Re: Duped By Language (was RE: Objective Media?)

From: Devon White (devon@thegreatwork.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 09:01:42 MDT

  • Next message: John K Clark: "Re: Right and left liberal and conservative"

    Lee writes

    > >
    > > I think that the majority of Americans (people
    > > less interested in the rigor of intellect and
    > > logic of a group like this as well as less
    > > inclined or able to analyze the details and
    > > structure of arguments being presented to them)
    > > are consistently tricked, duped, programmed - by
    > > a language that denies or regretfully forgets
    > > the major discoveries made by physicists in the
    > > 1920's and anthropologists ever since.
    >
    > But that was prior to 1933 when we all got
    > straightened out.

    Oh, what a man he was (sarcasm). The first mad visionary to bring
    human eugenics to such a massive and structured level.

    >
    > > Namely, that there are multiple interpretations
    > > of every situation, i.e. light seem like a wave
    > > if we test it like this and a particle if we do
    > > it like this. I.e. peace loving hippies or dirty,
    > > jobless, commies i.e. "Jimmy Carter takes a cheap
    > > shot at president Bush!" or "Jimmy Carter, Tellin'
    > > it like it is." etc . . .
    >
    > Curious how until 1933 humanity had not been yet
    > favored by evolution to adopt appropriate and sane
    > speech patterns. One might have thought that given
    > several hundred thousand years, nineteen civilizations,
    > innumerable tribes and nations and societies competing
    > with each other, better techniques of thinking and
    > reasoning were not stumbled upon. So the burden of
    > explanation must now lie with those who claim that
    > the ways humans think now and have been thinking
    > since 1610 are unfit.
    >

    Sarcasm again? I'm not sure. Just in case, to clarify,
    i don't think that humanity has not developed "appropriately."
    Rather i think that in the case of relativity and the Copenhagen
    Interpretation as with much of scientific history it takes
    a while for new discoveries to reach popular culture. More, i will
    enjoy the emergence of the type of thinking i think come about from
    the integration of quantum thinking. (This seems inevitable and is
    already happening due to the proliferation of quantum technology
    such as computers).

    Language being what it is, and shaping the way
    people and cultures think, in the way s that it does
    leads me to be hopefully curious as to how the addition of
    quantum language or even more simply language patterns
    like e-prime will affect human behavior.
    E-prime has already been hailed by many a semanticist
    as a useful tool in getting out of the bias of Aristotelian "IS" logic
    and making accessible the experience and understanding
    of neurological relativity.

    In anycase, i personally am not going to try and prove that
    "the ways humans think now and have been thinking since
    1610 are unfit." If you want the refernces to the research on
    how language affects culture and behavior let me know and i'll
    get it to you when i return from vacation - next tuesday.

    In general, i hold the position that - hopefully without getting too
    pedantic or zen about this - things are as they are. Life is. And, based
    on the outcomes desired i take in the most accurate information i can
    and make my decisions based on those as to how to think about the
    world better (i.e. in a more and more logical and well-formed manner)
    and act with the ability to most easily get the results i want.
     
    In this case, i think that the idea and philosophy behind e-prime
    is a wonderful tool for well-formed thinking.

    Furthermore i'm less excited about trying to show something
    i don't believe - i.e. the world was"unfit," and more interested in
    experimenting and demonstrating what *is* possible. (I'm currently in
    the process of this so we'll have to wait a few years before we get
    any worthwhile results. I'll happily share the details with anyone
    interested.)

    > (It is well to keep in mind that those societies which
    > produce the highest viable birth ratios, e.g. Europe
    > before 1910 and the United States before about the same
    > time, are the most fit. Today European biological
    > fitness has reached in some places the incredible 1.1
    > ---unsurviveability to an extreme degree.)

    I don't understand what this means: "Today European biological
    fitness has reached in some places the incredible 1.1
    ---unsurviveability to an extreme degree.)"

    Could you please explain?

    > > Maybe general semantics and a course of logic should
    > > be included in journalism schools.
    >
    > Yes, it is indeed sad to see even young reporters who
    > lapse immediately upon graduation to the two-valued
    > prevalent aristotelian orientations, adopt bad s.r,
    > e.g., fail to adopt *structural* and multi-ordinal
    > semanitic relations, employ elementalistic terminology,
    > intensional definitions, employ undue generalization,
    > unanalyzed linguistic habits., to such a degree that
    > it's probably too late to re-educate the younger
    > generation with null-A non-habitual s.r, remove
    > semantic blockages,.

    what is s.r?
    also, what is null-A- habitual s.r.?

    Thanks Lee.

    Best,
    -=devon=-

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 09:13:21 MDT