An axiomatic paradox?

[Brant Gaede]

I tried to buffer her, but could only go so far. I never much rastled with her. I have at times with Michael. But both Ellen and Michael seem too much premised on winning their arguments so this was inevitable.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I don't care about winning arguments. That's not my issue.

When I gave up drugs for the very last time, I made a promise to myself. I had always been an overly-tolerant and empathetic person and this had led to me not taking action when people disrespected me. I was always worried about hurting people's feelings. So I put up with a lot. (I still do, but not like back then.) This was one of the reasons my stuff kept falling apart. Unfortunately when you give people that kind of leeway, they are merciless as their spite and contempt and vanity grow.

So I decided that if a person wants to disrespect me (beyond a certain limit), it would have to be behind my back. People who have the itch to disrespect me just have to take it elsewhere to scratch. That's all this is from my end.

That "Michael is a dummy" thing is a good case in point. It just kept building and building and I finally put a stop to it. I don't mind banter or a specific flare-up or a blurt during outright disagreement, but this is not what was happening. Notice that there is only a very small number of people who posted continually with that dummy agenda (with lots of euphemisms and insinuations, of course, but clearly identifiable). Oh, they used qualifiers at times, but this is merely how the game is played. The overall image that gets conveyed with that steady stream of bullshit does not convey the qualifiers and the people who were engaged in this habit know this—they are anything but stupid.

It finally got old. In my mind, the matter is simple. I don't do that to anybody else. I don't want it done to me.

I admit I do have strong negative opinions about some other people and I post them regularly, but I post them here. I don't demand that those folks, for as nasty as they are, pay for the vehicle for me to to express my negative opinions about them. I take care of that myself and people read it or not as they please. I don't fear expressing what I honestly think to anyone's face if and when I find neutral ground to do it, but I certainly do not expect that person to provide such ground.

A comment (even dummy stuff) during a specific argument is one thing and I don't mind that, but a campaign like what was unfolding is disrespectful. Let whoever is interested in such crap post that crap elsewhere, behind my back. Not to my face. It's a large enough world and there are plenty of places to scratch.

This principle has served me well since I adopted it. At least I sleep well and my stuff does not fall apart and I no longer use drugs. Those values mean more to me than the itches or vanity of any one person.

Are folks intelligent around here, even the ones who chose to engage in that crap? They sure are and I admire that deeply, but let's just say I'm no dummy, either.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, When I refered to winning arguments it was not in reference to the last contretempts you had with Ellen. I should have made that clear. She was simply too wrong, but for whatever reason wasn't going to backtrack so she left. You are much more catholic and flexible than Ellen. Sometimes when dealing with ideas you fail to follow the basic principle of parallel parking and start over, but I've never seen you turn that into an ad hominem this or that. (I won't put up money that you haven't, btw. Not going to back research 100,000 posts on four forums.)

--Brant

Edited September 26, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I'm hardheaded at times. I agree with that. You have to be if you are a creator. There are just too many obstacles you have to overcome. You can easily shut down if you don't grow some callouses and ignore stuff, especially in environments where the noise to signal ratio is high.

But I try to give a fair hearing to ideas that are not my own once my attention gets engaged. And, whether certain people like it or not, I have a deep emotional feeling that the universe is my playground, so I have no problem entering any discussion. I get easily fascinated by things and I want to look at them.

I don't accept opinions for facts, though, nor intimidation in to what I should think. (That's where feathers get ruffled.) If something doesn't make sense to me, I say so very clearly. (More feathers fly.)

This is the very spirit I celebrate in others.

btw - I used to use ad hominem liberally when I started on SoloHQ. I got seduced into the tribal spirit. But I woke up, made a formal declaration of eschewing all that and went around and apologized to the people I remembered I insulted while acting within that spirit.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hardheaded. Is that the same as boneheaded? Heh. Just asking.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hardheaded. Is that the same as boneheaded? Heh. Just asking.

