Halx

Powerful, moving words.

The permanence of words lays not in the spelling, nor alignment. The true essence and power of words lays in their message. Once you say something, not even an apology can rescind them. Few will remember exactly what it is that you said, but they WILL remember what you meant.

Experience will teach you not to use your words unless they are exactly what you want to say. Words cannot be taken back, you see. For even with an apology, they remain behind. No human is free from this judgement.

Expand, contradict, or denouce as you wish. More to come later.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

wilbjammin

If you're referring to spoken word, particularly in face to face interractions I'm more prone to agree with you. There is always judgment in every action, in every perceived event or object someone encounters.

At any rate... the key to this that does make it true is that words are interpreted subjectively. How often have you been misinterpreted for saying something that you thought meant one thing and it was taken absolutely the wrong way? Simultaneously there are different meanings for the same thing.

I don't know if everything is as permanent as you suggest, but words have more power to move people than anything else that I know.

__________________
Innominate.

lurkette

Communication is at the very center of what it means to be human. Our whole experience, after a brief vacation in infancy, is moderated by language. The essential problem, though, is that words are only ever poor metaphors for what they're meant to express - the word "chair" is not itself a chair. It's an imperfect system, with built-in tendency for misunderstanding. The best you can do is be aware of it and be responsible for it on both sides, speaking and listening. You can only control whichever part of the communication you're responsible for. If you're speaking, you're responsible for how the listener hears you. If you're listening, you're responsible for the baggage you bring to your interpretation. Once you realize this, there's great power and freedom in communication.

I think you'd be suprised how impermanent communication can be - clarifications and apologies can never turn back the clock and take back the words, but they can alter the context in which those words are understood. ratbastid and I go through this all the time in our marriage - we say something that's taken the wrong way, we apologize and make ourselves clear, the hurt is gone, the misunderstanding is gone, and what's left is an appreciation for the other person's responsibility and thoughts.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Halx

CONTEXT (with an emphasis on written material)

This is the instance in which words become subjective and take on meaning to an individual.

Are we responsible for setting the context with the people who we want to communicate with? Yes. I've done a poor job of this in the past and frequently pissed people off. I'm frequently guilty of not setting a proper context for my words. It's these little instances that teach me that context is 51% of what you're trying to say. Without it, people are free to think whatever their mind is dialed to.

BIASES (regarding all communication)

Biases take a tight grip of the subjective matter when context is not set firmly enough. That's plain and simple.

RESCINDING

Under normal functioning, you cannot brainwash from your mind the impression that you received from a message, even when it has been rescinded. While you may be told that you have misunderstood, the chance of you forgiving the misconception decreases with the intensity with which you have acknowledged the original message. It's easy to dismiss something trivial, but you'll still entertain it's alternative in the back of your head.

On the other hand, cognitive dissonance grips you hard if you originally misunderstood something that affected you in a dramatic fashion. You put so much emotion into this notion that when you are informed that it was in fact misunderstood, you are then inclined to believe the false version more. (Please note, all psychological assumptions are provided with the pre-attached disclaimer, "on average.")

Discuss how you like.. more to come later.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

lurkette

I think this depends on the intent of the retraction - if the intent is to erase the event, then yes, you will fail. It happened. If, however, the intent is to produce a new understanding in the mind of the listener such that it is a victory over the past interpretation, then you have a decent shot IF you are responsible for the impact of the words you use, and IF you are committed to making sure that person is "complete" with the communication - making sure they understand your intent, and making sure there is nothing left to be said on their part.

Quote:

On the other hand, cognitive dissonance grips you hard if you originally misunderstood something that affected you in a dramatic fashion. You put so much emotion into this notion that when you are informed that it was in fact misunderstood, you are then inclined to believe the false version more. (Please note, all psychological assumptions are provided with the pre-attached disclaimer, "on average.")

I think this depends on how the true version is framed. If someone has had a powerful reaction to a message, it will take an equally powerful message to override that reaction.

Witness one of the largest instances of mass cognitive dissonance in the past year: in the first few months after the Iraq war, something like 71% of Americans believed that we HAD found WMD in Iraq, despite the fact that the news media had repeatedly reported that no such weapons were found. This was a result of 1. a clearly stated but misleading phrase from GWB's public address, and 2. people's preference for consistency over truth. Supporters of the war were more likely to believe that WMD had been found because it meshed with their beliefs about the activities in Iraq and their desire for justification for military action.

