This is one of the reasons that it helps to refresh the language through introduction of new terms. The novelty primes a certain openness - what does this word mean? - which can then help to connect people to the same thought-form. As an example, saying 'communism' or 'capitalism' or 'fascism' will often lead to precisely the misunderstandings you describe, but a term like 'globohomo' or 'Empire of Lies' can more successfully point to the entity in question while skirting ideological preconceptions.
The meaning of words involves relations to all other meanings of words, plus subjective associations, gaps of meaning, vagueness, making for a personalised form of the language as a whole that is always incomplete, but the common of language is incomparably greater than the subjective difference, having the ballast of several millennia of communication on its side versus our individual contribution to meaning over only a few decades. For the same species, embodiment is a common referent, endowing us with the same sense of proportion, a common physical measure of the world and way of relating to it; I call the body a ‘highly integrated’ item of meaning. Ultimately, only the “common” is language, and everything subjective is not yet articulated and socially integrated.
Deeper, more subtle misunderstandings can be unraveled and possibly resolved only through deliberation. By communicating in good faith we converge on common understanding, slowly uncover subtle differences of context and meaning by revealing more detail that can be decoded from what we already have in common, but by doing so something else also happens: we create new, common meaning, we integrate the subjective in the objective. We should not expect to be understood instantly, as understanding is work, an act of creative collaboration that literally creates the world we are in.
Tangential thoughts that I had while reading this:
What you are talking about is related to the level of 'integratedness' of our society. Our society is very atomised and thus words do not convey as much as we would like them to. The study of the classics was a way to tie everyone in a culture together, call it a Good Old Boys' Club if you want, but everyone with a classical education understood what others with such an education were saying. A highly integrated society would be something like medieval Christendom, where most people were very confident of what their place was. In our society, no one knows where they belong. We constantly feel that our position is fraudulent or undeserved and anxiety about who and what we are is nonstop. So, in our society people with the same ideas cannot associate because they use different, even contradictory, words to express those ideas. When people with the same ideas can associate you live in a society where the power structure is built on ideas, but because those with shared ideas cannot effectively coordinate, power is not based on ideas but on lower level things like physical resources, location, heredity.
"Or have you ever tried to explain to someone who deeply believes everything is just fine with our Western governments why some of the WEF drivel about green energy, smart cities, inclusive language, and pandemic responses literally makes your soul cry out in agony and pain?"
~
Yes - more times than I can almost remember - when you are in agony and pain crying out is sometimes the only thing to do, but sometimes you almost just have to laugh about it - it is so inexplicable almost indomitable but irrefutable for sure.
~
Humor me please, but I'm going to translate the above statement into a few languages:
French goes first:
Oui - plus de fois que je ne m'en souviens presque - lorsque vous êtes à l'agonie et que la douleur pleure est parfois la seule chose à faire, mais parfois vous devez presque en rire - c'est tellement inexplicable presque indomptable mais irréfutable à coup sûr.
~~~~German~~~~~
Ja – öfter, als ich mich fast erinnern kann – wenn man Qualen und Schmerzen hat, ist manchmal das einzige, was man tun kann, zu schreien, aber manchmal muss man fast nur darüber lachen – es ist so unerklärlich, fast unbezähmbar, aber mit Sicherheit unwiderlegbar.
~~~~~Russian~~~~~~
Да, больше раз, чем я почти могу вспомнить, когда вы в агонии и боли иногда кричите - это единственное, что можно сделать, но иногда вы почти просто должны смеяться над этим - это так необъяснимо, почти неукротимо, но несомненно неопровержимо.
Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here - how the heck is somebody supposed to type something to somebody else if there is no way to "trigger" the one you are typing it towards to respond?
So, I'm not sure "not getting triggered" ought be the objective of good communication, but it is important to be aware of what might trigger ya - regardless, I think what matters is to simply remain inwit - inwyt if you prefer. Keep your wits about you. If something triggers you, then maybe that is something you want to discuss?
Its like, why would I want to post a comment here if your article didn't inspire me to do as such? Perhaps it is the word "trigger" that needs closer examination.
This is one of the reasons that it helps to refresh the language through introduction of new terms. The novelty primes a certain openness - what does this word mean? - which can then help to connect people to the same thought-form. As an example, saying 'communism' or 'capitalism' or 'fascism' will often lead to precisely the misunderstandings you describe, but a term like 'globohomo' or 'Empire of Lies' can more successfully point to the entity in question while skirting ideological preconceptions.