Brant,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Ya' got me that time...

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

Korzybski coined the term semantic reaction. Basically it means a physiological reaction of an individual to words in connection with their meanings to that individual. So sometimes when you say something with a certain intended meaning someone else reacts to a different interpreted meaning of the same words. To avoid having negative semantic reactions one should ask "what do you mean?" if unsure about the intended meaning. Also it should prepare the speaker for possible mis-interpretations and so speak more carefully.

"And what do you mean when you say that? And what do you mean when you say you meant that when you said what you first said? And what do you mean when you say that? And on and on. I honestly think you should try out, "And what do I mean when I say this?"

= Mindy

[Mindy Newton]

Korzybski coined the term semantic reaction. Basically it means a physiological reaction of an individual to words in connection with their meanings to that individual. So sometimes when you say something with a certain intended meaning someone else reacts to a different interpreted meaning of the same words. To avoid having negative semantic reactions one should ask "what do you mean?" if unsure about the intended meaning. Also it should prepare the speaker for possible mis-interpretations and so speak more carefully.

"And what do you mean when you say that? And what do you mean when you say you meant that when you said what you first said? And what do you mean when you say that? And on and on. I honestly think you should try out, "And what do I mean when I say this?"

= Mindy

I want to note for the record that when I said I thought we all knew where Paul was coming from, I was not being sarcastic. (I think there were some non-semantic reactions there, GS.) Paul had been posting at great length on what his thinking was, what his method was, his assumptions, etc. Nobody who had been reading his posts could have wondered about those things!

= Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

I want to note for the record that when I said I thought we all knew where Paul was coming from, I was not being sarcastic. (I think there were some non-semantic reactions there, GS.) Paul had been posting at great length on what his thinking was, what his method was, his assumptions, etc. Nobody who had been reading his posts could have wondered about those things!

= Mindy

I really don't think you do know where I am coming from. Your responses don't align at all with my intended meanings. I know. I intended them. I have no desire for further effort. It really isn't worth it.

Paul

[tjohnson]

There is a common belief that we can define all our terms and so speak without any ambiguity but this is not the case, except in mathematics. Dictionaries give us the usual meanings of words expressed in other words but if you continue to inquire you reach a point where no further definition is possible - at this point you either get it or you do not. Ask your teenager to clean her room and you may see what I mean. You can look up 'clean' in the dictionary but you may have a very different idea what 'clean' looks like than the kid does, for example.

[BaalChatzaf]

There is a common belief that we can define all our terms and so speak without any ambiguity but this is not the case, except in mathematics. Dictionaries give us the usual meanings of words expressed in other words but if you continue to inquire you reach a point where no further definition is possible - at this point you either get it or you do not. Ask your teenager to clean her room and you may see what I mean. You can look up 'clean' in the dictionary but you may have a very different idea what 'clean' looks like than the kid does, for example.

We cannot define all our terms in mathematics. Mathematical systems start with undefined terms and unproven propositions (the axioms or postulates).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

We cannot define all our terms in mathematics. Mathematical systems start with undefined terms and unproven propositions (the axioms or postulates).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, we can include all particulars in our definitions, which we cannot in natural language. I'm not sure what you mean by starting with unproven propositions.

[Dragonfly]

We cannot define all our terms in mathematics. Mathematical systems start with undefined terms and unproven propositions (the axioms or postulates).

Those terms are in fact defined by the axioms.

[Mindy Newton]

I want to note for the record that when I said I thought we all knew where Paul was coming from, I was not being sarcastic. (I think there were some non-semantic reactions there, GS.) Paul had been posting at great length on what his thinking was, what his method was, his assumptions, etc. Nobody who had been reading his posts could have wondered about those things!

= Mindy

I really don't think you do know where I am coming from. Your responses don't align at all with my intended meanings. I know. I intended them. I have no desire for further effort. It really isn't worth it.

