What do you mean?

[Age]

The meanings you give words define the accuracy, truthfulness, and correctness of the statements you use.

For example, the statements, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal', and, 'The universe is finite and limited', are both accurate, truthful, and correct, all depending on the meanings and definitions that you have and are using.

And it is just these different meanings and definitions that 'you', human beings, have and use, why 'you', adult human beings, were still somewhat lost and confused, back in the days when this was being written.

However, because 'you' all are, or more correctly, were, and can be again, truly intelligent beings, becoming less lost and less confused is really a very simple and very easy process to learn, and do.

For 'you' to gain the True understanding of, and for, all, 'you' just have to learn how to know what 'you' actually mean.

[Harbal]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe. Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us. Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases. It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

[Iwannaplato]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe. Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us. Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases. It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

Yes, the context, both interpersonally and in terms of the surrounding words, all affect the meaning. It's not really the case that individual words have some kind of fixed meaning. They function as parts of a whole, between people, and the other parts of the whole and the people invovled all very strongly affect the meaning. And even years of careful planning of upcoming sentences could not prevent misunderstandings because we are...human, and context shift and the whole language is sliding and not in one direction.

[Harbal]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe. Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us. Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases. It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

Yes, the context, both interpersonally and in terms of the surrounding words, all affect the meaning. It's not really the case that individual words have some kind of fixed meaning. They function as parts of a whole, between people, and the other parts of the whole and the people invovled all very strongly affect the meaning. And even years of careful planning of upcoming sentences could not prevent misunderstandings because we are...human, and context shift and the whole language is sliding and not in one direction.

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are. But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

[Iwannaplato]

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are. But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

Oh, sure. In my experience with Age however, which was mainly a while back, I don't think one would ever get to the actual conversation. There'd be a chasing after the meaning of the words in the first sentence, to the words of the explanations of those words, to the words of those those secondary words......and on and on. I think it also rests on a philosophy of language that words contain meanings and these are shunted inside words to the other person who unpacks them. It's an interesting model of communication, but I don't think that's what's really happening.

But I'll give my overview with an example: I do feel glad when Wizard is pressed by Age to explain what his words mean.

[Harbal]

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are. But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

Oh, sure. In my experience with Age however, which was mainly a while back, I don't think one would ever get to the actual conversation. There'd be a chasing after the meaning of the words in the first sentence, to the words of the explanations of those words, to the words of those those secondary words......and on and on.

I was talking about communication with people in general; communicating with Age is a whole different ball game.

[Atla]

Coming from the hypocrite Saint Age who is sitting on a fake moral high horse, pretending that all the world's problems would be solved if only we learned to communicate better.

That's basically just victim blaming, others too were born into this inherently broken world just like Age was.

[Iwannaplato]

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are. But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

Oh, sure. In my experience with Age however, which was mainly a while back, I don't think one would ever get to the actual conversation. There'd be a chasing after the meaning of the words in the first sentence, to the words of the explanations of those words, to the words of those those secondary words......and on and on.

I was talking about communication with people in general; communicating with Age is a whole different ball game.

I did understand. I think what I was getting at was that there was irony involved, however right he might be in the abstract. I think he overestimates how much of the world's suffering would be eradicated (and/or could be) through incredibly long conversations about what we mean. But yes, much communication could be improved with some care about what we are saying.

[Lacewing]

the context, both interpersonally and in terms of the surrounding words, all affect the meaning. It's not really the case that individual words have some kind of fixed meaning. They function as parts of a whole, between people, and the other parts of the whole and the people invovled all very strongly affect the meaning.

Yes... this is why it's difficult for people who are rigidly fixated on words to understand what is actually meant. Communication is an art... and, like art, one can't see the broader picture if they're obsessed with a single element of a painting.

Further, it can be challenging if one is trying to describe/explore ideas beyond general limits/meanings of language and experience... such as some of us might naturally do on a philosophy forum.

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are.

True! Such as how some might distort what I say because they've falsely pigeon-holed me as a tree-hugging, crystal-wearing, liberal female hippy.

[Impenitent]

meaning is so average...

-Imp

[Age]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe.

So that I do not assume what you are referring to, and thus meaning, here, which may well lead me down a completely wrong path in relation to what you are actually talking about, and meaning, 'What do you think is 'the offence', which you think I am describing'?

