Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
But the usage is the same as the '(multiple)-reality'. They are not separate things.

Language is not a science - though the study of languages is a science.

Or would you prefer a BBC unit devoted to nailing down meaning - which, for a living thing, is very painful?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
would you prefer a BBC unit devoted to nailing down meaning - which, for a living thing, is very painful?  

The skit should almost write itself.  

What noises does meaning make when it is nailed down?  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gerrroink!

(Well, last time I nailed it down it did.  When I pulled the nail out it went  Peeeeeeeiuw!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven it's like you're trying to deny that doublespeak is a problem.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not Sven - he's taken - but allow me to jump in.

Language doesn't have a Set of meanings because tokens, words, and (especially) phrases do not have rigorous definitions.  The token "is," word "To Be," has pages of definitions and sub-definitions in the OED.  Illustration:

x IS y ; Logical, where IS conveys "the same as"

The ball IS red  ; Phenomenological, where IS conveys "has the ontological accidental of"

In the Logical use the the use of the token within the term can be rigorously defined through axiomatics such that it can determined, necessarily, the relationship of x and y.

The the second use ... well, it gets complicated and the process gets more convoluted as one applies greater rigor.  Grossly, but accurately, simplified: the end point of analysis is ultimately achieved when the analyst declares, "Bugger this for a game of soldiers" and moves on.

Doublespeak happens when the communicator purposely manipulates the inherent ambiguity of Language for emotive (a la Logical Postivitism) persuasion with the intent to obfuscate, rather than illuminate.  


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 12:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not at all - it is a huge problem.

But what we are all coming to realise is that what people DO is more important than what they say.

That is why 'action' is a topic here at ET.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series