Labels

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Quote:

The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

Interesting post. (Which I got to from HERE.)

- NonE

addendum: Upon consideration, this seems another way of apporaching the ideas behind E-prime, the method of communication which eschews the use of the verb "to be," and instead relies upon descriptive phraseology.

I will point out that the issues that RoR and Conrad seem to have with some posts are specifically based upon the idea that words have specific meanings that all people should be expected to know and agree with. This reminds me of the parable of the blind men describing an elephant.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Labels Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:09 pm

if I can't label you or if you don't label yourself, then how would I know how to categorize and thus treat you?

_________________
My Blog

Stewart · Subject: Re: Labels Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:28 pm

Conrad wrote:

if I can't label you or if you don't label yourself, then how would I know how to categorize and thus treat you?

Conrad, please. If he has an unappealing face, or if he is wearing clothing that costs less than yours, then you already know what to do. You don't need to label him "ugly" or "poor" in order to treat him accordingly.

Vana · Subject: Re: Labels Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:09 am

Conrad wrote:

if I can't label you or if you don't label yourself, then how would I know how to categorize and thus treat you?

Maybe that's the idea? It's like putting a label on the wind.

NonEntity wrote:

this seems another way of apporaching the ideas behind E-prime, the method of communication which eschews the use of the verb "to be," and instead relies upon descriptive phraseology.

Subject-slot and Verb-slot are like chicken and egg. You can no more have a verb-less language than you can have a noun-less one.

My thoughts here, Which came first, the noun or the verb?

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

I will point out that the issues that RoR and Conrad seem to have with some posts are specifically based upon the idea that words have specific meanings that all people should be expected to know and agree with.

That's a misunderstanding of my position.

My position is that when you USE a word, then... IN THAT CONTEXT, it must have a specific meaning (or else whatever you are saying has no meaning).

This is NOT to say that any given word can only have one meaning. For example, the word "light" can mean both "the opposite of dark", and "the opposite of heavy". However, when you actually USE the word in context (to say something), it can't mean both of those things at once. That wouldn't make any sense. It can only mean ONE of those things at a time. Thus, if you use a word, then you should be able to define the sense in which you are using the word (a.k.a. "define your terms"). If you can't, then you are just making sounds, or playing with letter, without actually conveying meaning.

This has nothing to do with the fact that language is emergent, or that many words have multiple meanings, or that if you felt like it, you could use language however you wanted... you could make up your own rules (assuming you didn't care to much about being understood or conveying meaning).

Vana wrote:

Maybe that's the idea? It's like putting a label on the wind.

I feel a bad Patrick Swayze song comin' on...

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Vana wrote:

NonEntity wrote:

this seems another way of apporaching the ideas behind E-prime, the method of communication which eschews the use of the verb "to be," and instead relies upon descriptive phraseology.

Subject-slot and Verb-slot are like chicken and egg. You can no more have a verb-less language than you can have a noun-less one.

My thoughts here, Which came first, the noun or the verb?

That is not the intent of my post at all. If you care, go and look up E-Prime and see the theory behind it. It's a really interesting idea.

- NonE

Alex · Subject: Re: Labels Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:21 pm

Thanks for the link NonE. The guy's a buddhist and he ain't even knowin' it!

We defend what we identify with, which keeps our minds small. We identify with what we're attached to (tautology, but what the hell). Be less attached man. Then identity can be broad (compassion). Then we can have nice conversations? Seems like aiming a little low.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Alex wrote:

Thanks for the link NonE. The guy's a buddhist and he ain't even knowin' it!

We defend what we identify with, which keeps our minds small. We identify with what we're attached to (tautology, but what the hell). Be less attached man. Then identity can be broad (compassion). Then we can have nice conversations? Seems like aiming a little low.

Good thought (the guy's a Buddhist). I'd never even made that connection. Or maybe Buddhists are E-primists! ;-)

But, you know, now that I think more on it, it appears to my very ignorant-on-the-subject mind that those languages which use iconography would seem to be E-prime by structure, and perhaps this very structural difference is also very much the source of the difference in Western and Eastern thought. Perhaps Buddhism is a manifestation of the structure of Eastern communication structure. Hmm.

- NonE