Is A Universal Language Possible?

[Judaka]

Logik
I'm tired of this kind of talk, this is going nowhere.

I could have made a better effort to rectify the misunderstanding, you could have made a better effort to read what I was saying and not jump to conclusions, we're both making things more difficult than it has to be, I think we both want to be done with this and that's good enough for me. Communication is hard, shit happens. Shake hands, let bygones be bygones and recognise that many misunderstandings have had a hand in our forming of poor opinions of each other and this underwent a snowball effect. So we each give each other another chance to compensate for this fact.

First, let me establish some things to help us to understand each other.

When I say I am a nihilist, what I mean is that I reject objective meaning/morality and by this I mean mind-independent knowledge, like that an understanding of what is right, what is wrong and why we are here, exists as knowledge in the universe that can be discovered. I am simply saying that morality/meaning are subjective. I would be interested to hear whether this is indeed something we agree on or whether you have different interpretations.

Your thoughts about philosophy are strange to me, as a pragmatist, if someone creates a philosophy that is useful and we measure it by its utility then it is a good philosophy. The methodology shouldn't matter. I have no interest in any philosophy that I don't think is useful, whether or not I can see utility and validity is my guide to whether or not I am on the right track. I do think some people use philosophy to replace science, mathematics, psychology and other disciplines in particular contexts and it is usually unwise.

Since I think people use entirely subjective/personal frameworks to decide what is useful or good, any appeal an idea might have will be judged through that framework. The framework is incredibly complex though, involving nature/nurture influences the individual isn't even aware of and their judgement may be incorrect. We can also add new information which changes their thinking, we can offer new interpretations of things or argue in a way they didn't think of before. Only by knowing the goal of the attempt to do such things, can we determine whether or not the action (or argument) was helpful in achieving that goal and hence a good action.

I, like you, consider myself a pretty hardcore pragmatist. There are obviously some differences between our views of pragmatism that we can discuss but wouldn't you agree with the above statements with regards to the usefulness of philosophy? You may believe that a philosophy lacking the technical components you are speaking of to be less likely to be useful and that may or may not be true, I'm not sure. If we can agree that a good philosophy is a useful philosophy then I think we will be able to talk productively about things.

I now know you recognise that utility is subjective which is great, you don't seem to think interpretation matters as much and this might be because of a misunderstanding about what I mean when I talk about interpretation or it might not but I would like to hear what you think makes utility subjective and how it is subjective.

[Logik]

I could have made a better effort to rectify the misunderstanding, you could have made a better effort to read what I was saying and not jump to conclusions,

Oh really? How? What could you have done better to 'understand'? What could have I done better to 'read'?

Observe that you've subconsciously started playing the blame-game.

Rather than evaluate my theory that information assymmetry is the real explanation for miscommunication and why people jump to the wrong conclusions (something outside of our control)
You've chosen a different plausible theory: blaming your understanding and my reading comprehension (something which is in our control).

You've misidentified the root cause and now you are attributing blame in a situation where neither party is actually guilty of anything other than 'not having sufficient information'.

Now what am I to make of this since you claim to understand 'the human condition'?

How can you possibly understand that we are both victims to information asymmetry, while ALSO speculating that we could've done something better?
If we could've done anything differently - you would've pointed out some corrective steps.

You can't communicate. And what I mean when I say that - you have no clue HOW to identify OR navigate around information asymmetry!

[Judaka]

Logik
No actually, I was consciously trying to avoid playing the blame game because I don't care. I was happy to share around some blame so that you might be more willing to accept your share.

Since whether or not you could improve yourself is not something I care about, I have decided to try to take some things away from the experience so that I can prevent it from happening in the future but it's not up to me whether or not you do that and I wouldn't care either way.

Information asymmetry seems rather irrelevant in my view, naturally, incomplete information is necessary for assumptions. The truth is that in the example of you thinking I believe in mind-independent knowledge, you have full access to information showing that I didn't and this was provided to you multiple times. You also had no information that supported the idea that I did believe in it, you had no information that suggested I thought objectivity was important to pragmatism but you did have a lot of information showing I didn't think that.

As I said in my long post, we don't really need to talk about this one example to show the problem that you have in not reading what I'm saying. I was particularly uninterested in replying to your two previous posts, in the same way, I would reply to normal posts because it was so misleading and unreasonable.

You said that I don't provide correct feedback but this is demonstrably false, I can provide at least a dozen examples of where I tried to explain to you that I don't think mind-independent knowledge exists, where I don't think objectivity is important and so on. We can, however, just completely ignore these points and still find easily over a dozen examples of me providing correct feedback - sometimes this was accepted but more often ignored.

