacon, after all.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Nice try on an ad hominem but it isn't working.

It wasn't ad hominem. You say that General Semantics is "new age." Architecture is "new age." Naval Engineering is "new age." Psychotherapy is "new age." That sounds more like Riplinger than Riplinger does! </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't know we were talking about naval engineering and psychotherapy! You were presenting these people as experts on semantics and language and I do not think Bucky Fuller or Heinlein qualify and I am not sure about the Russian guy. Even if you think they are qualified, that does not mean their theories on semantics and language are valid or good. Fuller's worldview is very questionable. He may have built good domes and been brilliant, but his worldview is very compatibile with New Age beliefs which is why he is so popular with New Ager philosophers.

One of the big things of Zen Buddhism, which I was into for many years, is that words cannot convey truth -- that they are useless in defining real truth or thought. Of course, one has to use words to say that, which I point out in my lectures on New Age thinking. That is self-refuting.

I don't throw around the term New Age lightly. That list I posted earlier I agree with. I am very familiar with New Age thinking, having seen the world that way for close to 20 years of my adult life. I write and speak on this topic now. The problem a lot of Christians make is to assume the New Age is always blatant. It actually can be very subtle and has made a lot of inroads that way. I am not a conspiracy person either -- don't buy into the Tex Marrs thing. In fact, I have told people who own his books to throw them away.

My past in the New Age is one thing that helped lead me to see that what Gail R. was saying was invalid.

 

[Marcia]

P.S. I never said naval engineering or pschotherapy is New Age. That was a straw man attack.

 

[Marcia]

P.P.S. And just because I point out the worldviews of some people as being New Age (which I only do from evidence), that does not make me Gail Riplinger.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I didn't know we were talking about naval engineering and psychotherapy! You were presenting these people as experts on semantics and language and I do not think Bucky Fuller or Heinlein qualify and I am not sure about the Russian guy.

The Institute believed they were qualified. And he was Polish, not Russian.

I don't throw around the term New Age lightly.

It seems, to the contrary, you do!

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
I didn't know we were talking about naval engineering and psychotherapy! You were presenting these people as experts on semantics and language and I do not think Bucky Fuller or Heinlein qualify and I am not sure about the Russian guy.

The Institute believed they were qualified. And he was Polish, not Russian.

I don't throw around the term New Age lightly.

It seems, to the contrary, you do! </font>[/QUOTE]But how valid are the Institute's beliefs and authority? I don't think that's been shown, especially if they accept people like Heinlein and Fuller who, as far as I know, have no qualifications in this area.

Please show me how I throw around the term New Age lightly. If you are going to accuse me of that -- and you really know little about me and should not make such accusations lightly -- then please back it up or retract it.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
But how valid are the Institute's beliefs and authority?

The Institute's academic credentials are impeccable.

I don't think that's been shown, especially if they accept people like Heinlein and Fuller who, as far as I know, have no qualifications in this area.

Bob Heinlein is one of the most prolific writers of the 20th century. And Fuller, literally, wrote the book on Architecture.

Please show me how I throw around the term New Age lightly. If you are going to accuse me of that -- and you really know little about me and should not make such accusations lightly -- then please back it up or retract it.

Read your own post! You seem to see "new agers" under every bed!

 

[Marcia]

The Institute's credentials may be impeccable (I could say according to whom but I won't), but that does not mean their theories are necessarily accepted or even widely taken as valid. Language theorists disagree with each other and there are different schools of thought in this area.

Heinlein and Fuller may be giants in their fields, but this does not give them authority or credentials in the field of semantics or language. Writers do not automatically have insight on theories of language or philosophy of language, which is another field.

You still have not shown how I threw around the term "new age" lightly. The things I called New Age or the people I mentioned are, in fact, in the New Age worldview camp. I do not use that term unless I have read the people and/or can back it up with evidence. That is the way I am. I almost went to law school (didn't go due to a personal situation) and was a paralegal in the area of criminal law for several years, and I am very evidence oriented. That is why I reject the writings of people like Gail R, Texe Marrs, New Age conspiracy theorists/writers, Rebecca Brown (though she was alleging occult things rather than New Age), and many others of that ilk. I speak around the country and on radio, and one of the main things I warn believers about is that there is a lot of inacurrate information out there.