If 'the offence' is in regards to one having their 'own meanings' of words, then 'this' is certainly NOT 'an offence' AT ALL in my view and from my perspective. 'This' is just a VERY NATURAL part of 'growing up'. However, just having 'one's own meaning/s' of 'things' is just what I have found to be the main reason WHY there is so much misunderstanding among adult human beings, which in turn can and does lead to so much conflict, disagreement, distrust, and/or dissent.

But, then again, you may well have been 'meaning' something completely different. So, I will await your clarification on what you were referring to, and meaning, exactly, by your choice of words, 'the offence'.

Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us.

I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, because of what I found wrongly assume some thing can lead to.

So, I will wait for your reply to make sure that I know, exactly, what you are referring to and meaning by and with the 'it' word here.

Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases.

I agree 100%.

Have you ever noticed how often, or how consistently, I ask 'clarifying questions' here in this forum?

If yes, or if no, I do 'this' to reduce 'misunderstanding' as much as I can, well to and for 'me' anyway.

Also, have you ever noticed how often I 'harp on' about never believing any thing and/or about not liking to assume absolutely any thing?

Again, if yes, or if no, I do 'this' to also reduce 'misunderstanding' as much is, 'physically', possible, on my part.

Furthermore, have you noticed that the meanings of some words have the exact opposite meaning themselves? So, this means when we say some words the "other" person could ascertain the exact opposite meaning from what we actually intended, and meant. For example, the word 'paradox' has one meaning in relation to, 'Expressing a seemingly true proposition or statement, but on further reflection is an absurd or self-contradictory claim', AND, another meaning in relation to, 'A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory proposition or statement, but on further reflection is actually an accurate or true claim'. So, what this means is that one person, or one group of people, may be using the word 'paradox' with 'one meaning', in thought, while another person, or another group of people, using the word 'paradox' with the 'other meaning', which would, and does, obviously lead to more confusion and more confusion. That is; IF clarification is not sought out, gained, and obtained prior to the writing, reading, or discussion continuing.

Also, and by the way, from what you wrote in the quoted part above, to which I 100% agree with, the more words that we say and use can all to easily and very quickly lead to more misunderstandings. Again, that is, IF full clarification is never obtained.

It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

From what I have observed if any one is just not seeking clarification, and thus clarity, before they make assumptions and conclusions, then they are, in part or in whole, 'determined' not to understand.

For how could one claim to 'want to understand' if they never ask clarifying questions?

Surely, only the one expressing propositions and statements are the ones who Truly 'know' what they mean, right?

[Age]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe. Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us. Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases. It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

Yes, the context, both interpersonally and in terms of the surrounding words, all affect the meaning. It's not really the case that individual words have some kind of fixed meaning. They function as parts of a whole, between people, and the other parts of the whole and the people invovled all very strongly affect the meaning.

The 'downfall' of human beings, or of humanity, if I can call 'it' a downfall is the absolute intelligence, which exists within ALL human beings. See, because human beings are so expertly able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every 'thing', they are also expertly able to change and manipulate words to 'say', or better worded 'mean', just about absolutely any 'thing' as well. And to further add to the Truly amazing abilities of the human species the way 'the meanings' of words is gained and obtained, throughout childhood, and into adult hood, is only on the very rarest of occasions clearly stipulated.

Think about how many words the 'actual, or intended, meaning' was ever actually stipulated, or 'spelt out', to you, as a child. Or, think about how many words, or how many times, you have actually had to explain the meanings of words to the children in 'your life', that is the ones that you have direct contact with.

Even from the very earliest stages in a child's life of 'learning words' are actual meanings ever directly explained. Human beings are expected to 'just know'. Look at how many words there are in use, and think back to how many times you have asked a "teacher" or a "parent" what does each of those words actually mean. And now look back and remember how you actually came 'to know' what all of 'those words' 'actually mean'. In fact pick any word, think about what 'it' 'actually means', and then look in a dictionary and see 'how close' you really are. This goes for any word that 'you', "yourself" say, or for any word that any one else you hear say, or says to you. For a group exercise you could pick words from within any of these forum 'discussions', for example, and each person secretly write down what they 'think' those words 'mean', and then compare those 'definitions' with all of the differing different dictionary definitions, and then compare, if the 'author/writer' of those words is still alive, with 'what' 'they' 'actually meant'.

By the way, think back to what happened if you ever continually asked a "teacher/parent" what the meanings of words are. Or, think how you have 'reacted' or would 'react' if a child or another human being continually asked what 'the meanings' of words are. A common reply might be something like, 'you know'.

