Me No Talk Demfellow Talk Fo Good

Post Reply New Topic

This has come up several times, and I think we need to address it, as a political issue.

IA: Language changes
IA1: It used to change - and still does for the most part - as an organic evolution in response to human interactions, accomodating to the spealers' interests, attitudes, and other cultural traits.
IA2: Since the rise of artificial means of communication, it has in various places and times been made to change by the Directorate, turning the speakers toward certain beliefs and attitudes - "propaganda" is too small to handle the reality.

IB: Coolspeak
IB1: In the culture of modern North America, the Directorate is nudging the herd toward the chute with Coolspeak.
IB2: Coolspeak differs from Newspeak [which is also around] in that its principle aims are group identification and attitude modification.

IC: The Other
IC1: Not everyone can or will operate a given dialect of Coolspeak. A Conservative will not produce Liberal Coolspeak. The Unsocialized will not perform Liberal Coolspeak OR Conservative Coolspeak. An Oprah Liberal does not sound like a Uni Coolspeaker.
IC2: If a speaker of one Coolspeak dialect interacts with speakers of another dialect, or with Crazytalkers [people who do not operate Coolspeak] the result is communicative breakdown. [Huh? What did he say? Does anybody know what he is getting at?].

IIA: Introduction to the List
IIA1: You may have noticed I keep using words like a Crazytalker and objecting or Correcting when I see Coolspeak used on certain topics. This has resulted in cognitive dissonance and negative feelings.
IIA2: In the interests of science and perhaps [unlikely though it seems] I present here a very short list of Coolspeak / Crazytalk clashes that have affected me. I will not here address the issue of Coolnames.

IIB: The List
IIB1 FAITH
IIB1a: I have faith in the scientific method as a means of determining the nature of things [Crazytalk - Faith1 is trust or belief based on a solid body of data, requiring a strong case before supplanting it]
IIB1b: Christians trust in faith, not reason [Coolspeak - Faith2 is a groundless belief that cannot stand up to examination]

IIB2 PROOF
IIB2a: Prove to me that you can drive safely, and I will buy you a car [Crazytalk - Proof1 involves providing evidence for Faith1, which see]
IIB2b: There is proof of evolution [Coolspeak - the decision of a body such as a jury or subset of the scientific community establishes something as incontrovertible fact].

IIB3 FREE WILL
IIB3a: Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. [Crazytalk - Will1 is a desire or preference for a specific outcome]
IIB3b: There is no such thing as Free Will, wishing does not make it so, [Coolspeak - Will2 involves making a choice that determines the outcome]

IIB4 SCIENCE
IIB4a: The science of Theology focusses on attaining a greater understanding of God and his ways [Crazytalk - Science1 involves dedicaton and drive toward gathering and examining data, making and testing inferences, aimning to move closer to understanding and truth]
IIB4b: Theology is clearly not a science [Coolspeak - Science2 involves a team of likeminded people feveloping a theory, using materialism as a major premise and peer review as an important tool]

IIB5 EDUCATION
IIB5a: Home schooling often provides the best education possible. [Crazytalk: to Educate1 is to provide an environment and techniques that will help the subject develop toward his highest potential.]
IIB6b: Learning facts and socialization are equally important in education [Coolspeak - to Educate2 is to prepare the student to be a productive unit in his or her society]

----------

I will not go on - this is enough to illustrate. I am no use talking Coolspeak - a Fuddyduddy Philologist dialect of Crazytalk is all I can manage.

And most of you will not even realize the Cool versus Crazy implications of Philologist.

There is where Coolspeak-plus-Crazytalk can make my innards quiver.
----------


Over the heads of many, but maybe they will/might/could/should/oughta thus be encouraged to think.


See just above ...

... and keep right on!

PS: I elsewhere recently stumbled upon this ...

And now here in the immediate:

Many of us also seem separated by a common language!

I thought your post was very interesting, but I'm not quite sure I see the point. Are you having trouble communicating with people because of inconsistencies in the connotations of words?

So what is the point?
Explain it to the rest of us.
What is "cool" about "coolspeak"? And crazy about "crazytalk"?

And what exactly is wrong with either.
Creative terms- but Philogos has not defined either. And his illustrations dont illustrate anything.

Saying "there is proof of evolution" is simply a statement of what the speaker believes to be the case. Is that a correct, or an incorrect use of the word "proof"? Whether or not it is correct or not- if you happened to believe that there is proof for evolution then what is the "UNcool" way to state that belief so as to not upset you?

That works up to a point, but [I am a longtime linguist and a hopelessly analytical pattern seeker] the situation is a bit more complicated:

While there are all kinds of communicative failure around here, I will stick to what involves me:

My attempts at communication face three primary handicaps:

Brought up in academia, I tend to word things in a fairly formal and often convoluted way.

Having a specific type of mind - edge-spectral and ennea-5 - what I think and say is often very different from the majority [ NT ennea-1, for example].

