Clarifications
Jun. 16th, 2004 09:11 amWhat I called "Contract in two parts" was indeed a contract, with loopholes big enough to stick my head and neck through.
I honestly do not know whether or not I wrote the contract; what I did do was find it on my computer's desktop days after it had been written. If I did write it, then the memory of writing it is inaccessible to me, for whatever reason.
...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.
This part is the actual covenant. I agree that whenever a word acquires a better, more well-known meaning in my lexicon, then I will use that meaning in conversation, and argue when absurdities arise, even though I know the argument is a deliberate misunderstanding.
I do not know what I will receive in return. I'm hoping it's greater skill at developing and exploring the meanings of words.
I honestly do not know whether or not I wrote the contract; what I did do was find it on my computer's desktop days after it had been written. If I did write it, then the memory of writing it is inaccessible to me, for whatever reason.
...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.
This part is the actual covenant. I agree that whenever a word acquires a better, more well-known meaning in my lexicon, then I will use that meaning in conversation, and argue when absurdities arise, even though I know the argument is a deliberate misunderstanding.
I do not know what I will receive in return. I'm hoping it's greater skill at developing and exploring the meanings of words.