The False Tyranny of Words

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Think of how many children could be given a copy of Emoto's "Message from Water" with that million dollars.

I thought the dude was just a crackpot but it seems he's more of an L Ron Hubbard type.
He's really quite interesting.

It's just a shame his hatred for money kept him from proving his theories to the world.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The very notion makes it sound as if some dangerous property of speech is able to travel through the air (even through time) from the speaker to a listener, sneak past all immune system defences undetected, and impose itself physically upon the neural system.

Strangely enough, on reading the above, I got to thinking about the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the four consonant proper Name of God found in the Hebrew Old Testament. Transliterated in English as 'YHWH', it is frequently (always) in Jewish custom a word which cannot be spoken aloud, because it s 'too holy', and to utter it would be to fail to do justice to its meaning, and therefore ascribing a real power to it - a power to harm, if not correctly pronounced, and indeed a secondary layer f the same fear simply reckons that it would be blasphemous to even attempt the speaking, since its pronunciation being reckoned lost to the ages, one could not fail to get it wrong, and thus dishonour God.

They even refuse to write or pronounce the common English form of the word 'God' these days, by a gradual process of using alternative words to avoid use of YHWH, each one in time coming to the point at which the Rabbinical tradition 'maps' the former conditions onto the new use terminology (Elohim, Most High, Adonai, Ha Shem). NB - Ha Shem simply means 'the Name' - a direct reference to YHWH, originally thought to be acceptable in speech, but gradually becoming 'too holy for general utterance' by virtue of what they were attempting to represent by its usage. After all, God is still holy, and so use of any term to describe Him gradually becomes suffused with the reverence which is ascribed to that holiness. The use of 'G*d' is typical of modern rabbinical students who cannot even bring themselves to type out 'God' in common English.

Despite the fact that this might seem a little absurd, to my mind there absolutely is a neurological effect caused by the use of psychologically-impactful terms of language. The Western esoteric tradition has similarly maintained an incredible focus on the use of language - and specifically the Hebrew language - in its manipulation of the fundamental forces it seeks to control, and there is a 'spillover effect' of subjective & group dynamic psychological effects as a result (and perhaps even physical, 'magical' spooky action at a distance?)

Fascinating topic, and I suppose if we want evidence of the power of words to damage & disrupt living humans, we need look no further than the psychobabble & neurolinguistic programming witnessed in the mainstream media, to discover its massive role in shaping (damaging) the general heath & wellbeing of people throughout the Western world.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Its not science if its not reproducable. And therefore not evidence.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Its not science if its not reproducable. And therefore not evidence.

Yes but this is about feelings, not science or evidence.
I'm so glad our most basic right is now left up to "feelings".
This is the first time the membership here has ever scared me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
your never-ending ruse to proclaim hate speech as ok, or speech cant be to blame for anything is as laughable your reasoning.

speech, in any form, is communication. communication is a part of our biology. sound and words we hear affect us greatly, though not in a tangible form where you can see how it affects you.

a word can bring someone to tears, a sound can bring your heart rate to cardiac level, a speech can convince to suicide, a song note can make the skin crawl. albeit different species, our pets are affected by speech from us humans.
you yourself are affected by speech, since you were in the womb or as a toddler without even being able to speak, words greatly affected your emotions.

despite using technicalities to dismiss how speech can provoke transgression in order to make issues black and white, the fact is, speech is stronger than shackles, speech can convince the human brain to commit mass suicide without a single forcible action.

what youre failing to want to understand is that, because you don't physically see something pushing against you, you shouldn't feel it. someone doesn't have to punch you to feel hurt, the same section in the brain which tells you youre in pain from a physical contact is the same that makes you weep when you hear words that are hurtful to that same section of the brain.

so forget trying to win online arguments to defend people who spew hate speech, i can put land mines in my front yard and say who or what ever walks over them and get blown up is not my fault. there is cause and effect always. speech cannot be more of a representation of this, though abstract in some ways.

im not free to knowingly scream around people whos tourettes syndrome is triggered by screams.. in your world of free speech, the cause of the effect would be irrelevant...

a reply to: odzeandennz

People can be convinced to mass suicide, but you are not convinced by my OP. Funny how that works. What I should have done is appealed to your emotions, which seem to me the barrier between you and the real world. Look at your metaphors. Your absurdities are betrayed by your naïveté, and your reason is the slave of your fee fees.