I strive for accuracy, not just because the Lord has called me to full-time ministry in this area, but I am trying to equip believers with solid information, and reaching out to those lost in these same areas I was once engulfed in, and would still be in, if not for the grace and mercy of the Lord.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Language theorists disagree with each other and there are different schools of thought in this area.

Name any recognized expert on language theory who disagrees with the academic position of the Institute of General Semantics.

Heinlein and Fuller may be giants in their fields, but this does not give them authority or credentials in the field of semantics or language.

When their field IS language, and the communication of their knowledge to others via the written word in books, and the spoken word in the classroom, that certainly does make them experts. How many books have you had published?

Writers do not automatically have insight on theories of language or philosophy of language, which is another field.

I did not claim that all writers had insight into language, but the two I mentioned are recognized as having exactly that.

You still have not shown how I threw around the term "new age" lightly.

Read your post. You attempted to pass off the logical error of "poisoning the well" by insinuating that, because some have misused General Semantics to further their own agenda, that General Semitics is therefore suspect. That is just plain silly. If that were true then the bible is suspect because some have misused it to further their own agenda.

The things I called New Age or the people I mentioned are, in fact, in the New Age worldview camp.

And they have absolutely nothing to do with General Semantics.

I do not use that term unless I have read the people and/or can back it up with evidence.

Have you read the works on General Semantics I listed and can you categorically say those works are new age?

That is the way I am. I almost went to law school (didn't go due to a personal situation) and was a paralegal in the area of criminal law for several years, and I am very evidence oriented.

Without bothering to read the material you are condemning as "new age?" How is that "evidence?" It seems to me it is anti-evidence. Not to mention biased and highly arrogant.

That is why I reject the writings of people like Gail R, Texe Marrs, New Age conspiracy theorists/writers, Rebecca Brown (though she was alleging occult things rather than New Age), and many others of that ilk.

I did not mention any of them except to imply your thinking seems to parallel Riplinger's in calling anything you don't understand "new age."

I speak around the country and on radio, and one of the main things I warn believers about is that there is a lot of inacurrate information out there.

Most of it, for the purposes of this discussion, seems to be coming directly from you!

I strive for accuracy, not just because the Lord has called me to full-time ministry in this area, but I am trying to equip believers with solid information, and reaching out to those lost in these same areas I was once engulfed in, and would still be in, if not for the grace and mercy of the Lord.

Do you call it "accurate" when you accuse an entire academic discipline "new age" without even bothering to look into that discipline?

 

[Marcia]

I did not accuse any entire academic discipline of being New Age. I stated earlier that some of what you were saying reminded me of what some atheists and New Agers said when they attacked words as being able to convey meaning or truth. Then you posted the info about the Inst. of General Semantics. You mentioned those men - I recognized Heinlein, Hayakawa (and I said I read him and Heinlein in college), and Fuller. Fuller did have influence on New Age thinking and is highly revered among many New Agers. I posted a list of people that included Fuller, so that did have something to do with what you brought up. I also pointed out how this approach is used by New Agers. That is very different from saying that the Inst. of General Semantics was New Age.

For Marcia to say the hard science of General Semantics is "self-refuting" is a prime example of a serious failure to understand.

I did not say this. I said that certain statements you posted were self-refuting statements.

I also would not call General Semantics a hard science when what they are proposing are theories. The theories of Hayakawa and others can be evaluated Biblically just as any other theory or worldview or philosophy of language.

For example, the Inst. of General Semantics says this:

General Semantics can be considered an inter-disciplinary discipline for evaluating and adjusting to what happens in your life. You might say that general semantics makes it easier for you to live with yourself ... to live with others ... and for others to live with you.