It took MONTHS of mild media coverage to reverse this misunderstanding. It could have been done much more quickly with dramatic coverage to counter the equally dramatic statement.

Similarly, if someone is deeply and vocally offended by a misinterpreted statement, yes, they're gonna look stupid if they back down, so you're going to have to give them something better than looking good and being right in order to make it worth their while. Usually, what it takes is:

1. acknowledging their position
2. taking responsibility for the misunderstanding (this is the price you pay for having control of the situation: you can either be responsible and understood, or you can be right at all costs and leave the offense in place. Choose 1)
3. creating a new understanding in place of the old one.

Again, it all depends on your intention. If your intention is to be known and understood, then you are ultimately responsible for how your words are taken.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Halx

All fairly reasonable, lurkette.

My point lies in the 'residue' left by the intial false impression. It is never completely gone. It may not be the issues contained in the false version, but the simple fact that they were rescinded will damage one's credibility, reputation, overall point.. what have you.

People pay more attention to the steps that you take backwards than the ones you take forwards.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

triad

Haha, kinda off topic, but it instantly reminded me of the old SNL 'Coffe-talk' skits: here's a topic: Watergate was neither water nor a gate… Discuss...

wilbjammin

It seems that there is an interesting link between the emotive response caused by words and the meaning gained from understanding them. I think of how I had frustrating relationships with people - after I gave up on being close friends, or came to terms with their faults, things that would have used to have bothered me that they said didn't phase me.

Definitely, to get the force of the words, you have to have something invested emotionally in them or their source.

A cultural phenomenon that is very prevalent in the US, if not most other Western European nations is to reduce people to essential qualities based on singular events. Such as, reducing someone to being "stupid" because he didn't answer a question right in class, or someone as being mean because he lashed once. If you can take a more wholistic view of people and take into account the situations that cause people to act as they do, it is easier to step back and drop the initial reaction you have to what they say that puts you aback.

What really gives words force is when they have been established in a pattern of behavior. Out of place behavior can be let go fairly easily with apologies and the like, but you can't put aside a pattern of behavior as easily. Then, that serious outburst (or whatever) takes on a representation of the pattern, rather than just a bad day.

__________________
Innominate.

Halx

great points to fill in there, will

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

GakFace

I do believe context is beyond 51%. I can say a word or phrase 5 times, using the exact same words, but the context will pull through and thus mean 5 different things.

Yes on average the first thought sticks.. but that doesn't mean it can't be squashed. It all depends on how you go back to "defend" yourself. You could accidentally say the wrong thing, and still fix it. But yes, you did say on avg. I still think though that it is possible to squash it.. its still there but you just don't care.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

chavos

*nods

unfortunate words are a part of life-deciding that its worth it to press on and try to let the other person clarify and move on...i've found it worthwhile. i'd have to cut my list of friends down pretty sharp if i didn't.

wilbjammin

I tend to error on the side of forgiveness. It has been worth it for some friends that I still have now that I've known for many years, and other times I would have been better off saying "forget it" after the first time. I feel better giving people a chance to redeem themselves, or at least turn the situation into a learning opportunity than to pass off the entire person. It's those established patterns though... those are killers...

__________________
Innominate.

lurkette

I disagree. Some of the best leaders, managers, executives, etc., are the ones who can admit a mistake. The fact that they take responsibility for their words or for events that result from their words/actions does not damage their credibility or reputation - quite the opposite. Their followers/employees/friends/whatever know that they can trust them to clean up after themselves. Instead of trying to cover up their fallibility, their humanity, they have managed to master it and take responsibility for it. Someone who knows they are wrong and sticks to their guns anyhow is, IMHO, a coward and loses credibility rather than gains it. They are unable to admit their own flaws and are likely to make bad decisions to save face.

I'm not sure this is true. For example, ratbastid was a real ass right after my brother died. I was extremely pissed at him. However, he took great pains to alter his behavior, and what I'm left with is awe and respect for how hard it was for him to admit that he was being childish and change his behavior. His initial actions were a huge step backwards, and not one that I'll forget, but our relationship is stronger and my love and respect for him is greater because of the steps forward that he took.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ARTelevision

Good thread.

