tjohnson Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 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.~ ShaneI don't know what "objective" communication means. I have an idea what communication means but once you add that adjective I'm lost. Possibly you are referring to communication using some technical language where the meanings are quite precise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) 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.~ ShaneI don't know what "objective" communication means. I have an idea what communication means but once you add that adjective I'm lost. Possibly you are referring to communication using some technical language where the meanings are quite precise?Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion (standard definition). In communications, it would be the elimination of subjective qualities. It creates neutral ground so that are no biases or preconceived notions. Whether you're introducing someone to new material and thoughts or something that's been hashed out at length, it's still the onus of the communicator to clearly convey the meanings by defining them up front. Otherwise you end up with the "deer in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.The most important thing I learned in speech class - know your audience. If you assume folks are on your frequency, you're likely to lose part of your audience. By communicating objectively, you create the neutral ground - everyone can stand on it. But it ultimately falls on the person trying to get something across to create it, and maintain it.Strangely enough, L. Ron Hubbard wrote in Dianetics something very useful that I applied during teaching. He said (I'm paraphrasing) "If a person is reading and comes across a new or unknown word, and continues reading on without first defining it, the reader will find themselves hooked on the word. In their mind, they are grasping at putting that word into context of the sentence. As they read on, they will not be able to focus or concentrate." Ever keep reading beyond a word you don't understand? The same applies to teaching, introducing new subject material here, or delving deeper into subjects where folks eloborate on tangents they've found. Neutral ground has to be a constant.~ Shane Edited October 1, 2008 by sbeaulieu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 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.~ ShaneI don't know what "objective" communication means. I have an idea what communication means but once you add that adjective I'm lost. Possibly you are referring to communication using some technical language where the meanings are quite precise?It means that your meaning can stand alone. It doesn't need explanations as to what you intended to say, etc. = Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = MindyOh. I didn't catch that because I once ran down my dear (I shot the SOB she was dearing with) and I saw her eyes in my headlights. Had to replace the whole front end. I was really pissed off I had to drive my Yugo for a month while the Caddy was in the shop. Had to buy a new mattress too. I'm putting a plastic cover on the new one just in case it happens again.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 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.This is simply wrong, GS. We can, for instance, begin with ostensive definitions.By the way, here is an "absolute" you might like to try to challenge: Whatever moves occupies space.= Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = MindyOh. I didn't catch that because I once ran down my dear (I shot the SOB she was dearing with) and I saw her eyes in my headlights. Had to replace the whole front end. I was really pissed off I had to drive my Yugo for a month while the Caddy was in the shop. Had to buy a new mattress too. I'm putting a plastic cover on the new one just in case it happens again.--BrantCharming, Brant. = Mindy Edited September 30, 2008 by Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = MindyOh. I didn't catch that because I once ran down my dear (I shot the SOB she was dearing with) and I saw her eyes in my headlights. Had to replace the whole front end. I was really pissed off I had to drive my Yugo for a month while the Caddy was in the shop. Had to buy a new mattress too. I'm putting a plastic cover on the new one just in case it happens again.--BrantCharming, Brant. = MindyI love it when I can let my inner self out to roam around for a while. This is my version of going out on Hollowean night since I'm way too old to actually Trick or Treat. I'm evil, evil, evil!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 = MindyI love it when I can let my inner self out to roam around for a while. This is my version of going out on Hollowean night since I'm way too old to actually Trick or Treat. I'm evil, evil, evil!--BrantPerhaps you should consider wean-ing yourself this Halloween. = Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mawdsley Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) 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.This is simply wrong, GS. We can, for instance, begin with ostensive definitions.By the way, here is an "absolute" you might like to try to challenge: Whatever moves occupies space.