The Power of Words

he still stands

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm speaking very openly and honestly. I've meant everything I said in my posts, and I've made my statements and questions quite direct.

Let us test this claim...

farfromglorified wrote:

What is "English"?

Really, you don't know? Okay, since you were being direct, here is an answer to your question:

English is an Indo-European, West Germanic language originating in England, and is the first language for most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the Anglophone Caribbean. It is used extensively as a second language and as an official language throughout the world, especially in Commonwealth countries and in many international organizations. (Wikipedia)

farfromglorified wrote:

Febsliak, Bartow colmorn hoy rosta camplince, youp wost cutyp porchmon pinta ka maycart hoyu flipyut ho trian mog. .

You honestly thought the readers of this statement could understand it?

You weren't trying to make a "witty," indirect, round-a-bout point here?

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

Really, you don't know?

Of course I know. That doesn't mean I can't ask the question when I'm interested in hearing the response, however.

English is an Indo-European, West Germanic language originating in England, and is the first language for most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the Anglophone Caribbean. It is used extensively as a second language and as an official language throughout the world, especially in Commonwealth countries and in many international organizations. (Wikipedia)

Absolutely. Now, why would a bunch of individuals within a given geographic location speak the same language?

You honestly thought the readers of this statement could understand it?

Of course not. The reason they couldn't understand it, however, demonstrates the fallacy of the original point.

You weren't trying to make a "witty," indirect, round-a-bout point here?

Of course I was (at least the round-a-bout part)! What's wrong with that?

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course not. The reason they couldn't understand it, however, demonstrates the fallacy of the original point.

Really? I'd say it doesn't demonstrate a thing or even better it proves my original point was correct.

Also, dude, why don't just give your opinion on the matter instead of breaking everthing down without giving an alternative.

he still stands

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course I was (at least the round-a-bout part)! What's wrong with that?

There is nothing "wrong" with it. I am not here to judge you or anyone else. However, do you not see how these previous comments were not truthfully direct statements?

The result of using language in a round-a-bout way, in an indirect and obtuse manner, is a feeling of ire (because of the intent) or outright dismissal of the comment.

We are all brothers and sisters who are just on this wild ride, who are all confused, but at least we have the gift of language. Let's not let this gift become our sword's grindstone.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Really? I'd say it doesn't demonstrate a thing or even better it proves my original point was correct.

It demostrates that a requirement of language is shared definition which in turn implies objective meanings and definitions.

Also, dude, why don't just give your opinion on the matter instead of breaking everthing down without giving an alternative.

LOL...

I'd much rather get people to think about things as opposed to simply throwing points over each other's heads. If you dislike Socratic approaches, you're certainly under no obligation to play along -- feel free to disregard my posts. I certainly won't be offended.

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

There is nothing "wrong" with it. I am not here to judge you or anyone else. However, do you not see how these previous comments were not truthfully direct statements?

"Truthful" and "direct" are not the same thing. My posts are certainly indirect in that I'm not simply stating an opinion and leaving it at that. What I am trying to do, is get someone to actually think about an issue instead of being reactive.

The result of using language in a round-a-bout way, in an indirect and obtuse manner, is a feeling of ire (because of the intent) or outright dismissal of the comment.

LOL...sometimes, yes. The result of using direct, acute language can also be a feeling of ire or outright dismissal. It all depends on the psychology of the participants.

We are all brothers and sisters who are just on this wild ride

Not really. You're neither my brother nor my sister.

who are all confused

I'm not that confused, at least on this issue.

but at least we have the gift of language.

Absolutely!

Let's not let this gift become our sword's grindstone.

And let's not destroy that gift by pretending that words only have meanings when its convenient.

he still stands

"Puff" from the movie "Human Nature" was right... Words are Evil!

he still stands

And only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying...

Since you claim not to be my brother or sister, or more accurately, dismiss the meaning of that statement, I'll end here.

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

And only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying...

Again, not really. Only that in me which understands your applications of words can hear what you're saying. "Only that in you which is me" is a contradiction of terms.

Since you claim not to be my brother or sister, or more accurately, dismiss the meaning of that statement, I'll end here.

We may certainly be brothers or sisters in the relatively meaningless sense that we're both human beings. However, since "brother" and "sister" are sub-set terms, your usage is not appropriate.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

It demostrates that a requirement of language is shared definition which in turn implies objective meanings and definitions.