Some preliminary reflections…
The meaning of words involves relations to all other meanings of words, plus subjective associations, gaps of meaning, vagueness, making for a personalised form of the language as a whole that is always incomplete, but the common of language is incomparably greater than the subjective difference, having the ballast of several millennia of communication on its side versus our individual contribution to meaning over only a few decades. For the same species, embodiment is a common referent, endowing us with the same sense of proportion, a common physical measure of the world and way of relating to it; I call the body a ‘highly integrated’ item of meaning. Ultimately, only the “common” is language, and everything subjective is not yet articulated and socially integrated.
Deeper, more subtle misunderstandings can be unraveled and possibly resolved only through deliberation. By communicating in good faith we converge on common understanding, slowly uncover subtle differences of context and meaning by revealing more detail that can be decoded from what we already have in common, but by doing so something else also happens: we create new, common meaning, we integrate the subjective in the objective. We should not expect to be understood instantly, as understanding is work, an act of creative collaboration that literally creates the world we are in.
Tangential thoughts that I had while reading this:
What you are talking about is related to the level of 'integratedness' of our society. Our society is very atomised and thus words do not convey as much as we would like them to. The study of the classics was a way to tie everyone in a culture together, call it a Good Old Boys' Club if you want, but everyone with a classical education understood what others with such an education were saying. A highly integrated society would be something like medieval Christendom, where most people were very confident of what their place was. In our society, no one knows where they belong. We constantly feel that our position is fraudulent or undeserved and anxiety about who and what we are is nonstop. So, in our society people with the same ideas cannot associate because they use different, even contradictory, words to express those ideas. When people with the same ideas can associate you live in a society where the power structure is built on ideas, but because those with shared ideas cannot effectively coordinate, power is not based on ideas but on lower level things like physical resources, location, heredity.
"Or have you ever tried to explain to someone who deeply believes everything is just fine with our Western governments why some of the WEF drivel about green energy, smart cities, inclusive language, and pandemic responses literally makes your soul cry out in agony and pain?"
~
Yes - more times than I can almost remember - when you are in agony and pain crying out is sometimes the only thing to do, but sometimes you almost just have to laugh about it - it is so inexplicable almost indomitable but irrefutable for sure.
~
Humor me please, but I'm going to translate the above statement into a few languages:
French goes first:
Oui - plus de fois que je ne m'en souviens presque - lorsque vous êtes à l'agonie et que la douleur pleure est parfois la seule chose à faire, mais parfois vous devez presque en rire - c'est tellement inexplicable presque indomptable mais irréfutable à coup sûr.
~~~~German~~~~~
Ja – öfter, als ich mich fast erinnern kann – wenn man Qualen und Schmerzen hat, ist manchmal das einzige, was man tun kann, zu schreien, aber manchmal muss man fast nur darüber lachen – es ist so unerklärlich, fast unbezähmbar, aber mit Sicherheit unwiderlegbar.
~~~~~Russian~~~~~~
Да, больше раз, чем я почти могу вспомнить, когда вы в агонии и боли иногда кричите - это единственное, что можно сделать, но иногда вы почти просто должны смеяться над этим - это так необъяснимо, почти неукротимо, но несомненно неопровержимо.
~~~~Chinese (traditional)~~~~
是的-比我幾乎記得的次數還要多-當您處於痛苦之中並且痛苦地哭泣有時是唯一要做的事情，但有時您幾乎只需要為此大笑-它是如此莫名其妙，幾乎是不屈不撓的，但確實是無可辯駁的。
~~~~~~
Tis fair to conclude words are tricky - I prefer face-to-face communication, but without good translation communication suffers.
Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here - how the heck is somebody supposed to type something to somebody else if there is no way to "trigger" the one you are typing it towards to respond?
So, I'm not sure "not getting triggered" ought be the objective of good communication, but it is important to be aware of what might trigger ya - regardless, I think what matters is to simply remain inwit - inwyt if you prefer. Keep your wits about you. If something triggers you, then maybe that is something you want to discuss?
Its like, why would I want to post a comment here if your article didn't inspire me to do as such? Perhaps it is the word "trigger" that needs closer examination.