Paul

Have you heard Peikoff's Objective Communication? Communication itself depends on sounds' and symbols' conveying specific meanings. We don't read minds. The effort to record and communicate in language is an effort to use sounds and symbols in a common way. Idiosyncracy is anathema.

All anyone you speak or write to has is the symbols (sounds or other.) If you don't use the ones that by common, linguistic accord mean what your "intention to mean" is, you have failed to communicate. It is not incumbent on others to plumb your non sense in search for your "intentions." It is incumbent on you to say what you mean.

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication. That doesn't mean a standard of excellence, note. It doesn't mean being eloquent, or well-read, or even right-thinking. It means that we try to say what we mean, and we are responsible for what we say. It means knowing what your words mean--even if it is just what you, mistakenly, believe them to mean. As long as you can and will explain what you mean by each term and each statement, you're good. If you are mistaken, no problem. You'll note that that is a description of how this and most blog sites in fact work.

My responses "align" with your actual meanings, my friend. You really should make further effort, because you're lost without it. I'll help you, if you like, by PM or email. Since you feel so strongly about your ideas, it would be a shame if you didn't acquire discursive skills.

= Mindy

[tjohnson]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

[Mindy Newton]

May I suggest a modification: you say knowledge = "information possessed by a consciousness". I propose: knowledge = "empirically corroborated information possessed by a consciousness" which is sometimes rendered as "justified true belief".

Ba'al's modification is a more precise statement of the condition of knowledge about anything that is judged to exist separate to our consciousness of it. We can have mathematical knowledge without empirical corroboration. Although there is a type of corroboration involved in mathematics, it is not empirical. It is corroboration with a reality created in the imagination that is formed from very specific principles. I would suggest that metaphysics is ideally a combination of both types of thinking, and both types of corroboration, if it is to be about anything real.

Paul

Here's an example, Paul: Your two "types of corroboration", above, are well-known theories of truth, one is called the "correspondence theory of truth," and the other is a "coherence" position on truth. If you had known and used these terms you might have said, "Math knowledge must be coherent, but need not correspond to reality." That covers sentences 2-4. Then, you could have said, "I believe both coherence and correspondence are needed in metaphysics." By the way, all the last statement actually means is that truth can't be contradictory, and must fit reality. I add that so that you can see that your "explorations" did not enlighten, discover, or explain anything. They were, rather, nearly incomprehensible, confusing, verbose, and literally a waste of time to consider.

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

I don't think you said what you thought you said. In any case, I use a dictionary for starters.

--Brant

[Mindy Newton]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

I don't think you said what you thought you said. In any case, I use a dictionary for starters.

--Brant

I think I'd better ask you what you mean when you say, "I don't think you said what you thought you said." Yes, that helps.

So, Brant, why don't you think I said what I thought I said?

I trust you realize that wasn't about you, but GS?

= Mindy

Edit: Brant, you were addressing GS? If so, I got it wrong.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

I don't think you said what you thought you said. In any case, I use a dictionary for starters.

--Brant

I think I'd better ask you what you mean when you say, "I don't think you said what you thought you said." Yes, that helps.

So, Brant, why don't you think I said what I thought I said?

I trust you realize that wasn't about you, but GS?

= Mindy

Edit: Brant, you were addressing GS? If so, I got it wrong.

Yes. GS.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

How so? Can you ellaborate? That seems like a very general statement. I can see where in some cases, that might hold true, but not all. In teaching, for instance, you have to get your students to a common ground (standard) before they can grasp and implement those teachings. It also creates a solid reference for teaching further on that subject. Without a common standard for objective communication, there is confusion.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy Newton]

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good one. It is even stiffer than mine, though.

= Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

The dispute we have here is whether we hold a common standard for objective communication.

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist

I think the question is: Is this common standard absolute or relative to some given frame of reference? If the standard of objective communication is relative to a given frame of reference, then communication is interrupted if people are using different frames of reference or different paradigms of thought. This scenario would predict that some people would interpret meanings as intended and some would not. In my opinion, this is what is happening here.