Being a tad older than my teeth and raised by books in a house where people did not really talk, my vocabulary and stock of cultural trivia are incredibly old fashioned seen by some people.

Those are givens, I have had them all my life, affecting all my communication with everybody including at times my Inner Circle. My wife and I have to stop and sort out meraning at least once a week.

My problem here expressed is that many people today are used to hearing certain words only with stereotyped meanings assigned by the media and certain social groups. Thus - I hate to give this away, I just explained it in a pm, but idt is a nice example that will not likely offend anyone:

The word "philologist" - its basic meaning, in "Crazytalk", is "intersted in words and language, working with languages and texts". But in the "Coolspeak" of linguists of a certain age - my age, but the Borg never assimilated me - "philologist" means an old fashioned fuddy duddy platying with language data and not adhering to a theory odf following THE MODEL.

I happen to be a philologist bu both definitions - obviously. But you simply cannot have a productive discussion of anything if the parties cannot agree on what words mean

naturalplastic - if you have somehow not encountered this, good for you. Long may it last.

Coolspeak is cool because the people who tell you they are cool and define what is cool invite everybody to be cool like them. Different groups establish different Coolspeak - Coolspeak among Tea Party types differs from the Coolspeak of my alma mater. If you use Coolspeak right you are recognized as part of the In Crowd, and you can convince others; when you debate an outsider YOU WIN because he used his words differently.

Of course in many cases he says HE won - because you argued all wrong with uncool words.

Crazytalk is crazy because the only people who talk that way are knownothing losers or people who do not belong to any group. I have been hated more than the enemy by people I was not fighting who realized I HAVE no party.

What is wrong?

At one level of reasoning, nothing. It is all part of God's plans, it is coded in our genes, we are evolving spiritually, OR nothing is good or bad intrinsically., All good views which let you say [as many have said to me about other things] "That's the way it is, get over it"

At another level of reasoning, it is bad because it restricts communication and divides the race. If you are into the books, or at least know the books as full of intriguing metaphors, think Babel. Or think jamming a radio signal or ejecting chaff from your jet. If communication can help humanity - and communication is blocked ...

AND at yet another level, it is frankly bad because it annoys me when people parrot a media-sourced meaning without bothering to see how I am using the word.

I think almost all communication problem/s variously experienced here are summarized/addressed within this:


"Old school" thought is generally considered "crazy" by many "modern thinkers" who have been taught it is "cool" to think that.


Whatever might spark your plug, I guess.


Much of that seeming shortcoming on his part is actually the result of some "modern programming" younger people are not even aware has been performed upon them.


If something has been proved to me, then I call that "proof" when talking to you.


Just say you happen to believe there is proof for evolution.

leejosepho quoteth:

Receiver
· The "receiver" of a message needs to ignore his/her stereotypes and perceptions, and pay attention to what the message is saying.
S/he needs to hear [same as has just been said], "I am hearing what you say and what you mean for your words to mean."

Right on.

Experience tells me not to hold my breath.

This is not, sadly, part of what Some think Americans should know.

**dons tin hat and engages CoolDar ...**

naturalplastic - this is I think important enough to be worth a separate post.

You say:

Saying "there is proof of evolution" is simply a statement of what the speaker believes to be the case. Is that a correct, or an incorrect use of the word "proof"? Whether or not it is correct or not- if you happened to believe that there is proof for evolution then what is the "UNcool" way to state that belief so as to not upset you?

A. If one says "there is proof of evolution" it certainly will normally imply one accepts that proof and believes whatever version of evolution is in focus..

B. If I, Philologos, say there is proof X - well, I personally usually don't. Some speech communities put the definition of proof higher than others, I tend to talk defensively, avoiding absolutes. I would say "The available data convince me of X". But I will say, "This technique has proven to be effective", if there are enough data scattered over a long enough time.

C. The correct or incorrect definition of proof depends on the community. This is Linguistics 101, have not thought about it a long time. In the context of British law "proof" does not what it means at a New Age conference on higher consciousness, not what it means in the editorial offices of the Times OR The Journal of Interquark Thermodynamics.

To the Cool, "Faith rests on proof" is as unacceptable as Chomsky's colorless green ideas. Except that I can find a meaning for colorless green ideas if I hear them being talked about, and the Cool rarely can imagine meanings which would permit data-informed faith

D. From what I have seen of your communication so far, you are unlikely to upset me with your usage of "proof". Frankly, I have you pegged as pretty much a Crazytalker yourself - different background and generation, but you seem ungleichgeschaltet.

Anyway, like leejosepho said, just talk. All you or anybody has to do to keep me from being upset - and that is everybody's ultimate goal, right? Is just talk. Say what you mean, presenting data, expecting discussion not fight. Listen to what I say back, if we use words differently we work the handshaking routine till we can signal straight each understanding the other. If you see I am wrong, try to show how I am wrong. If I say YOU are wrong because, check to see if my input checks with the real world.