Power of Words

[YMix]

Isn't ~ back as Aferim? Maybe feck is Amos.

[Demon of Undoing]

Isn't ~ back as Aferim? Maybe feck is Amos.

Amos, bless his cantankerous soul, is a poet. Wouldn't take the thing that way.

[Ibrahim]

It's somebody... I'm bad with names I guess.

[Azrael]

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=2360#pr2368

Not a mature response,

Neither is this, amigo

Hello An -

MY experience, arguably longer and of greater breadth than yours, suggests my words have more effect on those who want or expect something from me, and no effect whatsoever on water flow.
Your experience may be different though. Indeed, so may everyone else's. With 6 billion stories of experience, there's little chance to hear them all. Thanks for sharing yours with us, but how is it relevant to my experience?

All bow down before the longer and greater breadth of feck's experience!

Such a wise man, that feck. We are so unworthy to bask in his wisdom. Our trivial stories of experience are irrelevant to so great a sage. Feeling the slightest bit of kinship with lesser beings is beneath the great shining one.

One immature response deserves another. Had enough, or should I have Odin sic his owl on you?

[ansuchin]

An, in my readings of your posts over the last year or two, I regard you as an aesthetic treasure. A joy to read and a pleasure to contemplate, your thoughts have been as sunbeams on flowers, even as you discuss the recent work of Penrose or what it's like to suspect ill intentions in others - I imagine you as possessing a certain grace in your physical presence as well, as that's usually representative of a certain state of mind. A rare gem you are, in my estimation and experience. We're lucky to have you here.

Thank you for your very kind and most generous words, feck.

The challenges for me on forums like this have always been the absence of the cultural and interpersonal contexts that I am accustomed to in my everyday life. As a non-native English speaker born into a society with highly developed rules and contexts governing conversation, communicating on Western forums has often been difficult for me, but has also been a welcome challenge for me to broaden and to develop my cultural and linguistic skills. Probably because I come from what has been described as a high context communication culture, I sometimes though have not adapted well to these Euro-American digital conversation venues.

The formal, circumspect communication style that I am accustomed to using in respect and deference to people I do not know may well come across as conceited, evasive, or overly calculated and serious to people unfamiliar with my background, even though those are certainly not my intentions. Conversely, the direct, context free style of Western people can strike me as rude and boorish, even though I realise that is often not their intentions either. I have been oversensitive in my responses in the past, but I believe I am doing better with that.

My initial response to Azari's video was my attempt to share my own experiences and what I have learnt from them over the years partly in response to the cultural, communication challenges I discussed above. In my own life, I have also been working to perfect my application of the fourth Buddhist precept governing mindful speech, so, yes, words are indeed sacred to me. I also appreciate that my cultural and religious backgrounds are very different from almost all of the participants here, so I certainly never expected what I said would apply entirely to anyone else or be superior to their understandings. As I said before, I hope what I said may be helpful to some and provoke some contemplation in others, but I also realise that my reflections may be meaningless to some here as well.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the consistency of our philosophical stances, particularly when they come up against other stances. Conversely, if Joe Stalin said "2+2=4, mod2", and showed his work, it would be hard to disagree with his use of maths on the basis of his tone.

Logical and methodological consistency are essential to problem assessments and solutions in science and mathematics. However, I am not sure what is meant by the consistency of "philosophical stances" or why the continuity of our established conceptual frameworks that govern our beliefs and attitudes in life should necessarily matter. As far as comrade Stalin goes, if I were his Russian contemporary, it would hardly be prudent for me to disagree with the logic and consistency of the "Coryphaeus of Science" or the "Brilliant Genius of Humanity" as he was promoted at the time regardless of his tone or his capability in mathematics unless I wished to disappear some night to be taken out and shot by his NKVD.

[feck]

<Logical and methodological consistency are essential to problem assessments and solutions in science and mathematics. However, I am not sure what is meant by the consistency of "philosophical stances" or why the continuity of our established conceptual frameworks that govern our beliefs and attitudes in life should necessarily matter. >




Why would you for one moment consider forms of consistency to be essential in maths and sciences?

[feck]

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=2360#pr2368

Not a mature response,

Neither is this, amigo

Hello An -

MY experience, arguably longer and of greater breadth than yours, suggests my words have more effect on those who want or expect something from me, and no effect whatsoever on water flow.
Your experience may be different though. Indeed, so may everyone else's. With 6 billion stories of experience, there's little chance to hear them all. Thanks for sharing yours with us, but how is it relevant to my experience?

All bow down before the longer and greater breadth of feck's experience!

Such a wise man, that feck. We are so unworthy to bask in his wisdom. Our trivial stories of experience are irrelevant to so great a sage. Feeling the slightest bit of kinship with lesser beings is beneath the great shining one.

One immature response deserves another. Had enough, or should I have Odin sic his owl on you?

not gettin the Odin thing. sorry


as for "feck's experience" read more of the thread. ...that was An's petard


Defaulting to one's "Life experience", however vast it may be, is just not a good way to answer a question in most cases. Particularly with strangers, and even moreso when one is ~27.

On the Internet, it's tantamount to saying, "I'm right because I assume I make more money than you!"

Both An and I are over it though. Any thoughts on my suggestion that philosophy is probably more efficient when discussing ideas instead of personalities, and without assigning those ideas faces in a mental theater?


Odin?

[Ibrahim]

feck, who did you post as previously?

[Marcus]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world:

As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

[Ibrahim]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world:

As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

You're making the is/ought mistake. Politicians are proof positive that we certainly do not speak our world in existence, but the world and its myriad problems exist in spite of what people claim. One hesitates to compare e.g. the budget ceiling dispute with God willing the universe into existence.

[Marcus]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world:

As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

You're making the is/ought mistake. Politicians are proof positive that we certainly do not speak our world in existence, but the world and its myriad problems exist in spite of what people claim. One hesitates to compare e.g. the budget ceiling dispute with God willing the universe into existence.

No mistake, Ibrahim, just a different, much broader, long-term point of view. Man proposes, God disposes.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

—from Genesis 11

[Azrael]

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=2360#pr2368

Not a mature response,

Neither is this, amigo

Hello An -

MY experience, arguably longer and of greater breadth than yours, suggests my words have more effect on those who want or expect something from me, and no effect whatsoever on water flow.
Your experience may be different though. Indeed, so may everyone else's. With 6 billion stories of experience, there's little chance to hear them all. Thanks for sharing yours with us, but how is it relevant to my experience?

All bow down before the longer and greater breadth of feck's experience!

Such a wise man, that feck. We are so unworthy to bask in his wisdom. Our trivial stories of experience are irrelevant to so great a sage. Feeling the slightest bit of kinship with lesser beings is beneath the great shining one.

One immature response deserves another. Had enough, or should I have Odin sic his owl on you?

not gettin the Odin thing. sorry

I didn't start it, I just ran with it. I thought it sounded funny. I don't quite get it either. I thought it had become a running joke.

as for "feck's experience" read more of the thread. ...that was An's petard


Defaulting to one's "Life experience", however vast it may be, is just not a good way to answer a question in most cases. Particularly with strangers, and even moreso when one is ~27.

On the Internet, it's tantamount to saying, "I'm right because I assume I make more money than you!"

Good point.

Both An and I are over it though.

Glad to hear it.

Any thoughts on my suggestion that philosophy is probably more efficient when discussing ideas instead of personalities,

In general I agree with that statement. However, the history of philosophy is very interesting and ideas don't appear out of a vacuum.

and without assigning those ideas faces in a mental theater?

In general I agree with that statement.

Odin?

He's not here anymore. He went looking for his owl. The darn thing flew off again.

[Ibrahim]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world:

As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

You're making the is/ought mistake. Politicians are proof positive that we certainly do not speak our world in existence, but the world and its myriad problems exist in spite of what people claim. One hesitates to compare e.g. the budget ceiling dispute with God willing the universe into existence.

No mistake, Ibrahim, just a different, much broader, long-term point of view. Man proposes, God disposes.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

—from Genesis 11

You have not defended your original statement in this reply.

[Marcus]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world: As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

You're making the is/ought mistake. Politicians are proof positive that we certainly do not speak our world in existence, but the world and its myriad problems exist in spite of what people claim. One hesitates to compare e.g. the budget ceiling dispute with God willing the universe into existence.

No mistake, Ibrahim, just a different, much broader, long-term point of view. Man proposes, God disposes.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”—from Genesis 11

You have not defended your original statement in this reply.

I don't think such "defense" advisable or useful, Ibrahim. It is what it is, that's all . . my way of understanding the nature of words and speech. Other folks think differently with views that exclude the possibility of my view. What's to be done in such a case except to agree to disagree?

[Ibrahim]

Back to the OP and the power of words on the world: As I see it, God spoke the cosmos into existence, and we, in like manner though derivatively, speak our world into existence. The future, as it were, rolls off our tongues.