You said I was getting triggered because I think it's personal and that somehow my insecurities are involved but you don't have any evidence to support the idea that I'm triggered by anything and I don't know what securities could be involved in that post. If you aren't just trying to be aggressive and you actually mean something, it's really hard to see where you're getting this information from. I am actually more concerned that you're a complete waste of time and I've said on multiple occasions that I don't really care about the things you've said on the basis that you had no idea what I stood for or thought at the time of saying those things - although you still persist, I haven't cared.

True, it's a little annoying that you are such a hypocrite but what's being annoyed got to do with getting triggered and being insecure? Nothing.

In this latest post, you respond like I have asked you to guarantee/promise but again, not the case, I asked you to show intent. You obviously disagree intent matters but since I think you're 100% wrong, we still need to take into account what I actually said and not just make stuff up. You then tell me I'm making communication difficult by getting triggered and making it about my feelings and once again, is there much point to me providing "correct feedback" to this? Would you even accept it if I did? And do I need to provide correct feedback to every single unflattering, baseless comment or interpretation you make?

The problem here isn't that you make just a few errors, if you recall I used to think you were arguing for a universal language. You clarified, told me I was wrong and look, no bitching, no crying, I didn't blame you; just said yeah okay I was wrong, I acquiesce that you ever were arguing for universal language and I'll start dealing with your actual argument. That's all I was looking for from you instead of basically nothing except excuses and never acquiescing the arguments you made or statements you said, just carrying on like normal.

It is absolutely the case that both information asymmetry and incomplete information exist but now there are a number of ways you can deal with that acknowledgement. Jacob Needleman in Nick_A's video understood these problems and how difficult communication was but he didn't give up and let his students just make up whatever shit they wanted and just wait to be corrected. Possibly the most egregious thing you've ever said was that it's better to be wrong than right because you don't learn from being right and this justifies not trying to be right.

All of your assumptions have the same things in common.
1. They are unflattering and worse for me than the truth
2. They are assumptions based on no or very little evidence
3. It is a struggle to convince you that those assumptions are wrong

I say all because I mean all, I'm actually happy to go that far. The amount of miscommunication between us is off the charts, it's beyond anything I've ever countered in my life and while I'm willing to think it's just something that happened to us rather than your fault, you don't make it easy because you continue to make problems. I thought I'd just try having another discussion with you about the subjectivity of utility and see whether or not you are able to give me another chance - which may or may not help the problem, since you were clearly disposed against me since we first met.

I'm not thinking we'll never have another miscommunication, I'm thinking that if you don't realise you're constantly making poor assumptions and you aren't consciously trying not to do that then the past will repeat itself and seeing as even right now it is, I can't really be thought of poorly for thinking this.

I realised earlier that I was bringing my ego into this (please don't lecture me on this, you are far more than I ever was) and I am trying to stop but really to clarify some things. You still don't know anything about me Logik, I don't know how I come across to you but if you it's clear you've made a lot of assumptions and I don't think they're based on much, I expect I don't have much to learn from what it is YOU think of me. However, I'm sure that you're wrong in pretty much everything you think. If you thought information asymmetry was the main problem, this information to you should be a godsend no?

Who better to talk about what I am or am not than me. I don't you actually think in terms of information asymmetry except perhaps as a way to defend your behaviour and boost your arguments (where you believe you've got more knowledge than us "philosophers").

What I think is that you don't understand the ego as a motivator, you only see it as something to be hardened against assault. We are both motivated by the ego and it leads us towards falsehood constantly. When you first spoke to me in "Limits of Morality" you approached me as an enemy you wanted to dominate and crush. You now run away from the responsibility of your actions, blaming something else. It is a sad thing to watch but while you're the centre of your own universe, you're but a small star in mine. I don't particularly care about any of this. I am not here to be your guidance councilor. If you're not interested in discussing philosophy then I'll discuss it with someone else.

[Age]

Yes a Universal language is possible. Nothing hard nor complex about it.

Just make one that every one accepts and agrees with.

[surreptitious57]

Not only is a universal language possible but one already exists and its name is mathematics

[Walker]

Here's a pertinent link to the topic, as mentioned in the link.

viewtopic.php?f=9&p=395066#p395066

[Atla]

I say all because I mean all, I'm actually happy to go that far. The amount of miscommunication between us is off the charts, it's beyond anything I've ever countered in my life and while I'm willing to think it's just something that happened to us rather than your fault, you don't make it easy because you continue to make problems.