As something of a wordsmith, I'm pretty free with my words. I don't believe they are the actual content of our communication. If I were to state my own view of the significance of context as a determiner of meaning/comprehension, I'd say it is 100% determinant of the meaning/comprehension of words.

Words in one context mean one thing. In another context they mean something else. Context is a much more complex and unpredictable environment to create, operate within, and participate in than simply speaking or typing.

I believe we focus on words because they appear to be the raw data of communication and are easily categorized and defined. This is our big mistake. We believe it is the words we use that create meaning and comprehension. I do not see that happening.

What I do see happening is that the context in which words are used conditions meaning/comprehension in human beings. It is as if the actual communication is not noticed because we have a tendency to focus on the words that we and others use when we go back to analyze what was said and how it was understood.

Perhaps you can think of examples of this. If so, looking at human communication in this way may make a lot more sense of the way it proceeds than does focusing on the specific words that are used...

__________________
create evolution

lurkette

ART, I think it's both/and. The context is crucial, but so is the choice of words you use in a given context. "I love you" means something in one context (after great sex with a significant other) and something different in another (to an acquaintance who has done you a favor). However, the words do matter. Imagine the same contexts with different words ("I'm hungry", for example, or "thanks - see you later") and the meaning is radically different. The words do matter as much as the context.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ARTelevision

I'd say they matter to the degree that they have associated meanings governing their choice. At some point, due to the manner in which individual words are used to reflect our thoughts and experiences, particular phrases become codified with the type of meaning one can find in a dictionary. The phrase, "I love you," is one of these. For purposes of this discussion, it may be considered as a word-group or, more properly, a meme.

As words are commonly grouped into recognizable memes, they follow the same pattern I described above. Their human meaning must be interpreted contextually. To do otherwise is to reduce the human mind to a dictionary. And that it simply is not.

To use your example:
The phrase "I love you" is meaningless without context. It is the specific context in which it is used that gives it meaning.

__________________
create evolution

lurkette

But the context is without content absent chosen words. The context is meaningless in and of itself; words are always interpreted in a context. They're two sides of the same coin.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ARTelevision

no way!

I don't have to say "I love you" to experience love. I don't have to hear the phrase either.

Context - or experience - is the only thing that has meaning. Words are things we invented and tack on to experience in hope of communicating something. Usually, we fail because words are very poor conveyors of anything. But we have a very hard time accepting that.

__________________
create evolution

lurkette

I think we're approaching "if a tree falls in the woods..." territory here.

First, I was misunderstanding what you were talking about - it seems you were talking about inherent meaning, while I was talking about communication.

However, I think I even disagree with you about inherent meaning. You may not have to say "I love you" to experience love, but all of your experiences occur within the context (!) of language. Are your thoughts linguistic? Are emotions linguistic? I think they are. Except for certain transcendent and necessarily transient experiences, pretty much everything that goes through your brain is linguistic. It's the human curse.

Take, for instance, a particular event: shooting a deer. The context is the death of an animal. Do the other deer in its herd feel grief? Outrage? Do they organize against hunters? Does the event have meaning to them? They might react out of instinct - fear at the noise of the gun, sight of one of their herd in danger. But does the context have meaning in and of itself? To a human, however, this event has meaning: food for another month, pride at having hunted and killed an animal, sadness at unnecessary death, etc. If the context has meaning in and of itself, shouldn't it have the same meaning to everyone experiencing it?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ARTelevision

I agree with one thing you said. Words are the human curse.
I figured this out a long time ago and so have been on a life-long campaign to separate the hypnosis of words from my actual experience. It's probably the single most significant thing about me - since that's what I take most seriously. On the one hand there is my experience and on the other hand there are a bunch of words attached to it. To me, one is real and the other is a phony imitation of reality which has some very small value when used contextually as a communications device as necessary - but which is likely to produce wildly unpredictable results if not used with the awareness that the map is not the territory.

We are hypnotized by words because we are susceptible to cultural hypnosis - and vice versa.

It's a radically revolutionary position I take as regards this - involving a revolution in consciousness.

Either we free ourselves from the tyranny of words-as-experience or we are never living in the real world. Most of us live in verbal constructions. That is the problem.