Words in a language indeed have objective meanings and definitions, they can be found in the dictionary, for instance. Otherwise any word could be interpreted differently by different people, thus making communication impossible. (true, I should have included that in my original post, I just thought everyone would get this, apparently some of us don't )

I believe these words can be used in different contexts to means different things. So I think words do not have a "fixed" meaning (even though they have a objective definition).

How would you explain sarcasm?

LOL...

I'd much rather get people to think about things as opposed to simply throwing points over each other's heads. If you dislike Socratic approaches, you're certainly under no obligation to play along -- feel free to disregard my posts. I certainly won't be offended

Ah, so you're here to help me?

Anyway, it's a bit silly to assume that if you just gave me your theory or opinion I would not think about it.

Thecure

Collin wrote:

Words in a language indeed have objective meanings and definitions, they can be found in the dictionary, for instance. Otherwise any word could be interpreted differently by different people, thus making communication impossible. (true, I should have included that in my original post, I just thought everyone would get this, apparently some of us don't )

I believe these words can be used in different contexts to means different things. So I think words do not have a "fixed" meaning (even though they have a objective definition).

How would you explain sarcasm?



Ah, so you're here to help me?

Anyway, it's a bit silly to assume that if you just gave me your theory or opinion I would not think about it.

do you think that maybe we are confusing meaning with tone. sarcasm is not about the words it is about the tone. to show what i mean by this is this. in the thread which i believe you talked aboptu in the 1st post we were discussing if Bitch is a sexist term or not. you were stating that bitch can be a sexist term but is not always a sexist term (i hope that i am right in this. if i am not please forgive me) i believe that the word bitch is a sexism term even if it is said in a joking way. the tone of the word bitch spoken might not mean that the speaker means it as sexist but the definition of the word is sexist.

another example is if a black person says the N word to another black person the tone will not be racist but the word still is.

Collin

Thecure wrote:

do you think that maybe we are confusing meaning with tone. sarcasm is not about the words it is about the tone. to show what i mean by this is this. in the thread which i believe you talked aboptu in the 1st post we were discussing if Bitch is a sexist term or not. you were stating that bitch can be a sexist term but is not always a sexist term (i hope that i am right in this. if i am not please forgive me) i believe that the word bitch is a sexism term even if it is said in a joking way. the tone of the word bitch spoken might not mean that the speaker means it as sexist but the definition of the word is sexist.

another example is if a black person says the N word to another black person the tone will not be racist but the word still is.

Well, I disagree with that.

I'm not confusing meaning with tone. Tone is context and a clear indicator of one's intention.

You claim a word in itself can be racist or sexist. I'd like to know how that is. Man creates and uses words and gives word meaning. We know the meanings of words shift, that indicates that a word does not have a "fixed" meaning. I'd say the meaning of a word is not only dependent on context in a restricted way but also dependent on context on a larger scale.

How do you apply labels to language if not by the context in which the word is used? Bitch is used in a negative context, thus it developed a negative connotation. The usage of the word determined its label. The word doesn't have a label in itself. We create labels and apply them to words.

My question is for you if you don't agree man makes labels and thus labels are subjective and words cannot have a "fixed" label either (sexist is a label, not a meaning), then how do words get their labels?

Say if I want to call my girlfriend "hinney" as a term of endearment is that okay? What source should I consult to see what label this word has?

he still stands

An interesting theory is that hallucinations, caused by psilocybin (mushrooms), led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds. (Terence McKenna). If so, how does this influence your thought on what creates the "label" of a word?

Commy

he still stands wrote:

An interesting theory is that hallucinations, caused by psilocybin (mushrooms), led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds. (Terence McKenna). If so, how does this influence your thought on what creates the "label" of a word?

language, and words, are innate. Its what separates us from our closely related cousins in the animal kingdom, the ability to communicate through words.

he still stands

Commy wrote:

language, and words, are innate. Its what separates us from our closely related cousins in the animal kingdom, the ability to communicate through words.

right, but what I was getting at here is the "sound" of the word... the musical nature of a word or language gives it meaning. The combination of these sounds patterns have been combined over time to create modern languages.

_

angelica wrote:

At one point I told you I felt it was universal... what I meant was in the context we were talking about. Which meant referring to women, who generally hold certain wounds due to being women. And at the same time, I'm fairly certain you are aware of both those wounds women have, and the power that specific word has with women in general. In that context, I believe that for someon to use that word...there is something up...at the very least, an insensitivity towards women in that moment. And it shows. That is what I feel is universal...given the circumstances to use that word like that...one is entering territory where the risk to offend on that level is well-known, and that choice is made freely, knowing and accepting that risk. That says something. Myself and others were fairly adamant, and yet I thought everyone understood that it was contextual.