General Semantics helps you differentiate, and integrate, what we might think of as four different 'worlds' ...

the world 'out there', beyond your skin, that's always changing, in perpetual process
the world 'in here', inside your skin, your nervous system and senses, through which you (only partially) experience the world 'out there'
the world that's not words, the non-verbal world that you see, hear, taste, smell and touch
the world of words, your verbal world of names, symbols, labels, opinions, assumptions, categories, values, beliefs, etc.
In our verbal world of words, we integrate what we 'know' about the world 'out there', the world 'in here' and the world that's not words.
General semantics, formulated by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems, is based on underlying premises, some (but not all) of which include:

We live in a continually-changing, process-oriented world, much of which we have no means of directly observing or experiencing.
What we do experience is therefore partial and incomplete; we abstract only a small portion of what's there - and there is always more.
Different people abstract differently from their own individual experiences, based on their backgrounds, capabilities, interests, biases, etc.
As we become more conscious of this abstracting process, we learn how to become more tolerant and accepting of our own - and others - limitations and potentialities.
We recognize the distinctions between the non-verbal world in which we sense and experience, and our verbal world in which we use symbols and language to talk about what we sense and experience.
The methods of a scientific approach provide us with a basis for evaluating and modifying our attitudes, behaviors and beliefs.
If you deliberately practice general semantics ... the potential consequences include:
More effective, discriminating communications with others, and with yourself
More appropriate, and desirable, reactions, responses and adjustments to the inevitable "accidents waiting to happen" in your four 'worlds'
A more tolerant, inquisitive, open-minded, "matter-of-fact" outlook that is less prone to prejudice, stereotyping, and dogmatic generalizations
A greater degree of moment-to-moment awareness of your own, and others', different perspectives.
From
http://www.generalsemantics.org/about/about-gs.htm

I do think some of their observations are accurate and interesting, especially the view of the difference between humans' and animals' ability with language, but I am not necessarily going along with their worldviews.

 

[Marcia]

Semantics is defined as a subset of linguistics:

Linguistic inquiry is pursued by a wide variety of specialists, who may not all be in harmonious agreement; as Russ Rymer flamboyantly puts it:

"Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians."
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

Expressed simply, the essence of General Semantics is the claim that the structure of language distorts our perception of reality, a failing that could be remedied by insight into that process and also by the creation of language that structurally resembles reality. (To a greater extent than our current languages.)

General Semantics never caught on as a major school of thought within the humanities, although a number of Korzybski's followers do continue the effort to apply and advance upon the results he produced.

. . .General Semantics teaches that all linguistic representations discard most of reality ("The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing defined.") and in particular that much "un-sanity" is caused by adherence to the Aristotelian representation of two-valued either-or logic, which Korzybski saw as being built into Indo-European language structures. From this beginning, Korzybski developed a complex, controversial, jargon-riddled system of what he called mental hygiene intended to increase the student's effective intelligence. Techniques such as indexing with superscript numbers help in this task.

These ideas, retold in more accessible form by Samuel Hayakawa's Language In Thought And Action (1941), Stuart P. Chase's The Tyranny of Words, and other secondary sources, achieved considerable initial success in the 1940s and early 1950s. During that period they entered the idiom of science fiction, notably through the works of A.E. van Vogt and Robert A. Heinlein. After 1955 they became popularly associated with scientology but continued to exert some influence in psychology, anthropology and linguistics. The development of Neuro-linguistic programming shows debts to General Semantics.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Semantics

 

[Marcia]

Alfred Korzybski himself has a very good passage in which he sharply attacked the phrase “eternal verities.” As he wrote in Science and Sanity in 1933:

From time immemorial, some men were supposed to deal in one-valued ‘eternal verities’. We called such men ‘philosophers’ or ‘metaphysicians’. But they seldom realized that all their ‘eternal verities’ consisted of words, and words which, for the most part, belonged to a primitive language, reflecting in its structure the assumed structure of the world of remote antiquity. Besides, they did not realize that these ‘eternal verities’ last only so long as the human nervous system is not altered. Under the influence of these ‘philosophers’, two-valued ‘logic’, and confusion of orders of abstraction, nearly all of us contracted a firmly rooted predilection for ‘general’ statements - ‘universals’, as they are called — which, in most cases, inherently involved the semantic one-valued conviction of validity for all ‘time’ to come.[4]