= Mindy I can imagine a Caddy moving and hitting a deer or a dear. I don't think this visualization occupies space even if I believe the physiological entities and processes that I imagine to underly it do occupy space. It is important to consider the fact that we must judge the difference between dreams, imaginings, delusions and perceptions. What is real is not epistemically given. Consider the primitive views of reality that our culture has evolved from. Consider where we have come from since Plato postulated his Forms.Definitions and meanings must start with a subjective context and are relative to this context. Absolutes in our views of reality are a matter of judgement and can only exist in a specified subjective context. Any subjective context is of course relative to the accepted paradigm: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them." (Dictionary.com) Change the context and you change the meaning and definition of words. What is absolute in one epistemic context is not in another. We just assume some contexts are paradigms. We assume they are, or should be, dominant and common to all observers. Believing this is so doesn't make it so.Paul(edited for typos) Edited October 1, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted September 30, 2008 Author Share Posted September 30, 2008 Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = MindyYes. In 1988, Dan Quayle was the deer ~in~ the headlights. Sarah Palin is the ~dear~ ~with~ the headlights. :-)reb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mawdsley Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil: = MindyI 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 ChatzafGrandma might be deaf!Sure, Paul, blame it on Gramdma.= MindyI love Grandma but, between her deafness and her advancing dementia, I don't expect her to understand me. Now, explaining things to a child is different. My children don't have deafness or dementia, but I still have trouble explaining certain concepts. Just because I have difficulty explaining the nature and difference of the concepts of epistemology and metaphysics to an 8 year old, this doesn't mean I don't understand them. It can mean he is not yet ready to create the context necessary to build his own picture of what I am talking about. Sometimes the problems with communication are on the side of the receiver, even if the experienced challenge and frustration are on both ends.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) I created this diagram depicting 'communication' based on the work of Korzybski and Northrop.Definitions, no matter how carefully they are made, occur in the center circle. We can move to and from perceptual and conceptual levels to verbal, symbolic levels and this represents a physiological process and so necessarily involves subjective factors. We learn to visualize certain things when we hear (or read) certain words and this is how we communicate but it can never be absolute since there are actual chemical reactions involved in the process.BTW, this represents 3 different humans in some typical situation. Edited September 30, 2008 by general semanticist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 GS,Do you have definitions for the following terms?StimuliLanguageSeems to me like you have some absolute meanings of these words in your mind for this thing to work.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 GS,Do you have definitions for the following terms?StimuliLanguageSeems to me like you have some absolute meanings of these words in your mind for this thing to work.MichaelSure I do, and they are also on the verbal level. Another thing, you can see the difference between mathematics and other language here. You can imagine the little arrow between the perceived structure and the conceived structure removed with mathematics since mathematical objects (conceived structure) do not correspond to physical objects (perceived structure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.~ ShaneFYI: It's "deer in the headlights" = MindyCorrected. Thanks.~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 GS,I'm not sure what you mean by "arrow." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 GS,I'm not sure what you mean by "arrow." MichaelOh, you don't know what an arrow looks like? That's unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 GS,I know perfectly what I mean my "arrow." I don't know what you mean. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 With her apron wrapped about her I took her for a swan.Alas and alackIt was her my Polly Von--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 GS,I know perfectly what I mean my "arrow." I don't know what you mean. MichaelSigh......I'm sure your idea of an arrow is pretty well the same as mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Michael and GS,Might I suggest a fine assortment of "arrows" to chose from? :thumbsup: ~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 With her apron wrapped about her I took her for a swan.Alas and alackIt was her my Polly Von--BrantA-muse-ing, BrantAlas and alack,I want my bullet back,I will no more hunt swan,To remember Polly Von.= Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 With her apron wrapped about her I took her for a swan.Alas and alackIt was her my Polly Von--BrantA-muse-ing, BrantAlas and alack,I want my bullet back,I will no more hunt swan,To remember Polly Von.= MindyThx for fixing that up for me, Mindy, but it wasn't a bullet in the Peter, Paul & Mary version, it was an arrow.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Let me do something wright for once, sort of:http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter,+paul+&...n_20107689.html "Shed" in the chorus should be "she'd."--Brant Edited October 1, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now