Even this 'expectation' of 'you know' can be seen in some of the writings here, within this forum.

And even years of careful planning of upcoming sentences could not prevent misunderstandings because we are...human, and context shift and the whole language is sliding and not in one direction.

Language is, obviously, in a continual evolving process. But 'this' is best never unexpected as absolutely every 'thing' is 'continually evolving', or 'just changing' anyway. However, what can be seen here is another example of 'trying to' lay BLAME, or make EXCUSES, for not just doing the 'right thing'.

One can ALWAYS be learning 'new ways' to communicate BETTER, or more efficiently and thus more successfully. The saying, and EXCUSE, 'we are human' FAILS COMPLETELY. And saying 'this' is like shifting 'the change of language' is NOT because of human beings or NOT the responsibility of human beings. The sole reason language 'changes' is because of 'you', human beings.

Also, and furthermore, the prevention of 'misunderstanding', itself, could NEVER occur, solely, with and because of the 'writer/speaker'. The prevention of 'misunderstanding' fully can only ever be obtained through and because of 'clarification gain'. Which can only Truly occur from and by the 'reader/listener'.

Now, of course, 'obtaining clarity' within and from the 'writer/reader' relationship would be much more cumbersome than being obtained during an on-going 'speaker/listener' relationship. So, there is far more 'responsibility' on the 'writer' to be far more detailed, accurate, concise, and clear, in the first instance. However, as you have very nearly correctly pointed out here "iwannaplato" even years of careful planning of upcoming sentences 'may well' not prevent 'misunderstanding' from taking place, in the future. But, and this is not to be forgotten, years of 'careful planning' could lead to 'sentences being expressed', which lay out in clear detail of a way, or ways, in HOW to NOT make misunderstandings, and/or of HOW to 'gain and obtain actual understanding', itself.

By the way, some of 'us' are just in a process of continual learning in HOW to communicate better, with 'you', human beings, so that what will be eventually written and expressed, and not necessarily here in this forum, can and will be much better 'understood'.

As I have said previously in this forum I take full responsibility for each and every word I have written down and said here. Which means that;

1. I stand by, and can back up and support, absolutely every word that I have said and written and will say and write. No matter how self-contradictory or truly absurd some of my words might appear, on first glance.

2. I do not blame absolutely any one/else for any miscommunication I make or cause here, and I do not blame any one/else for any and every thing that I say and write, which is not understood here. This includes all of the 'mistakes', 'faults', and 'incorrect' that I do unintentionally make, say, and state here.

[Age]

I think I know what you mean, and I think I agree, but it is almost impossible -for us human beings in the days when this was being written- to completely avoid committing the offence you describe. Even you are guilty of it, along with the rest of us. Few words have only one, unambiguous, meaning, and when words are combined with other words to make sentences, the potential for misunderstanding only increases. It seems to matter not to what lengths you go to make yourself correctly understood when people are determined not to understand.

Yes, the context, both interpersonally and in terms of the surrounding words, all affect the meaning. It's not really the case that individual words have some kind of fixed meaning. They function as parts of a whole, between people, and the other parts of the whole and the people invovled all very strongly affect the meaning. And even years of careful planning of upcoming sentences could not prevent misunderstandings because we are...human, and context shift and the whole language is sliding and not in one direction.

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are.

It is like an impossibility to not interpret what "others" say and write, in particular ways, when one is looking or listening from any preconceived perspective.

So, while one is having or holding any preconceived idea, then they will 'mis/interpret' what is being said, and meant. And, it is ONLY through 'clarification' can one ascertain if the 'interpretation' was 'correct' or 'misguided'. Now, obviously, if 'the interpretation' was 'misguided', that 'misinterpretation' was 'misguided' BY the pre-existing thoughts or beliefs within the 'listener/reader'.

But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

If the Truth be known, I was never actually 'meaning' 'this' here.

Here we have, another, example when one has 'misread' the 'actual meaning', which was being intended. But 'this example' could just be added the absolute hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other, examples of when what was 'being meant' was misread, miss heard, misinterpreted, misdirected, or just plain old misunderstood.

Saying, or claiming, that 'the other is not explaining themselves clearly' is just taking 'responsibility' off of one's own self to seek out and obtain actual clarity, them self. Which, by the way, there is absolutely NO 'responsibility' at all of any one to do so.

