Contract in two parts

[lhexa]

Words do not have absolute precision in their representation of reality; however, the necessary task of turning a critical eye towards another's (or my own) words requires that I act as if I know with considerable exactitude what the words mean, or, to say it more accurately, what the writer intends them to mean. However, thought itself hinders this analysis: whenever I myself am able to use words in a consistent manner, and in fact know almost exactly what I mean when I say them, then I am tempted to treat this knowledge as something that is true of others as well - that is, when I come to know what I mean when I say "duty", "objective", or any other similarly meaningful word, then I will treat others as if their words carry the same meaning and implications as mine - and then argue, as often as not, with the utterly nonsensical things that they say.

I suspect that this is common in others, as well. It is never possible to, in an absolute sense, know what words mean - it is only possible to know what I mean when I say them, or what another does. The latter case is that ability upon which all communication rests - the ability to comprehend what another is saying, and to pass along an idea in a manner that allows the other to understand. I think, however, that it is the method upon which this skill is most often grounded, that causes words to be treated as absolute: the assumption that other people are basically identical to oneself in the manners in which they speak, that a certain set of words coming out of another's mouth mean exactly what they would if they came of one's own.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

You don't have anything better to go by unless you actually know that he means something else, so that makes sense. Of course, arguing with differing definitions of the same word is a great way to not reach a conclusion, and that happens in adversarial debate quite often.

On a tangential note, you sound more like the old Lhexa now, which I think is good. (Less of what I call "mode N" for lack of a better term)

It also reminds me of what we talked about incommunicability earlier. I wonder if a better communications method could alleviate the indirect reference that's inherent in language. Probably not, unless it involves some very tight feedback.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's a great way to not reach a conclusion, but not reaching a conclusion can be more instructive than a concluded argument.

Thanks for saying that I sound more like the old Lhexa.

What is the "indirect reference inherent in language"?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

Yes, it's a great way to not reach a conclusion, but not reaching a conclusion can be more instructive than a concluded argument.

As long as you don't get stuck in the same path, going around and around.

What is the "indirect reference inherent in language"?
It arrives from that words by themselves mean nothing; they are just patterns of sounds or letters. So everybody has a definition of the words they use, and this definition is what they use to string words together. Each linguistic expression is then an indirect reference through the definition and into the meaning of what whoever said it wanted to express.

So there are two translation steps, from meaning to language, then back from language to meaning. When one's definition set differs from that of another, you get inaccuracy. Some subsets of language (def 2a (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=language)), e.g symbolic logic, which is rigorously defined, may get around this by making definition inequality easily detectable within the whole, but that isn't practical for general language.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

What is a word by itself? How can a word be beside itself?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

An analogy with computer pointers:

A pointer by itself is just a number. But as used, a pointer refers to memory.

A word by itself is just an array of letters, or particular syllables, or both. But as used, a word refers to a meaning.

In both cases these references are internal.

So, "by itself" means something like "literally" or "intrinsically", if you get what I mean.

[guilen.livejournal.com]

Did you know Shakespeare invented 600 english words when he wrote Hamlet alone? People say things the way they mean in to them, and it will be adopted by others.

Words are very different to certain people, though. To me, they explain feeling. To others, they explain thought. You're right to say that people assume that everybody else uses words to the same ends that -they- do. It's something worthwhile to be self-aware about.

GUILEN

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

It's my hope that people can become better at identifying conflicting meanings. Stating definitions helps, but it could eliminate helpful vagueness.

*smiles* Oh, and the information about Shakespeare is new to me.

[raki.livejournal.com]

This was a problem you and I had for a long time, until I stopped assuming that, and stopped assuming that anything that you said had a similar frame of reference as anything I said or thought. I think that required me to assume that I didn't know you at all, an assumption I extrapolated to everyone in my acquaintance, an assumption I still carry with me. It has shaped my ideas for many years.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

I don't know what to say in response to that.

[raki.livejournal.com]

You don't have to say anything.

[wickedorin.livejournal.com]

I always feel like I need to make up words, because the ones I've encountered so far do not mean enough... but then, explaining what a word means is so freakin' hard.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

Fully explaining a meaning might even be impossible. Dictionaries can only do so much without altering meanings themselves.