Generally speaking "a common standard for objective communication" can be found within a dominant paradigm of thought (paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Dictionary.com). If someone finds the existing paradigm unsatisfactory for integrating the observed facts into a cohesive view of reality, then stepping outside this paradigm requires finding new ways of thinking and talking about things; images are connected in new ways, new contexts are created, and words must take on new meanings to fit the new contexts. These new meanings cannot be understood from within the conceptual framework of existing paradigms. The meaning of words from one subjective context, or frame of reference, cannot be understood from the position of another context. If attempted, the words make no sense.

Imagine trying to understand the meaning modern physics holds for the words "particle" and "wave" from the perspective of a classical physics paradigm. The classical physicist might say, "the words used to describe quantum events are 'nearly incomprehensible, confusing, verbose, and literally a waste of time to consider.'"

Lessons on communication would be inappropriate. They miss the mark. The solution is not to teach/preach someone the "right" meanings of words. The solution is to adjust one's context to fit the meaning.

When I write, because I am simply trying to paint a picture with words, I am using words more as an artist's medium than a scientist's language. If you don't like my art, if my words have no meaning to you, so be it. I painted my picture. The words capture my meaning in the idiosyncratic language of this particular artist. If you don't like it, if you don't get it, fine. I didn't paint it for you. But don't try to tell me I don't know what my words mean just because you don't know what my words mean. The images and the words have meaning.

As time moves forward and I can turn back to my own art, I will start to differentiate the elements of it and put it into language that is more consistent with, but defines the distinctions from, existing paradigms. I will start to put it into language that explains the transition between existing paradigms and what has shaped my art.

Metaphysics starts as models of existence visualized in the imagination. Different forms of art are different ways of expressing this metaphysical vision. Rand expressed her metaphysical vision through fiction writing. I'm expressing mine through my own idiosyncratic word paintings. It is only after first expressing one's metaphysical vision through some form of art that one can begin to isolate, identify, and categorize its element in systematic philosophical (academic) form. Metaphysics has an evolution: first, you have to express your vision; second, you go through a cyclical process of expansion, refinement and further artistic expression to make it evolve; finally, you systematically identify its elements for academic discourse by differentiating the existents contained in the vision. (Mindy, sorry you don't understand. I'm at stage 2 and just starting to see the path to stage 3.)

At the end of the day if you like my art, that's great. If you don't, I accept that. Insightful feedback from people who do get it helps it evolve. Feedback from people who don't get it has no meaning. But the primary reason to produce art is to express and objectify one's metaphysical vision so one can expand and refine this vision. This is all I am doing for now. My desire to read more and approach my ideas more academically is an expression of my desire to start stage three.

btw--Mindy, your précis (post #391) of what I wrote is missing details I included. Unless I am mistaken, the following is not part of coherence theory:

It is corroboration with a reality created in the imagination that is formed from very specific principles.

This goes further than coherence theory to suggest that mathematics is founded in a specific type of metaphysical vision, created in the imagination, which evolves and is expressed according to the 3 stages of metaphysical development I described above. Generally, academic learning only focuses on acquiring stage 3 information: the transfer of systematically identified elements which differentiate the existents contained in a metaphysical vision. Academic teaching does not communicate the contextual roots of conceptual systems of thought. This might be why you cannot understand me. You weren't taught to.

I would suggest you missed my meaning again because you are trying to evaluate my words from the dominant paradigms you have been taught. I don't care to confine my understanding and expression to these paradigms. I would find it boring. It would be paint by numbers. I like to invent; there would be no invention. I like to seek the possible and the potential; it would only be what already exists. I like the freedom to create; it would put me in a straight jacket. No, I'll stick to my creative and idiosyncratic use of language until I am ready to move on to more systematic descriptions of my art.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Grandma might be deaf!

[Mindy Newton]

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Grandma might be deaf!

Sure, Paul, blame it on Gramdma.

= Mindy