Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Bare in mind here that Napster has said that he doesnt agree with the current meanings of our words, so all of his arguments about "understanding" are based on his own perverted meaning of the word and not the dictionary standard.

For an example, Napster could decide that an Apple is an Orange and argue to that point. You could of course provide facts and quotes from sources to deny this however he will simply babble on and stick firm on his ideals that it is indeed an orange. He is going out of his way to annoy people knowing full well what he says is bullshit saying it anyway under the guise of "testing" us to his own ends.

When replying to him in the future remember to not to take anything he says seriously and reply accordingly, so as to not get trapped by his perverted logic.

Be gentle also...his ego is more fragile then you might imagine.

If we cannot understand anything, that can be the only fact we can be sure of but, it must follow that we cannot understand that we do not understand anything. So, how do we survive? As I have already said, we make a model that imparts understanding to the world as we observe it. It is almost certainly a pseudounderstanding but as long as it works and as long as we are prepared to change it in the event of new information, that is the best we can do and we get by using that process. For example, once upon a time we knew what caused disease - humoral imbalance, demons, etc. New information rendered that obsolete, new theories came into use time and time again until we have our current medical orthodoxy, undoubtedly not correct but it works for most people.
We are hampered by our 3/4 dimensional existence. We can not see the world as it truly is, that can only be done by a being that can exist and observe outside of the multiverse. Imagine a highly intelligent fish that has a good working knowledge of his bit of ocean, theories that fit the ocean currents, temperature gradients and so on. He cannot have any understanding of what it is like to walk the moors (as is my wont) with the wind in my hair, mud on my boots, as much mystification in my head over the stone circles I see as he has of my world. But I do have some understanding, however inadequate, of his world. It is only at the top of the pyramid can absolute understanding be had and, depending on your belief, that is a position occupied by God, Gods or no one.

Boo hoo, Loki.

A definition of a word is just like an understanding. It is next to impossible to have a definition for a word that can cover all possible meanings. I think your insistance on using dictionary definitions stems from the UK public school system, which is just as warped and useless as ours, I hear. Lots of rote memorization, and little in the way of critical thinking and Socratic method.

All these kinds of debates are essentially debates over the definition of a word, in this case, understanding. I am not so much trying to make an overgeneralization as I am trying to refine our models of how the world works. I think the word understanding fails to appreciate the complexity of our situation. I have said that words take on lives of their own, and I think the word understanding has warped our perspective of reality.

You people have ignored all that and chosen to bitch and whine about my great ego.

And, Vile, are you mad that this was, what, the third time (twice in the same thread) that I've shut you up? Perhaps it is your ego that is fragile.

Only thing is, KingEdward, we clutch these petty mis-understandings tightly and think in our minds that they are inviolable. I think it is far better to drop the whole idea of trying to understand the world. I think that one will have a lot more fun once we can do that. I know, that without trying to force an incomplete understanding of a personal situation into my mind, things evolve naturally and beautifully. I don't have to try nearly as hard to maintain that understanding in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I can focus more on what I want out of life, instead of worrying that things are constantly going to fall down. I never had that particular worry, but I've known many people that did, including my former martial arts guru. I refuse to attend his classes anymore, because he forces his misunderstandings about Merpati Putih Pencac Silat on all of us and perverts it into "Mike's Martial Arts".

The lack of focus on a mis-understanding, has allowed me to pursue training with one of the top former students, on an informal basis. I can learn now what would have taken Mike six months to convey, a few weeks. I can also take charge of my training, instead of submitting to the paradigm of formal classes.

napsterbater
your insistance on using dictionary definitions
I media sausage then capitalism, invoke. Otherwise gauge render in suitably or fish (i.e. snow and bean) guitar, lacks struggle, for if yesterday. Happily now website Sunday, agog find loosely.

Please don't tell me you are a dictionary freak too, Blob.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
And, Vile, are you mad that this was, what, the third time (twice in the same thread) that I've shut you up? Perhaps it is your ego that is fragile.

Me mad? LOL. It would take a lot more than the mild annoyance you present Napster. I've dealt with far more difficult people than you.

You, on the other hand, have popped your cork more than once...:)


I'm sorry, but I am really losing my patience right now. Vile, it is probably better for you to close this thread, because it seems to be getting worse and worse, and I am not going to back down.

Napsterbater: Argue, argue, argue.
everybody else: bitch, bitch, ego, whine, ego, ego, logic, bitch.
Napsterbater: You guys are worthless!
everybody else: EGO!
Napsterbater: Yeah, no shit!

If you really want to know, go back and read every single thing I've posted. Then go and read my blog. Don't bother me with this shit!

