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.
This also reminds me of Hayakawa’s “snarl words. “ The people shouting about “fascists” and “libtards” aren’t trying to convey information — they’re saying “I have very strong feelings.”
I think that dissidents on all sides are aware there is something very wrong in our current world, and they are very frightened by this. But instead of working to fix whatever they can of the damage, they are releasing their tension by lashing out at a convenient enemy like a fear-biting dog.
"Kenaz Filan" - I've taken the liberty to post some thoughts at your place. I hope you don't mind and I look forward to what you have to say about "freedom".
I think the 1st installment is the one I commented upon. It is bold to lay claim to telling other how to achieve freedom, but bold ideas are what are needed today I reckon.
To be fair upon re-reading all you said was "steps to break free" - so maybe in context that doesn't encompass freedom as a whole. I look forward to reading what you express.
I've listened to Luke (I think that is his name) many times and seen him in person (so to speak - it was actually video) and I respect his ideas and his expression of them. So, I hope you know my comments have no ill intent - I just kind of sense that anybody posting here has thought hard about current times as I have as well and I think we need to share together.
So for the fun of it, I'm gonna come up with a new word that I know I already typed, but when I checked it didn't seem to be in the dictionary. OK, ready - here is the word:
"Entreatment"
Maybe I'm wrong on that - if so, please - prove me wrong.
well-written. I've tried to "like" the article, but seems I'm not allowed to do that just now....or maybe I'm confused. I've posted comments. I appreciate it and I'd "like" it if I could, and I'm sure I will later if I haven't already - if you know what I mean....I mean you got words one at a time and then you have context.
Indeed, but, much like the dog that sees only the man before it and not the system that placed the man there, for most people it is the people before them they deal with directly. One may be quite aware of the system that produces blue-haired mentally ill NPCs, but as a practical matter it is that NPC who is the point of oppression - the orchestrators of it all being insulated by social, economic, and geographical distance. Similarly the general is the one giving orders, but it's his privates shooting at you, and they must be dealt with first.
In the interim, while saying haven't yet had a chance to transmute into easy-doing, a segment from tappable thought cloudform as fed through word modulator labelled Rolo’s ↓↓ should keep you covered 😉
🗨 I see a vaxxed up, meat-hating, doodle-covered Millennial and I already know that this person will do their best to destroy my life, or at least be rude to me at the coffeeshop, and so I keep my guard up or I just stay the hell away.[...] It may be that the elites engineering everything from behind the scenes are to blame, but it is their foot-soldiers that we have to contend with in our daily lives.[...] The only option is to deal with the threat that they pose, or to get the hell away.
Well, I honestly didn't know that effing nor entreatment were in the dictionary that I tend to reference, so now what do they say - 3 strikes and your out?
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.
I have been reading your text with great interest; I enjoyed to get a refresh that we can and should be with our own spirituality, and that it would be wrong to try to over-describe things, even argue about some things we know to be true and positive.
My favorite quote is this one: "Another good example for how language works that way are the familiar fist-fights around religion, God, atheism, theology, and so on. Again, it is about “thought-complex experience” rather than fictional word-object relationships."
"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.
This also reminds me of Hayakawa’s “snarl words. “ The people shouting about “fascists” and “libtards” aren’t trying to convey information — they’re saying “I have very strong feelings.”
I think that dissidents on all sides are aware there is something very wrong in our current world, and they are very frightened by this. But instead of working to fix whatever they can of the damage, they are releasing their tension by lashing out at a convenient enemy like a fear-biting dog.
"Kenaz Filan" - I've taken the liberty to post some thoughts at your place. I hope you don't mind and I look forward to what you have to say about "freedom".
BK
Will do, though I'm currently working on the second installment
I think the 1st installment is the one I commented upon. It is bold to lay claim to telling other how to achieve freedom, but bold ideas are what are needed today I reckon.
To be fair upon re-reading all you said was "steps to break free" - so maybe in context that doesn't encompass freedom as a whole. I look forward to reading what you express.
I've listened to Luke (I think that is his name) many times and seen him in person (so to speak - it was actually video) and I respect his ideas and his expression of them. So, I hope you know my comments have no ill intent - I just kind of sense that anybody posting here has thought hard about current times as I have as well and I think we need to share together.
So for the fun of it, I'm gonna come up with a new word that I know I already typed, but when I checked it didn't seem to be in the dictionary. OK, ready - here is the word:
"Entreatment"
Maybe I'm wrong on that - if so, please - prove me wrong.
Silly me - I'm wrong:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entreat
And here we go:
https://kenazfilan.substack.com/p/from-the-mouth-of-madness-2-the-terrycloth?sd=pf
well-written. I've tried to "like" the article, but seems I'm not allowed to do that just now....or maybe I'm confused. I've posted comments. I appreciate it and I'd "like" it if I could, and I'm sure I will later if I haven't already - if you know what I mean....I mean you got words one at a time and then you have context.
#&$=0?
Ken
Indeed, but, much like the dog that sees only the man before it and not the system that placed the man there, for most people it is the people before them they deal with directly. One may be quite aware of the system that produces blue-haired mentally ill NPCs, but as a practical matter it is that NPC who is the point of oppression - the orchestrators of it all being insulated by social, economic, and geographical distance. Similarly the general is the one giving orders, but it's his privates shooting at you, and they must be dealt with first.
🗨 We think in generalities, but we live in details.
A N Whitehead again 🙂
At some point I'm going to get around to reading ANW. It seems it would be easier and faster than puzzling this all out myself.
In the interim, while saying haven't yet had a chance to transmute into easy-doing, a segment from tappable thought cloudform as fed through word modulator labelled Rolo’s ↓↓ should keep you covered 😉
🗨 I see a vaxxed up, meat-hating, doodle-covered Millennial and I already know that this person will do their best to destroy my life, or at least be rude to me at the coffeeshop, and so I keep my guard up or I just stay the hell away.[...] It may be that the elites engineering everything from behind the scenes are to blame, but it is their foot-soldiers that we have to contend with in our daily lives.[...] The only option is to deal with the threat that they pose, or to get the hell away.
What a way with words that guy has.
This is why we hide our power levels. Nothing worse than the marked up canvas in the cafe being rude to you ;)
In response to "John Carter" above about 10 hours ago:
Privates follow orders in general - generals give the orders.
Why not go to the source direct?
Let the privates learn later.
Let the general learn now.
Especially if the orders are wrong in so many ways and we know that and we know who they are - we know.
Moreover, insulation sometimes provide no protection when circumstances reach extremes, and seems to me we are living in said time.
BK
I feel compelled in my mind to come up with a new word, so I'll take the obvious word I came up with a long time ago and it is in the record.
"Effing"
Spelled with two f's.
Like you know - effing this and effing that.
Son's of bitches - that word already seems to be in the vernacular.
this ai is quick - we need to be quicker.
Well, I honestly didn't know that effing nor entreatment were in the dictionary that I tend to reference, so now what do they say - 3 strikes and your out?
OK, is this a word known already:
infilbusement?
Do you know how it feels to be infilbused?
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.
Beautifully said.
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.
Hello,
I have been reading your text with great interest; I enjoyed to get a refresh that we can and should be with our own spirituality, and that it would be wrong to try to over-describe things, even argue about some things we know to be true and positive.
My favorite quote is this one: "Another good example for how language works that way are the familiar fist-fights around religion, God, atheism, theology, and so on. Again, it is about “thought-complex experience” rather than fictional word-object relationships."
Thank you a lot for reminding us about it!
Hello, may I ask you, please?
By language, do you mean "the tongue" (German, French), or "the mouth function of outputting words", please? :)
Thank you.
"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.