Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by gosseyn
I don't see how " Different life experiences " give different meanings to words that have very clear definitions.
Imagine I pronounce the word "sex" :
- If you are a priest who has never had sex in his life, the word will resonate differently for you
- If you are a porn star, who is having sex 40h a week, the word will evoke different feelings/thoughts for you
- If you have been raped, again the word will resonate very differently in your mind
- If you have been in a accident and you are paralysed, or if you have a sickness that made you impotent, again the word will trigger different
feelings/thoughts for you.
The list is endless
I can do the same for "war"
- If you are a weapon manufacturer, the word will have a different meaning for you.
- If you have seen your whole family killed just in front of you in a time of war when you were a child, chances are you have been traumatized and the
word will evoke different things for you.
- If you are a general in an army who is thinking in terms of strategies and tactics, the word will trigger different things for you
- et cetera..
I can do that with pretty much every word. Languages are auto-reflexive, and it means that in order for me to understand what you are really trying to
say, I would have to use "the map of the map", "the map of you
". Maps are not the terrain that they are meant to represent, just like words are
not the things that they are meant to represent.
The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a
geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory",
encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do
confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself. Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Indian philosopher, described it thus,
"The description is not the described", to which he has further exemplified: "it is like a man who is hungry. Any amount of description of the right
kind of food will never satisfy him. He is hungry, he wants
What is a chair ? If you sit on it, it becomes "something that you can sit on", if you hit someone with it, it becomes a weapon, if you throw it in
fire and if is made of wood, it becomes fuel, etc.. Definitions are static and they do not have the required accuracy to describe the ever changing
universe in which we live in. Where would you start to say what a chair IS
? By the macroscopic level ? Or by the microscopic level ? Or if it
was possible, would you start by listing all the uses that have been made by a chair in human history ? And what about the potential of this chair,
what about the future uses of this chair ? It is impossible to say what any thing IS
, because it is a metaphysical question. And it becomes
even more impossible (if that is possible) when we speak about ourselves. Please, try to tell me what a "human being" IS
, and I wish you good
Originally posted by Mizzijr
reply to post by gosseyn
You are basically saying the same bit Mr. Fresco said in the clip. I see where you're coming from. And I see where he's coming from.
Yes, because like him I have been deeply interested by General semantics
edit on 16-3-2013 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)