reply to post by BDBinc
You did say that meaning was in the word. If the meaning is in the word, how do words that you don't understand not hurt you?
Which of the following words do you fail to Grok?
WORDS ARE SMALL UNITS OF MEANING IN HUMAN COMMUNICATION. The same word in a known language in the brains of two people who know that language carries
roughly the same meaning in said communication--in much the same way that a bucket carries water--only more so. The MEANING IN THE WORD IS INHERENT by
mutual agreement of all those who have learned THAT language.. The water in the bucket is not inherently part of the bucket as meaning is inherently
part of the word in a given language.
If the meaning is in the word, you should be able to gather the meaning of the word just by hearing it. Isn't that so?
NO. It' s NOT so, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT LEARNED THAT LANGUAGE! DOH!
It IS the case that the meaning is in the word and hearing it carries said meaning FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LEARNED THE LANGUAGE, HAVE FUNCTIONING HEARING
AND A FUNCTIONING BRAIN in the associated areas. Sigh.
You call words gibberish because there is no meaning for you in those words. Hence, there is no meaning in words.
More brazen absurdity.
That's like saying scrambled eggs are not eggs because they are scrambled.
Which word below do you not understand?
WORDS shared between humans who know the same language and who know the associated vocabulary being used CARRY CONGRUENT identical or closely
similar meaning from SENDER TO RECEIVER. That's called COMMUNICATION. IF there were NO meaning IN THE WORDS RESIDENT IN SENDER AND
RECEIVER'S BRAINS, there would be NO communication
It appears to be an almost foreign process for some on ATS.
If they are words and words hurt, why don't they hurt you?
What incredible obtuseness, perversity, contrariness or outright lack of awareness and understanding at a very basic level.
BECAUSE--FOR THOSE NOT cohorts who understand THAT specific language and that specific vocabulary--the sound symbols, the text
symbols, the sign language symbols and/or other word symbols are NOT FOR THOSE NOT OF THAT LANGUAGE GROUP-->WORDS. They are ONLY FUNCTIONING WORDS for
those who know THAT language
The meaning of the word is in the mind, in the memory, in the culture and not in the word. It is the meaning that hurts, and not the word.
WHAT BRAZENLY UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
The culture and the minds concerned in the same language group have invested in each word of that language agreed upon meaning THAT IS
THEN INHERENTLY RESIDENT IN EACH OF THOSE WORDS RESIDENT IN THE BRAINS OF THOSE CONCERNED. The meaning and the WORDs are inseparable within that
language. There are no functional words without the meaning. There is no functional meaning without the words concerned.
If we were to ban the word "bread", and never used that word ever again, would you no longer know what cooked dough is? No, because the word itself
is arbitrary and doesn't carry anything called meaning. It doesn't matter what you label cooked dough.
MORE BRAZENLY UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
ONCE the language agrees upon a WORD, it is NO LONGER ARBITRARY. It's absurd that you or any rational sentient human would think otherwise.
. . . unless you are merely being obstinately obtuse just for the fun of being obstinately obtuse to the nth degree . . . .
If I was to bully you and call you names, the words you hear do nothing but signify my thoughts. They don't signify your thoughts. So how is it that
my thoughts, signified by my words, can hurt you?
What MORE unmitigated nonsense.
It still boggles my mind that you can ask that kind of question with seemingly a straight face.
Once again . . .
1. Father tells Johnny 2-3 dozen times a day that Johnny is a useless stinking pile of worthless ####.
2. Father's word choices carry the DESIRED MEANING OF THE FATHER inherent in those words to the brain of Johnny which has those words RESIDENT in
Johnny's brain with roughly the same inherent MEANING to the words that the father has and that the Father deliberately used to cause Johnny pain.
3. IF Johnny were a mature adult and IF Johnny didn't care what father said about him--highly unlikely--even as a disowned adult--then the meaning
INHERENT IN THE WORDS would likely carry LESS pain. But LESS pain is not the same as NO pain. And even if Johnny was now 40 years old after 25 years
of hard therapy and no longer cared SIGNIFICANTLY what destructive painful things daddy said, there would still likely be some at least slight tweak
if he happened upon Dad on the street and Dad again called him a worthless pile of ####.
4. When Johnny was a toddler, Daddy DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO FLING HURTFUL PAINFUL WORDS INTO JOHNNY'S BRAIN SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GOAL OF CAUSING JOHNNY
PAIN . . . out of Dad's own twisted pain and immaturity, evil. He succeeded because the WORDS resident in Dad's brain were roughly equal in their
inherent meaning to the same words resident in Johnny's brain.
5. Johnny valued Daddy's word choices because Daddy's inherently communicate WORTH to their children above and beyond any sense of worth mothers
communicate. Mothers tend to love regardless. And Daddys may love regardless too. However, children inherently know that Daddy's approval is of a
different sort and quality than mothers. Consequently, Daddy's rejection and disapproval CONVEYED IN THE BUCKETS OF WORDS CARRIES HORRIFIC MEANING
AND HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES.
Denial of those facts is simply . . . wholesale unaware . . . to put it extremely mildly and politely.