Only IF one Truly wants to learn more, and thus become wiser, do they then seek out and gain clarification, and clarity. Also, IF absolutely any one Truly wants to be heard, and understood, then they WILL pay far more attention to learn how to explain them self far more clearly.

So, there is absolutely NO responsibility at all NOR for absolutely any prerequisite for absolutely any one to have to want to learn some thing. However, if any one Truly wants to 'read/listen' to "another", and obtain 'understanding', itself, but goes forth with preconceived ideas/views, thoughts, beliefs, or assumptions, then they are not actually Truly capable of 'listening' to, and the 'understanding' of, "the other". Now, of course, preconceived ideas, et cetera do exist, but there is a process in which way one looks at and sees from. Either they look/listen FROM the Truly open perspective FIRST, seeks out and obtains 'clarity', AND THEN use 'past experiences' to see whether what is being said/written is correct or not, Or, one looks/listens FROM 'past experiences', that is; FROM their already obtained preconceived ideas, et cetera, FIRST. The latter leads to and causes misunderstandings, and confusion. The former does NOT.

I found that seeking out and obtaining clarity/clarification FROM the 'reader/listener' is far, far easier and simpler, in gaining actual understanding, than it is for any 'speaker/writer' to learn all of the countless number of different ways their is to use words so that the countless number of 'readers/speakers' can ALL understand, clearly,

[Age]

And I have found on forums that people tend to interpret what you say in accordance with their preconceptions about what your opinions are. But I do agree with Age in as much as there do seem to be many who pay little attention to explaining themselves clearly.

Oh, sure. In my experience with Age however, which was mainly a while back, I don't think one would ever get to the actual conversation.

Here we have another great example of how a 'preconceived idea/view' has stopped and prevented from one ascertaining and/or obtaining what the actual Truth is and/or what could be actually Meant.

There'd be a chasing after the meaning of the words in the first sentence, to the words of the explanations of those words, to the words of those those secondary words......and on and on.

Actually 'you' would arrive at the 'final conclusion' far earlier, far quicker, far simpler, and far easier than you imagine and presume here.

But, then again, if you assume and believe that chasing words would be a continual process, then you would do what was necessary to create what you believe will happen, but without necessarily consciously knowing you are doing those things. This is because 'you' would never do 'that', which opposes what you believe is going to happen.

In other words, you would never come to a conclusion because you believe that 'chasing words' will go on and on.

I think it also rests on a philosophy of language that words contain meanings and these are shunted inside words to the other person who unpacks them. It's an interesting model of communication, but I don't think that's what's really happening.

And do you know of anyone who has this or follows this so-called 'philosophy of language'?

Also, you used the 'it' word here. So, what, exactly, do you think rests on some so-called 'philosophy of language'?

By the way, absolutely nothing I have said nor written here 'rests on any so-called philosophy of language'. If that was what you were intending to mean here.

What is absolutely True is that 'you', human beings, give 'meaning/s' to the words that 'you' say, write, and use.

But I'll give my overview with an example: I do feel glad when Wizard is pressed by Age to explain what his words mean.

[Age]

Coming from the hypocrite Saint Age who is sitting on a fake moral high horse, pretending that all the world's problems would be solved if only we learned to communicate better.

1. What is the claim that I am a hypocrite in relation to, exactly?

2. What is the so-called 'fake moral high horse', exactly, which you claim I am sitting on?

3. All of the human created 'problems', in 'the world', can be, and are, solved, very quickly, very easily, and very simply, through better communication.

I will provide an example, when the word 'problem' is defined in a particular or specific way, and that word is looked at and seen from that perspective, then solving all 'problems' just becomes significantly and exponentially simpler, quicker, and easier.

That's basically just victim blaming, others too were born into this inherently broken world just like Age was.

1. your Wrong and False assumption about me above, even if were correct, is NOT 'victim blaming' at all.

2. The only True 'victims' in Life are 'children'. However, ALL 'children' 'grow up', or better worded 'age', into becoming 'adults'. And, if 'adults' are not going to 'be responsible' for the way 'life' and/or 'the world' is, then WHO 'is responsible'?

3. Claiming that 'the world' is 'inherently broken' is blaming 'the world', itself. Which, obviously, did NOT become the way it is without adult human being intervention.

4. Why are so many of accusations and claims about 'me', and what I say and write here, so inherently False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect?