If you don't respect the integrity of WORDS your thoughts are crap

by Terry 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Phizzy

    Well done again Terry, I do agree with Fink that, though I love reading your posts, they may be too wordy for some, perhaps a succinct summary at the end would help such ones, so they do not lose that chance of gleaning your wisdom entirely.

    As I read your O.P I was thinking that a short version of your advice should be added to the posting guidelines on JWN, Newbies often fall in to the trap of not making their thoughts clear, and sometimes we attack them for what they are apparently saying , which is not what they meant, and then we scare them off.

    Etymology is a favourite area of mine, I love to find the origin and greater meaning of words, once we English get somewhat adept at it, we can often work a lot out for ourselves about a word, you Americans , lacking the ability to spell almost anything correctly, must have more difficulty, which probably accounts for your lack of ability in the area of Pronunciation too.

    ....................... Phizzy, having lit the blue touch-paper retires to the safety of his Nuclear Bomb Proof shelter. (That's pronounced New-clee-ar , not Nookewler).

  • Terry

    “The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

    — Zhuangzi

    I can't embrace relativism as a means of gaining knowledge about the world. Zhuangzi, being Chinese, was likely never exposed to Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle and Western Logic. Consequently, he fell into the quagmire of relativism and embracing opposites. Illogic was no basis for science, technology, medicine and progress that the West produced.

    If we truly believe we cannot know--why would we even pursue the gathering of data? No, I can't see the merit of a philosophy the deliberately tosses away an advantage.

  • Terry

    Well done again Terry, I do agree with Fink that, though I love reading your posts, they may be too wordy for some, perhaps a succinct summary at the end would help such ones, so they do not lose that chance of gleaning your wisdom entirely.

    Writers and readers enter into a bargain of sorts. The reader sets out to gain by spending. If the going gets rough the cost may be greater than the reward.

    You suggest a succint summary from me and I understand what you're getting at. However, I'm not a teacher. I'm a writer. It is the writing itself which is my reward.

    Consequently, by removing the process I remove my pleasure in writing.

    This is a Discussion Board and I'm putting my thoughts and manner of expression out there. A discussion or Meeting of the Minds can ensue. Or not.

    That's my goal. We can sharpen each other by discourse. Or not.

    Perhaps better advice to Old Terry would be, "Try and write better!" Well, I am trying:)

  • jgnat

    I relate to Zhuangzi. The word will only ever be a representaton.

  • jgnat

    I am blessed (or cursed) with a mind that can both observe the whole and describe its component parts. I know from my time with art students that most people are blind to the whole.


    All they see is the symbol.


    Now, if someone wants to dispute that an apple is not really an "apple", that's a conversation stopper. We have to be speaking the same language to come to mutual understanding.

    Imagine before the camera, how an artist might depict a sea-monster as described by the sailor.


    Without common context, the result could be fantastical.


  • Larsinger58

    Words are wonderful. Language is wonderful. Wonderful for specifics. But numbers are more specific, and often the flexibility of words are used, especially in Jewish culture, to have one meaning for some and another for others.

    For instance, the reference that Jesus would be "called a Nazarene" is a play on the meaning of that word. It means "branch." A branch or twig in Jewish culture was a euphemism for a "eunuch", that is, someone born gay (Matt. 19:12). The connection there is that a branch or twig is the end of the genealogy line. Someone who is a eunuch ends that line. Those who marry and have children are like a tree that grows and branches out to many lines.

    But more exciting is art and images! For instance, the "sign of the son of man" is an image of a sleeping black child's face. That communicates concepts about the Christ that goes beyond a lot of words. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words." On that note, the WTS knows the value of "subliminal" messages vesus words and thus they come under fire for their "subliminal art", such as their inclusion of the image of the "sign of the son of man" in the Revelation Book. The image means nothing to those who do not know what it is, but everything to those who do. Everyone can see the symbol but not everyone knows the message behind that symbol.

    face in hand

    Words, fancy words are wonderful. They have their purpose. But images convey concepts beyond words. We need both.

  • Terry

    Now, if someone wants to dispute that an apple is not really an "apple", that's a conversation stopper. We have to be speaking the same language to come to mutual understanding.

    I personally keep very separate categories so that there is no overlapping magesterium!

    If I am holding an apple in my hand I would clearly say "This apple exists".

    If I am holding a photograph in my hand I would clearly state "This photograph exists, but, the actual apple may no longer exist."

    If I am holding a drawing of an apple I would disambiguate by saying "This drawing represents an apple. The drawing exists. The apple is conceptual."

    If I see a person on TV holding an apple I would say "Those images exist. I don't know if the person or the apple still exist."

    No, I wouldn't ACTUALLY say that unless I was---as I am here---really trying to be as precise as possible in my descriptions.

    In everyday conversations we approximate rather than explicate.

    Eastern Philosophy, to my way of thinking, is like turning your home burglar alarm over to a burglar!

    Holding opposites in one's mind is dangerous to rational thinking. Existence is binary.

    It is the fuzzy mystical way of thinking that allows otherwise intelligent humans to say the word DEAD and really mean "Alive in spirit somewhere". I say Fooey.

    I'm sure if JGNat and I were having a direct conversation we would be be able to articulate exactly what we did or did NOT intend to communicate.

    But, with some other people on JWnet I'm not so sure :)

  • Terry

    I was an artist, had an art studio and an art business. I worked in a gallery and was also a custom framer. I had art coming out of my pores for about 20 years.

    Very little of the art which humans embrace as in the realm of Greatness is meant to depict anything at all as far as the intention to communicate by the artist to the public.

    People tend to project "meaning".

    Religion is very similar.

    Reading into a text is the most profitable pastime of the true believer and the wealthy religionist!

    What is, is.

    What is not, is not.

    Treating it all as the same is a failure to think rationally.

    Your mileage may vary, of course....

  • james_woods

    I see you are posting in bold type, Terry.

    Are you in danger of being influenced by BizzyBee?

    I admit that her pictures are quite beautiful...

  • Terry

    From Douglas Hofstader and Daniel Dennett:

    In brief, then, a representational system is built on categories; it sifts incoming data into those categories, when necessary refining or enlarging its network of internal categories; its representations or "symbols" interact among themselves

    according to their own internal logic; this logic, although it runs without ever consulting the external world, nevertheless creates a faithful enough model of the way the world works that it manages to keep the symbols pretty much "in phase"

    with the world they are supposed to be mirroring. A television is thus not a representational system, as it indiscriminately throws dots onto its screen without regard to what kinds of things they represent, and the patterns on the screen do not

    have autonomy-they are just passive copies of things "out there." By contrast, a computer program that can "look" at a scene and tell you what is in that scene comes closer to being a representational system. The most advanced artificial

    intelligence work on computer vision hasn't yet cracked that nut. A program that could look at a scene and tell you not only what kinds of things are in the scene, but also what probably caused that scene and what will probably ensue in it-that

    is what we mean by a representational system. In this sense, is a country a representational system? Does a country have a symbol level? We'll leave this one for you to ponder on.

Share this