No, words are not analogous to land mines and shackles. Such comparisons are indicative of your fear, your superstition, and your ignorance, not reality.

a reply to: daskakik

All that points out is an incomplete understanding of the words used. The synonyms. The words that didn't cause a reaction, if one wants to view it completely differently, is proof that words, by and of themselves, do not cause 'reactions'.

This direction merely creates a new industry for profit. More therapy. More pills. More control run on the near mindless.

More fraud.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Suppose we were to hear the same abusive speech—the same guttural sounds, combination of syllables, tone of voice, meaning— but spoken in a movie or read in a book. Would the same “crippling effects” occur?

Suppose we were to hear the same abusive speech—the same guttural sounds, combination of syllables, tone of voice, meaning—but spoken in a language we do not understand. Would the same “crippling effects” occur?

The words in the first scenario are understood to be safe, maybe fictional, or otherwise harmless, while the words in the second scenario are not understood at all. Though both cases involve abusive speech that ultimately reaches our neural system, the speech does not have the same “psychological effect imposed physically…with long-term crippling effects”. The body does not respond with stress.

In contrast, abusive speech directed towards us, or abusive speech in which we are more intimately involved, are understood to be threatening, dangerous, a challenge, even harmful, that the body’s natural response is to stress.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...I both agree...and disagree...

My agreement stems from my observations that every moment for an individual is in fact one in an endless series of decisions...
Choice...is the underlying lever that accompanies every action or reaction...either in conflict resolution...or in more mundane decisions that guide or form character and response to stimuli...

My disagreement derives again from my observations of the human condition...
That being said...these observations are displayed in the format I choose to use when I write...(obviously I mean my OP's in the short story forum and not the inane drivel I grace other OP's threads with)
Part of that style is the intent to occupy the mental faculties of the individual reading...to control their emotional state and evoke an emotional response...

In essence...I've observed that the right grouping of words can convey the ability to highjack the readers cognitive state and emotional response...
Now...whether this response to stimuli is more rooted in the readers own conscious or unconscious agreement or belief systems with/to those written words than the words own ability to convey intent...is perhaps another conversation that I might not mind having...

Very thought provoking post my friend...thank you for stirring my own thought pot...





YouSir

a reply to: odzeandennz

with dogs, communication is autonomic. Meaning that their scent, body language, breathing, etc change to communicate information about them. To a dog, communication is feeling and physicality.

Humans are not dogs, and we tend to have a non-autonomic communication. Sure, we have some facial expressions, hand gestures, and voice changes. But the gist of our words, especially online, is pure verbal. And the majority of us are adept at expressing ourselves via written text.

To insinuate that there is a physical response arises from words blurs the line between what it means to be human, and what it doesn't. Its almost impossible to express abstract notions using autonomic response.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see it a lot like "climate change." Essentially, real science conflated with politics.

Words, images, and really any sensory input can unquestionably cause actual neurological changes. Its simply how our brains work.

In much the same way, the climate is unquestionably changing. Its simply how our planetary system works.

In either case, the conflation with politics inevitably eschews any conversation of merit on the topic. Ban this! Ban that! Convert the nonbelievers!