Agreed. I can't think of anyone who said the meaning of the word wasn't contextual. To the contrary, I believe the point was that you can't remove a word from its context - its historical context. History is fixed. And it takes many, many years of history to overcome the historical context which has already be created. One person's context in one conversation isn't enough to change meaning that a word has carried with it over a significant period of time.

So perhaps the question is how many people/conversations does it take to overcome the historical context of a word? Or, can the historical context of sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. words be overcome as long as there still exists sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.?

Commy

scb wrote:

Agreed. I can't think of anyone who said the meaning of the word wasn't contextual. To the contrary, I believe the point was that you can't remove a word from its context - its historical context. History is fixed. And it takes many, many years of history to overcome the historical context which has already be created. One person's context in one conversation isn't enough to change meaning that a word has carried with it over a significant period of time.

So perhaps the question is how many people/conversations does it take to overcome the historical context of a word? Or, can the historical context of sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. words be overcome as long as there still exists sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.?

since histroy is written by the victors would you say the Roman empire, or the US, have any significant impact on language?

angelica

scb wrote:

Agreed. I can't think of anyone who said the meaning of the word wasn't contextual. To the contrary, I believe the point was that you can't remove a word from its context - its historical context. History is fixed. And it takes many, many years of history to overcome the historical context which has already be created. One person's context in one conversation isn't enough to change meaning that a word has carried with it over a significant period of time.

I don't see history as fixed, incidentally! we like to see history as factual, and yet much of it is narrative that represents the perceptions of the narrator. Yes, there are circumstances that happened, and yet we can look at them from all kinds of perspectives, and we do! It was my historian brother who taught me this!

What this means to me is that we can clear up historical wounds carried within in each moment, now, by changing our perceptions that we've largely unconsciously inherited and internalized, and perpetuate daily, even when historical events no longer otherwise have any realistic hold over us. I do this all the time, and know it is amazingly freeing and healing.

In my understanding, in order to make this switch, we also need to stop perpetuating self-undermining patterns (carried over from the past) in the now. In terms of sexism, males and females in the western world, continue to rampantly blot out our feminine nature all the time, to great cost, right here and now. All it takes to get past this is a shift in one moment. And a following commitment. The past doesn't exist, except in our inner perceptions, which we absolutely control..within...not at all without, as in getting Collin or someone else to change their view.

So perhaps the question is how many people/conversations does it take to overcome the historical context of a word? Or, can the historical context of sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. words be overcome as long as there still exists sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.?

It's very clear to me that in order for any collective mindset to heal and move beyond their wounds, inner healing must take place. That ultimately is the responsibility of the wounded. No one else can do that work. In that sense, the word is merely a symbol for the unresolved energy.

On one hand changing words -- using linguistics as a tool -- can literally reshape our reality. And part of my own healing includes being very attuned to the energy of the words I use. How we speak shows our level of personal power, responsibility, and otherwise totally indicates where we are in life.

Our only power is in ourselves, and in resolving our own wounds. When we learn to do that, we learn to affect real change. When people are not empowered from within in such ways, we see them using inauthentic power...weilding power externally, over others. And as Collin has revealed, to me, at least, on this subject, that it's also an insidious historically perpetuated and presently continued abuse of power to use the power of words to try to in any way coerce him (or anyone else) from his view. Of course even playing field discussion, on the other hand, is great!!

angelica

scb wrote:

Agreed. I can't think of anyone who said the meaning of the word wasn't contextual. To the contrary, I believe the point was that you can't remove a word from its context - its historical context. History is fixed. And it takes many, many years of history to overcome the historical context which has already be created. One person's context in one conversation isn't enough to change meaning that a word has carried with it over a significant period of time.

So perhaps the question is how many people/conversations does it take to overcome the historical context of a word? Or, can the historical context of sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. words be overcome as long as there still exists sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.?

Given Collin's original example context in the other thread, and knowing as he does how the vast majority takes that word, in that context, he's responsible for that usage, which has a negative and sexist power, imo. And if we all became empowered now, and let go of the past that we choose to carry now, and a shift happens, to where the majority is clear of that energy, Collin very well could use such words with an entirely different effect, and consequences for himself, which I kind of think is his basic point.

angelica

An ex boyfriend once called me a derogatory term that referred to my German background. I responded by laughing....and laughing...it was so funny and ludicrous to me that someone would use a slur like that against me! It'd never happened before (...I live in a predominantly German area of Ontario )

It had no power over me at all, and instead, he ended up feeling and looking very sheepish at his silly attempt! He never did that ever again!