You're making the is/ought mistake. Politicians are proof positive that we certainly do not speak our world in existence, but the world and its myriad problems exist in spite of what people claim. One hesitates to compare e.g. the budget ceiling dispute with God willing the universe into existence.

No mistake, Ibrahim, just a different, much broader, long-term point of view. Man proposes, God disposes.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”—from Genesis 11

You have not defended your original statement in this reply.

I don't think such "defense" advisable or useful, Ibrahim. It is what it is, that's all . . my way of understanding the nature of words and speech. Other folks think differently with views that exclude the possibility of my view. What's to be done in such a case except to agree to disagree?

So, really, all human interaction is ultimately pointless. You say what you think, somebody else says what they think, that's it that's all. No point to anything.

You stated that people "speak their world into existence," I point out that what people say and the actual reality of the world are often radically different, and your reply is just "ah, well people will disagree.... [Bible quote]?"

[Marcus]

So, really, all human interaction is ultimately pointless. You say what you think, somebody else says what they think, that's it that's all. No point to anything.

You stated that people "speak their world into existence," I point out that what people say and the actual reality of the world are often radically different, and your reply is just "ah, well people will disagree....

Well, no, that's not what I mean at all. But I do tend to think that argumentation is pointless more times than not. In the case of you and me described above, I might be right, but you are certainly right. The problem is that we, or at least me, are on different wave lengths.

I probably should have kept my mouth shut. No argument, Ibrahim: ". . the best spoken plans o' mice and men gang aft agley."

Apologies to Burns . .

[Azrael]

A friend informed me by PM that Odin's animal companion was a raven, rather than an owl. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

. . . which is cool, because ravens are even creepier and cooler.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Minerva has an owl. Whether it's the one that flies at midnight as Hegel refers to, I don't know......

[Ibrahim]

A friend informed me by PM that Odin's animal companion was a raven, rather than an owl. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

. . . which is cool, because ravens are even creepier and cooler.

Even better, he was TWO ravens. Hugin and Munin by name.

[Azrael]

Minerva has an owl.

That may have been what was in the back of my mind.

Whether it's the one that flies at midnight as Hegel refers to, I don't know......

Don't owls all fly at midnight? It seems that owl metaphors can get dangerous.

[Azrael]

A friend informed me by PM that Odin's animal companion was a raven, rather than an owl. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

. . . which is cool, because ravens are even creepier and cooler.

Even better, he was TWO ravens. Hugin and Munin by name.

A bird-brain who could be at two places at once . . . I guess that would make him the god of multitasking.

[Sparky]

A friend informed me by PM that Odin's animal companion was a raven, rather than an owl. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

. . . which is cool, because ravens are even creepier and cooler.

Even better, he was TWO ravens. Hugin and Munin by name.

Names infinitely improved if said with the Swedish chef accent.

[Simple Minded]

Sounds like someone takes herself WAY too seriously... and might have a problem distinguishing people from the ridiculous ideas they tend to spout...

there is a large amount of irony in what you say, and I am crediting you with being aware of all the ways it may be interpreted.

Subtle humor or a serious statement?

[Simple Minded]

Excellent thread, the kind that makes this place shine.

I finally got around to reading the whole thread. My interpretation is you are all treasures, maybe not in the eyes of others, but certainly in the eyes of God or your own opinions.

Obviously feck did not intend to offend Anshuchin, if he did not value her opionions, he would not reply.

Anshuchin is a double treasure in my opinion. An, please don't ever worry about offending Americans. American culture varies hugely from region to region, and group to group, most of us (myself included) aren't aware of all it's nuances. Water off a duck's back as they say.

In the big cities, "screw em if they can't take a joke" is commonly heard. In small towns, very different rules apply. Different ages, different meanings.

Never forget, what is received is often different than what is transmitted. Offense, if it apples (typo, but apples is funny), is an interpretation chossen by the receiver.

Luckily, so much of life is just, and those most apt to adopt the interpretation of being "offended...." often get their wish. Hmmm.... karma at work?

"Between stimulus and response man has the ability to choose." Viktor Frankl

"When aggitated, recall, this is a thought which is not necessary." Marcus Aurelius

[Odin!]

Not me guys. But thanks for the neat new handle!

Come back feck! You make some entirely valid points, as Ibrahim was the first to note here, but folks took your clear prose for mine and broke out the torches and pitchforks. Sorry Dude, it's me they're after.