Then, the entire social exchange is shaped preemptively. One side feels it has "science" on its side, regardless of how far removed from the original science the social group becomes. And, those that question it become accustomed to thinking the specious logical jumps actually represent the science. An interesting form of ideological warfare, really.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But in order to believe that, they must also believe that certain visual and audible symbols, so long as they are configured and expressed in a certain way, can have physical effects on human body and human societies. And to believe that, they would also need to believe that certain visual and audible symbols, expressed as articulated sounds, groups of pixels, scratches, marks or ink on paper, can manipulate human biology from afar—spooky action at a distance.

I agree with your basic message that making words illegal like they are doing in the UK is dumb and that people should just toughen up and learn to deal with trolls and control their own emotions, it shouldn't be something for big brother to fix. However the above quote is not stating anything at all impossible or even unlikely. Certain sound waves in a certain order, such as a song can certainly evoke very real biological reactions, we can feel very strong emotions when listening to music and that can also have physiological affects on our body. Certain words when said the right way, such as by an experienced hypnotist, can dramatically alter the mental state of a person. Certain visual cues can also affect the brain, such as fast flashing lights of specific wavelengths, they can even cause seizures in some people. When visual and audible techniques are combined the result can be very powerful, Derren Brown often uses them together.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

But the stark truth is, emotions are simply "feelings".

While you can create emotional response with words, the listener can equally take it upon themselves to recieve those words differently.

I have a worldview that precludes having hurt feelings. I brush off the insult and look for the substance. My sister, on the other hand, takes words like a punch int he face.

That seems insane to me.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes, sound or light have physical consequences on the body. But the idea that certain sounds, ie. certain combinations of phonetic articulation, or the light bouncing off a certain combination of letters on a piece of paper, has different consequences than a different combination of articulated sounds, or a different combination of letters on a piece of paper, seems to me nonsensical.

Say that the Voynich Manuscript (as of yet it has not been deciphered) consisted purely of abusive hate speech. Because it is not understood, it has zero effect, and is simply a bunch of beautiful scribbles. It is the understanding, that is, how we have come to understand words, how we treat them, how we use them and how we wish others would us them, that affects us.

a reply to: diggindirt

And my point is that people can be right in reacting to those motives and their reaction might not be to the words themselves. That would make OP's argument a strawman.

a reply to: daskakik

And my point is that people can be right in reacting to those motives and it isn't the words themselves. That would make OP's argument a strawman.

You do not know what a strawman is.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think that's the interesting part..

The conversation tends to revolve around relatively singular incidents. "Taking words like a punch to the face" seems like a very unecessarily difficult way to live.

However, with prolonged exposure, words (especially when experienced with other stimuli) start to shape our neurological pathways. There's nothing we can do about it; the more we process the information ("think" about it), the more impact they have.

This is pretty basic neuroscience, in fact, it is the basis for general learning. It can also be used to manipulate, but its far more subtle than how it is typically discussed, yet no less powerful in its own way. However, what we see is that knowledge being applied to fulfill political motives.

Its all an ongoing process with an immense amount of variables, yet it is treated as if a single incident (or even a few) somehow make our synapses snap into a different path. One that suddenly makes us "lose control." That outlook perhaps makes it easier to forego personal responsibility, but its problematic for so very many reasons.

a reply to: Serdgiam

i cannot, and will not, disagree with you.

Repeated exposure turns neural pathways into neural highways. It is why no one is allowed to raise a voice in my home....home is my sanctuary from assholes.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Habits are so, so much easier to prevent than they are to break. Especially when we don't even realize something has actually become habitual. Left vs. Right in politics is a good example: its become a competition, and in such a competition, one side never helps the other team get a touchdown. Horrible, horrible outlook when, in a sense, we are "all in this together." Shooting ourselves in the foot has become a habit.

I really like that rule, by the way. I suppose I was brought up in a household that had that unspoken. If someone dared raise their voice, there better be a damn good reason. I learned there really never is a particularly good reason and if it happens, it tends to harm the situation more than it ever helps.

Still am that way today, actually. The folks brought up in that environment will likely thank you down the line, if they have not already.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure I do.