Chiff and Fipple Forums
http://forums.chiffandfipple.com/

More "divided by a common language" stuff
http://forums.chiffandfipple.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=107953
Page 4 of 13

Author:  Nanohedron [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

But anyway, back to this:

DrPhill wrote:
It is a pet peeve of mine and when it happens it irritates me.
Part of it may be covered by people misusing specialist languages like quantum physics, or information technology (or even both together) to create gibberish.

I do it all the time, consciously, but purely for expressive purposes. For example, I might say, "His attitude underwent a quantum shift." Is that the sort of thing that irritates you? Because I don't think I'm prepared to give it up.

Some words do have wider legitimate application. Once I used the word "mayhem" and a lawyer admonished me, her contention being that as it was a legal term, it should only be reserved for use in a legal context. Well, it's a literary term too, but she couldn't be convinced. She must be endlessly aghast.

DrPhill wrote:
If you take a lion from the serengeti and put it in a zoo do you still have a lion? I would say no. A lion is really only a lion when it is doing lion things in a lion environment. Eating lion-prey and mating with other lions.
Putting lions in a cage, and lion prey in the next cage does not 'reproduce the serengetti'.

An holistic approach to the question of lion-ness, and it somewhat parallels my own philosophy. But I'm still willing to consider a caged lion to be a lion in at least a conventional sense; as it is, we can't even speak of a caged lion without using the word "lion". We rely on paradigms-in-isolation because they're very convenient for communication purposes. Where my viewpoint appears to diverge from yours is that I see a cage as an environment in its own right too, as is a bathtub, or outer space. In absolute terms the lion cannot be independent of its environment wherever it is, nor can the environment be independent of its lion; the sheer impossibility of it is a hard fact. But we tend to ignore this as so much background noise, so we speak of the lion as if it were a discrete entity because language won't readily allow for anything else; we typically make the mistake of seeing the lion as separate, and this may account for language's shortcomings. Or it may be that language itself is the culprit. But to be honest, I'm of the opinion that in ultimate terms, one can't separate the two sides of that coin, either; one can only do so provisionally.

What I can agree on with you is that a caged lion is in an abnormal, forced environment, and as such cannot live to its fullest, most natural potential when we consider the original environment the creature developed from and is consequently built for. Of course freedom on the veld would be the most ideal and proper of circumstances for it, and I too find something tragic in any caged animal, no matter how well it is otherwise cared for. Not surprisingly, going to a zoo is not my idea of a good time. But I hesitate to go so far as to agree that, when caged, it is less of a lion, or not even a lion, all because of abnormal conditions imposed upon it; regardless of its surrounding context, it will still behave entirely as a lion in meeting those conditions.

Author:  DrPhill [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
I do it all the time, consciously, but purely for expressive purposes. For example, I might say, "His attitude underwent a quantum shift." Is that the sort of thing that irritates you? Because I don't think I'm prepared to give it up.

Feel no obligation to protect my sensitivities at the expense of your own. I do not believe in a 'right not to be offended' - I was off sick when they promised that and justice.

Nanohedron wrote:
Once I used the word "mayhem" and a lawyer admonished me, her contention being that as it was a legal term, it should only be reserved for use in a legal context. Well, it's a literary term too, but she couldn't be convinced. She must be endlessly aghast.

Good. lawyers would be exempt from a 'right not to be offended' even if one existed.
Words have meanings, and in different contexts they have different meanings. Sometimes the differences are subtle, sometimes not. What is interesting is that the contexts themselves are made of words, so a word informs its context and is informed by it. All pleasingly complex. Words like 'mayhem' and 'quantum' have general purpose meaning - meanings that can be used in many contexts. In certain contexts they pick up more specialised meanings. I would not quibble with either of their uses you describe.

When however lots of words that do not belong together are used together it is hard to define the context, and therefore interpret the words. An extreme example of how I perceive this is given by SebPearce.

Author:  Nanohedron [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

DrPhill wrote:

"Page not found." But no matter - I Googled the name and lo and behold, I have never seen such a parade of utter poppycock gathered together all in one place. Very entertaining. Here's one of the less turgid examples: "Where there is illusion, being cannot thrive." I beg to differ; look all around you. :twisted:

Author:  DrPhill [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
An holistic approach to the question of lion-ness, and it somewhat parallels my own philosophy.

I am unusual in that I have a reasonably strong belief that the relationships between things are likely more important and possbly more fundamental than the things themselves. Defending this viewpoint on this forum would be a complex endeavour that I am not sure I could acomplish to my own satisfaction, let alone that of the critical reader. I mention it because it is more holistic than holisticism. Holistic is defined (for example by Merriam-Webster ) as "relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts " Which still deals with things, just bigger things made of collections of smaller things. I am more interested in the relationships between the things (include this-is-part-of-that, and that-contains-some-this).

What this does is create an interactive web of relationships at all scales where each node (what is related to other whats) is defined by its relationships, and if those relationships change then the 'what' needs must change by definition. That does in fact make me well wyrd.

Author:  DrPhill [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
DrPhill wrote:

"Page not found." But no matter - I Googled the name and lo and behold, I have never seen such a parade of utter poppycock gathered together all in one place. Very entertaining. Here's one of the less turgid examples: "Where there is illusion, being cannot thrive." I beg to differ; look all around you. :twisted:


Seems the profanity expunger has mangled the url.
Should have been the adult version of http://sebpearce.com/bullshot/

Author:  Nanohedron [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

DrPhill wrote:
What this does is create an interactive web of relationships at all scales where each node (what is related to other whats) is defined by its relationships, and if those relationships change then the 'what' needs must change by definition. That does in fact make me well wyrd.

