In article , steveJ wrote:
Mr. Revere,
Since all discourse may eventually lead to boatbuilding, I find your
diatribe not completely off topic and will comment with the
response,... "whatever floats your boat".

I assume that by "diatribe" you refer to the archaic definition: a prolonged
discourse, to which I must confess.

Ya see, your comment...

To debate is an intellectual process that uses words precisely,
employing
reason and logic, to convey one's perspective to another in a way
that will
convince the other that one's perspective accurately reflects reality.

.....assumes that there is but one reality.

There are an infinite number of realities that are forever changing and
which, because of our human imperfection, can never be completely
understood, explained or described. Language, like the universe, is in
dynamic flux. Your requirement that language be consensual, restricts
its development and stifles its ability to express pure thought, of
which emotion, as well as spirituality, must be a part. To view language
as static lacks vision and appreciation for the miracle of creation and
life.

I do assume one objective reality. I do not assume it to be static.

In your mention of an "infinite number of realities" I assume you refer to the
"subjective reality" each sentient being "knows".

While not sure what you mean by "human imperfection", from my perspective,
human awareness of objective reality is incomplete due to the limited range of
our sense organs. And though I may be tempted to state we could never
comprehend objective reality if we could sense it, I realize that is a
hypothetical situation and therefore unknown.

Agreeing on the meanings of words doesn't restrict the growth and flow of the
language. As new words come into use, their acceptance or lack thereof is
noted in new additions of dictionaries.

I have not claimed that the people who determine the "meaning(s)" of words
just sit around and make up meanings and then demand that everyone bow to
their "wisdom".

They survey the actual use of words as new ones come into being or old ones
are used in novel ways, and through a process of debate, and discussion
determine the meanings of words as they are actually used by a majority of
people.

In fact, agreeing on the meanings of words facilitates the growth of language
by allowing communication to occur.

If the only people you could meaningfully communicate with were people in your
immediate neighborhood because there was no broad agreement on what meanings
to attached to the sound coming from the mouths of others, the English
language would not exist, much less grow.

And, as I noted, one is free to ignore agreed upon meanings and "express pure
thought" to one's heart's content. It is only when one wishes to have one's
"pure thought" understood by another that one must resort to words with agreed
upon meanings.

If you were a boatbuilder you would know this.


Paul Revere wrote:
Words are sounds created to symbolize an object or action or feeling or
quality or concept.

If each person attaches his own object, action, feeling, quality, or concept
to each sound, no communication is possible. A word without an agreed upon
meaning has *no* meaning.

A word's meaning takes form only when it is agreed upon.

Currently, to facilitate communication, people who study words professionally

decide by debate, discussion, and consensus how each sound is to be defined
(what it "means"), and its "proper" pronunciation. When a sound has more
than one meaning these meanings are listed in descending numerical order with

the meaning most often used in normal social discourse being assigned the
numeral "1". Examples are commonly given to clarify the meaning(s) further.
.
Each of us is free, of course, to ignore the agreed upon meanings of words,
and assign his own meaning to whatever word he desires. However, to do so,
as
far as communication is concerned, could be depicted as verbally spiting into

the wind. He is going to be the only one who "gets it".

To debate is an intellectual process that uses words precisely, employing
reason and logic, to convey one's perspective to another in a way that will
convince the other that one's perspective accurately reflects reality.

Too often, when reason and/or logic fail, one gives into the temptation to
resort to using words to elicit emotional responses and take the discourse
off
the intellectual table. This is the equivalent of knocking over the chess
board when you have concluded you can't win.

If one posts a thoughtful post, anticipating reasoned debate, and receives,
in
response, follow-ups containing name calling or taunts, what the responder is

actually communicating is that he is unable or unwilling to respond with
reason and logic to counter your argument and that he would like, not merely
to change the subject, but the game itself.

One then must decide whether to spend one's limited time engaging in a name
calling contest, or ignoring linguistic Neanderthals and refusing to be
distracted from one's original purpose.

I can tolerate common ignorance, what I find difficult is to tolerate
ignorance so profound that its bearer wears it proudly.

Able sincerely believes he knows the "truth". Cain, just as sincerely,
believes the "truth" to be something other than Abel's belief.

Both believe the other to be "wrong" despite knowing the sincerity and depth
of the other's belief, yet neither is likely to wonder whether he might be
wrong despite his own sincerity and depth of belief.

Though often quick to question the correctness of the beliefs of others, we
are reluctant to seriously examine our own.

We simply assume, when confronted with an idea that doesn't fit into our
world
view, that since we know the "truth" and since this "idea" isn't part of our
"truth", it must be "wrong" and, therefore, unworthy of examination and
honest
consideration; worthy, in fact, of nothing less than ridicule and rejection.

There are, of course, ideas not worthy of acceptance. If one gives an idea
honest research, examination and consideration and finds it defective in some

way, it is then worthy of rejection. Such rejection might best be expressed
with compassion and an attempt to explain the rejection using reason and
logic.

Ridicule should be saved for those who take pride in their refusal to
consider
the possibility they are wrong.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S.
government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an
unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)


"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)