You are generous by assuming that everyone else is more or less sane and rational, but after a while you might want to consider that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... Many posters on this forum are brain damaged and/or personality disordered and/or mentally ill. "Logik" for example can neither properly process logic nor context. It's not their fault, many of them were probably born that way. There's not much point in trying to seriously argue with them. (If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

[Logik]

You are generous by assuming that everyone else is more or less sane and rational, but after a while you might want to consider that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... Many posters on this forum are brain damaged and/or personality disordered and/or mentally ill. "Logik" for example can neither properly process logic nor context. It's not their fault, many of them were probably born that way. There's not much point in trying to seriously argue with them. (If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

What Atla was trying to say is that between the two of us, one is incapable of processing neither logic nor context.

He thinks it's not him, so it must be me.

It's a pretty pathetic way (although he thinks he is being erudite) in saying "You don't think like me."

It's not his fault though. He was probably born that way. There is not much point in arguing with him. Rather make up your own mind. I provide references - not just rhetoric and mud-slinging.

It begs a question as to why he always goes for the hominem instead of any counter-arguments.

[Atla]

You are generous by assuming that everyone else is more or less sane and rational, but after a while you might want to consider that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... Many posters on this forum are brain damaged and/or personality disordered and/or mentally ill. "Logik" for example can neither properly process logic nor context. It's not their fault, many of them were probably born that way. There's not much point in trying to seriously argue with them. (If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

What Atla was trying to say is that between the two of us, one is incapable of processing neither logic nor context.

He thinks it's not him, so it must be me.

It's a pretty pathetic way (although he thinks he is being erudite) in saying "You don't think like me."

It's not his fault though. He was probably born that way. There is not much point in arguing with him. Rather make up your own mind. I provide references - not just rhetoric and mud-slinging.

It begs a question as to why he always goes for the hominem instead of any counter-arguments.

Oh yeah in addition to almost no comprehension skills, "Logik" is a narcissistic pathological liar, but that is fairly obvious.

[Nick_A]

Atia

(If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

Thank you Atia you've made my day. Of course being familiar with Gurdjieff's "Science of Idiotism" I have a different appreciation for the word idiot than the usual.

[Atla]

Atia

(If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

Thank you Atia you've made my day. Of course being familiar with Gurdjieff's "Science of Idiotism" I have a different appreciation for the word idiot than the usual.

You're welcome! (It's "Atla" actually.)

Is a universal language attainable through the third dimension of thought, or does the second one suffice? But either way, we should treat it appropriately, just as Simone Weil remarked: “A mind enclosed in language is in prison.”

[Nick_A]

Atia

(If you are any sane, you will eventually realize that Nick_A is also one of the most profound idiots there is.)

Thank you Atia you've made my day. Of course being familiar with Gurdjieff's "Science of Idiotism" I have a different appreciation for the word idiot than the usual.

You're welcome! (It's "Atla" actually.)

Is a universal language attainable through the third dimension of thought, or does the second one suffice? But either way, we should treat it appropriately, just as Simone Weil remarked: “A mind enclosed in language is in prison.”

I don't see how since the third dimension of thought is what brings meaning to truth. Without agreement on meaning what are we actually communicating? Einstein understood it:

1940
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

-- Einstein, Science and Religion, 1940.

Dualism is limited to the truth of facts but it is flat, without the depth of being to provide context . Third force brings conscious meaning to facts which is why Einstein wrote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Logik]

It begs a question as to why he always goes for the hominem instead of any counter-arguments.

Oh yeah in addition to almost no comprehension skills, "Logik" is a narcissistic pathological liar, but that is fairly obvious.

Q.E.D

[Atla]

It begs a question as to why he always goes for the hominem instead of any counter-arguments.

Oh yeah in addition to almost no comprehension skills, "Logik" is a narcissistic pathological liar, but that is fairly obvious.

Q.E.D

For example you just lied that I'm not making counter-arguments. But 95% of the time you don't make arguments so there is nothing to counter. The other 5% was easily countered but you didn't understand that either.

See the above one is what is really an ad hominem: you lied about me. It's what most narcissists do, they project what they do onto the other person.

[Logik]

Oh yeah in addition to almost no comprehension skills, "Logik" is a narcissistic pathological liar, but that is fairly obvious.

Q.E.D

For example you just lied that I'm not making counter-arguments. But 95% of the time you don't make arguments so there is nothing to counter. The other 5% was easily countered but you didn't understand that either.

See the above one is what is really an ad hominem: you lied about me. It's what most narcissists do, they project what they do onto the other person.

There's an insight.

It begs at least two questions: Is Atla projecting? Is Atla a narcissist?