Whitehead and Korzybski are only two of a long list of philosophers that could be cited for their opposition to absolutisms. But what is desirable is to make this outlook available to a wide general public, and I wish to propose a device for doing so.
From
http://www.generalsemantics.org/learningctr/awr-ema.htm

I believe in absolutism. I believe in absolute truth, and a God of absolute good, justice, and mercy. I believe that words can convey truth because God chose words as the vehicle to convey truth to us. There was a reason that what you were initially posting sounded familiar to me -- these theories of the IGS included and/or influenced key people who used some of those theories and/or conclusions in New Age worldviews. To clarify, I am NOT saying that the IGS or that Hayakawa was New Age; however, some of Fuller's ideas and some of the IGS theories were evidently adopted and used by some New Age thinkers, by Scientology and by NLP, hence, the familiarity for me.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
That same point could be used as many ask the question in a Bible Study, “What does that mean to you?” It is not what does it mean to me, but rather what does it mean.

But if it means two different things to two different people, how do you dogmatically assert that your understanding is the one, and only correct, understanding?

A coconut has an objective meaning and the word brings out a subjective response by you. But it still does not change the fact of the objective description of a coconut.

Of course, but remember, our fallen nature causes us to have a flawed perception, and a flawed processing of that flawed perception, so "coconut" cannot be understood apart from our inner emotional response to the word.

Scripture is not to be interpreted according to the reader’s response but rather the authors intent and message in light of its historical context. I do not believe reader response criticism has any validity in interpreting scripture.

But, again, how do you dogmatically assert that your understanding of the author's intent is the one and only correct understanding? </font>[/QUOTE]And thus, is the flaw of the post-modern mind which says that there is no objective truth and eventually, if carried to its final destination, leads to the denial of ultimate truth and atheism. There is objective truth out there. Just because you don't know what it is or have an emotional misunderstanding of it, doesn't change the fact that the truth is still the truth. We all have our subjective responses to words and truth, but that does not change the objective reality of the truth. If I tell my son not to touch the stove because he will burn himself, his subjective 10 month old mind would say, "the old man is crazy. This stove is not gonna hurt me." This is his subjective response to objective reality. It does not change objective reality though. If I tell a band student that a quarter note gets one beat, but he says it gets two, that may be his subjective response. But his subjective response does not change the objective reality that a quarter note is one beat. If I say that Jesus is the Son of God, and an atheist says he isn't, well, that doesn't change the objective reality that Jesus is the Son of God.

You see the core of post modernism is that truth is whatever you percieve it to be. This might make for good science fiction like the Matrix, but it makes for terrible theology and leads to all kinds of heresies and denial of the truth. Post modernism is based on emotional subjectiveness in deciding truth which leads to the philosophy of "if it feels good then do it".

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Great thoughts Joseph. I had never thought about applying the principles of our post-modern world to the versions debate.

Thank you

 

[skanwmatos]

Excellent, Joseph, excellent! I am gratified there is someone who has the intellectual capacity to understand and even articulate the fact that there may well be a huge difference between objective truth and our perception of truth. Well said!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Semantics is defined as a subset of linguistics:

You are still confused. Semantics is not General Semantics.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I believe in absolutism. I believe in absolute truth, and a God of absolute good, justice, and mercy. I believe that words can convey truth because God chose words as the vehicle to convey truth to us.

Amen, Sister Marcia -- Preach it!

BTW, you need not keep repeating yourself.
Everybody but Skanwmatos figured out what
you said the first time AND agreed with you.

 

[Marcia]

Thanks, Brother Ed!

I do tend to get rather intense in some of my discussions and can get a tad repetitious.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
BTW, you need not keep repeating yourself.
Everybody but Skanwmatos figured out what
you said the first time AND agreed with you.

Ed, taking cheap shots, especially when the cheap shot is untrue, is beneath your dignity.

The discussion was not about the Absolutes of God, right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, and the absolute infallibility of the word of God. To try to impugn my position by implying that I do not consider the word of God an Absolute is simply dishonest. It is what I would expect from a Texe Marrs or a Peter Ruckman. Unfortunately, I now have to add [name of BB member snipped] to that list. Please, Ed, don't place yourself on that list of unwholesome characters.

[ June 23, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]