Ahhh, I see, I see. These fools made me so hopping mad... *starts jumping up and down*

I don't know Napster, maybe you're taking all this too seriously...:)

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I think the word understanding fails to appreciate the complexity of our situation.

Then choose a word that does. But please stop trying to redefine the words we already have and use.

You lose what scrap of credibility you have when you do.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Please don't tell me you are a dictionary freak too, Blob.
Our thoughts find substance in words when in social settings. Our words die into thoughts when introspecting.

For the former dictionaries are great, though so too is deconstructionism and word creation. If I say "chav" or "minger" Loki will share the real world referants I have in mind but probably no one else here.

For the latter (introspection), the thoughts provoked by words are purely personal and deep and strange and intangible and dynamic and shifting. They are not the thoughts that would be provoked within me by the very same words tomorrow, or even in one minute's time. And they are far from the thoughts that would be provoked in any other individual.

I never know whether to be more amazed by our inability to know even our own true thoughts, let alone others; or by our ability to communicate with others despite this phenomenon.

Either way, long live the dictionary.

This came from my last thread.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Oh, and anger does weird things to me too. It takes quite a bit to make me angry, but I enjoy every second of it, it is like an indulgence. I indulge in the delicious feeling of wanting to flick somebody off, or cause some kind of harmless terror to them. The anger part of my brain often connects to the absurdity part, probably because I know how useless it is for people to get truly angry. So I'm pissed, and laughing at the same time. They combine into one weird, but neat emotion. I make a lot of people laugh when I am in this state. It is like reading a particularly funny rant on a blog.

Just like a woman who works for a phone sex line, I am pretending. Have you gotten off yet?

I suppose my lack of :) :) :) in my posts has thrown you off.

And Loki, to use a different word is to subvert my entire argument. Where is your reading comprehension? You hold so dearly on to your definitions that I cannot even discuss them?

You are awesome Blob. I was wondering when you would decide to join my little thread.

Yes, the dictionary is useful. Useful for when you have no idea what a word means or are confused about its pronunciation, or are interested in its etymology.

When discussing semantics, it only gets in the way.

And I know what a minger is, what we call a tramp, right?

I was wondering when you would decide to join my little thread.
I'm busy these days and don't expect to be around much.

And I know what a minger is, what we call a tramp, right?
Yes.

And regarding chav...

http://freespace.virgin.net/chav.scum/

Quite amusing, that website, but is the word nothing more than a backhanded insult of American "culture"?

Seems just as simplistic as the people it is bashing.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Bare in mind here that Napster has said that he doesnt agree with the current meanings of our words, so all of his arguments about "understanding" are based on his own perverted meaning of the word and not the dictionary standard.

For an example, Napster could decide that an Apple is an Orange and argue to that point. You could of course provide facts and quotes from sources to deny this however he will simply babble on and stick firm on his ideals that it is indeed an orange. He is going out of his way to annoy people knowing full well what he says is bullshit saying it anyway under the guise of "testing" us to his own ends.

When replying to him in the future remember to not to take anything he says seriously and reply accordingly, so as to not get trapped by his perverted logic.

Maybe he shoulda been a lawyer then he would have a legitimate platform to argue from.

Or perhaps a philosophy major! Then I can make the big bucks!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Or perhaps a philosophy major! Then I can make the big bucks!

ROFL :D

Originally posted by Napsterbater
[B] but is the word nothing more than a backhanded insult of American "culture"?[B]

How so?

Well, in the website Blob so thoughtfully provided, a chav is a guy who looks a hell of a lot like your average run-of-the-mill American youth, who listens to mostly rap, r&b, and dance music, watches movies like 2Fast2Furious and Romeo Must Die. They wear lots of gold jewellery and wear ball caps.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, in the website Blob so thoughtfully provided, a chav is a guy who looks a hell of a lot like your average run-of-the-mill American youth, who listens to mostly rap, r&b, and dance music, watches movies like 2Fast2Furious and Romeo Must Die. They wear lots of gold jewellery and wear ball caps. No doubt US bling-bling culture has influence, but the "chav" is a very British phenomenon.

Remember I mentioned the word "chav" because it's perhaps the newest, informal British media buzzword I could think of. I had no intention of defining it at the time - and added the web-link as a throw-away comment.

You'll never get a backhanded slur on other countries or cultures from me, Napsterbater.

Oh, I'm not accusing you of anything... How can you be blamed for how a word is used? :confused:

Being somebody who places much importance on the meanings and usage of words, the cultural subtexts of slang words fascinate me.

No worries, I just wanted to clarify.