Wyrd only in certain circles. Deep Interconnectedness/The Net of Being/Dependent Origination/Call-It-What-You-Will has a longstanding currency with various iterations and implications in classical Eastern thought, and I'm on board with the general concept myself. "Interbeing" is a fairly recent term arising out of that proposition, but while proponents would assure us that it is simply a fresh reframing of well-trod ground that is always easily universal to all - and it is indeed all that - it is also deeply concerned with ethics, and its roots are such that it is better Chiffly practice to now leave off in the interests of disengaging from religious discussion. In the West, I think it was the philosopher Heraclitus who pursued interconnectedness, but it didn't catch on there because it didn't fit in with the more prevalent inclinations of Plato and company toward forming archetypes. This coming from a layman, so do feel free to correct me.

Dizzying transports of interconnectedness notwithstanding, I find that I still have to wash the dishes. Wasn't it Donovan who said, "First there is a lion, then there is no lion, then there is."? :wink:

DrPhill wrote:

Same thing: "Page not found." But again, no matter.

Author:  busterbill [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

This morning I realized that I had co-opted two common phrases often used wryly, "Pardon me," and "Excuse me," in a particular way to a particular being, that being: my labrador retriever. "Pardon me," spoken at the normal conversational tone with a touch of sarcasm is exclusively reserved for her beginning to root around in my pocket for my leather gloves while my coat is thrown over the back of a chair. (Interestingly enough she never thinks to do this when the coat is on its hook even though the pocket is in easy nose reach.) While, "Excuse me?" is my go to for, "Why is your nose on the edge of the kitchen table? Nothing for you here. Please move on." I can't think of a single human being or another animal who would understand my meaning with those phrases. But she does.

Author:  Nanohedron [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Any idea how long you've been saying those in such a consistent way to her?

Author:  busterbill [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
Any idea how long you've been saying those in such a consistent way to her?

She's 3.5 years old. So I'd say 2.25 years give or take. I think it is that I am saying something, more that what I am saying that is getting her attention. But my brain is picking the same things over and over for different but similar "No-s". So I have developed a language that is peculiar to her. I've had a number of dogs and I've likely spoken to all of them similarly. The first year is the exciting year with a lot of big firm No, Drop It, Knock it off, Sit, Give, Go to your crate, wait, etc. commands indoors and out. And when she is out in the interesting and great smelling world I still have to do my share of the loud one word commands to keep her from eating that 'possum or barking at the garbage man or the guys cleaning the gutters next door with a leaf blower. But after those early doggy teen years everything that goes on in the house is pretty old hat. :) "Oh really?" in a subtle monotone seems to be her cue to get off my side of the bed. She knows where she's allowed to sleep, but I go upstairs and find her on my spot every time. She does not need the reading light, but she looks at me and waits for me to say something before she moves. It is a game, this talking to people stuff.

Author:  Nanohedron [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

busterbill wrote:
She knows where she's allowed to sleep, but I go upstairs and find her on my spot every time. She does not need the reading light, but she looks at me and waits for me to say something before she moves.

Hope springs eternal. :lol:

I think every cat I've had has made a point of sitting on my spot, and just on general principle; it's not as if gravity wasn't to be had anywhere else. I'd go through the motions and say things like, "Oh, really?" or "That's my spot, you know," and they'd just look at me sweetly with a whiff of defiance as if to say, "But I am The Cat, and as long as I sit here, it is mine." The outcome was never in question, but I had to be the one to physically move them every time. They usually purred. All part of the game.

Author:  benhall.1 [ Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
DrPhill wrote:

Same thing: "Page not found." But again, no matter.

You picked up that when DrPhill said, "the adult version of ...," he meant you to substitute an i for the o?

The quantum soup is calling to you via four-dimensional superstructures. Can you hear it?

Author:  DrPhill [ Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

benhall.1 wrote:
You picked up that when DrPhill said, "the adult version of ...," he meant you to substitute an i for the o?

Maybe I was too cryptic.

Nanohedron wrote:
Deep Interconnectedness.....
I must have read lots of this many years ago, absorbed it and forgotten about it until your nudge. Maybe I will go back and look.


To bring my ramble back to the topic.... the USA word-horde and the UK word-horde are each defined by, and in turn define the words within them. Some of the words appear similar but have subtley different meanings. There is great fun to be had comparing the different meanings. Just like the lion in the serengeti, if you take the 'pants' from the USA word-horde and put it in the UK word-horde it is no longer the same beast.

EDIT: The goal of sonar energy is to plant the seeds of spacetime rather than ego.

Author:  ytliek [ Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Nanohedron wrote:
I have never seen such a parade of utter poppycock gathered together all in one place.


Just loosely following thread, but, poppycock is a favorite of mine and certainly differs from the New Age take on it. In fact, I think I'm addicted to the original.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppycock

Image

Author:  Tunborough [ Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

ytliek wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:
I have never seen such a parade of utter poppycock gathered together all in one place.


Just loosely following thread, but, poppycock is a favorite of mine and certainly differs from the New Age take on it. In fact, I think I'm addicted to the original.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppycock

Image


Alas, I fear Nano's poppycock is the original: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poppycock.
Quote:
mass noun, informal

Nonsense.
‘he said I was talking poppycock’

Origin:
Mid 19th century: from Dutch dialect pappekak, from pap ‘soft’ + kak ‘dung’.

Author:  ytliek [ Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

I will concede to the ref poppycock with the origin including 'dung'. :shock:

Page 4 of 13 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/