__________________
create evolution

ratbastid

Let me posit that there are two states a human being can be in. He can either be "intellectualizing" or "experiencing". These states are mutually exclusive. You might also call them thinking versus being.

In the case of "intellectualizing", words play the role of separating the individual from his experience and his surroundings. Words distance him from other people. Words distance him from himself.

In the case of "experiencing", we tend to think of words as a pale shadow of the experience. But in my (ahem) experience, it can sometimes go the other way. Indeed, it's possible to deliberately speak ones way to a state of pure experience. The words one uses when doing this aren't descriptive, they're creative--it's the speaking that causes the shift in state. The experience is literally that of the world being given by your words.

To extrapolate that to the pomo notion "it's not a chair until I say it is" is a little silly, IMO. But it is my opinion that words are not necessarily the tyrants they're made out to be. They're the tool. We're the tyrants.

wilbjammin

There's a sort of loop that this conversation is falling into, which I think relates to the cyclical nature of defining art.

There is an existential paradox caused by our reliance on language. On one hand, our whole existence is defined by words. On the other, words are symbolic, metaphorical, and at least one step removed from whatever is being discussed.

I understand ARTelevision's desire to reach an existential place where he transcends words. I think, at least at this point of my life, that I have been attempting to use words to transcend existence. Does this mean that I'm living in a dream-world? No, but I love the metaphor, and generally I realize just how metaphorical everything is that I do and write. I am aware of the metaphor, and yet it still has meaning to me. By using the words to transcend existence, I end up having a deeper understanding of existence on a base level.

In this sense, I am a poet. I vascillate between being as distant from the metaphors as possible and being consumed by them. Typically, I am somewhere in between, but (to use a metaphor) I like the rise and fall of where it takes me.

__________________
Innominate.

ARTelevision

yes, ratbastid, you're right.
I don't see much evidence - well almost none - that most human beings are even able to draw the distinctions you've drawn here. Hence - "We're the tyrants," as you say.

However, what you describe is very similar in kind to the way I use words. And it also points to the same discipline required to live an authentic life.

In brief, you've carried the discussion forward from the exact point I left it. That's pretty amazing in itself.

Thanks for that. Perhaps there's a way to construct a procedure to continue drawing the crucial distinction between the map (words) and the territory (experience).

The secret is out: I use words "creatively"... the problem is - that can mean many different things to many people.

P.S. I posted this simultaneous to wb's post. I'll respond to that one as well soon.

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

wilbjammin, I understand your position as well.
we're pointing at the same moon, I think.

__________________
create evolution

ratbastid

I just read this again, though perhaps it was for the first time.

We must free ourselves from the tyranny of words-as-experience. God damn right.

Substituting description for experience is the single most deadening thing there is. In my training as an Introduction Leader for Landmark Education, I'm trained to share experiences--to speak them in a way that presences the experience NOW. Sharing is very different from "talking about".

That's the sort of creative speaking I'm talking about--speaking that intentionally forwards something or causes something. Intentionality is important here, because it's trivially easy to unintentionally cause or forward things, but that has no power.

Master what it is to speak intentionally from a creative space, and you've got real power in your life and the ability to make a huge difference in the world. It could be said that that's what leadership IS.

ARTelevision

Agreed.
In other words, back to one of the main tributaries of this thread.
The way I am using context/experience dovetails well with your analysis, rb.

What I'm conscious of far more than the words I use - which flow quite spontaneously from me - is the ongoing contextual frame through which I deliver them. I consciously create that and it takes real work and focus.

Hopefully this excellent thread can provide some touchstones for others who are treading the same path - toward contextualizing their experience and using words in ways that re-create the experience of meaning rather than simply lining up dictionary definitions in a linear recitation of sounds in thin air or type on (web or paper) pages.

And to try to bring it back to the very birth of the thread, hopefully those who have become habituated to hanging on every word and using the words of others to hang them from the rooftops will take a step back and allow words to disappear into the non-existence from which they may have issued in the first place.

Words are as Hal said "Powerful, moving..." Only if we can see them for what they are can we hope to be free from the hypnotic trance they tend to have on us...

__________________
create evolution

:::OshnSoul:::

I do agree. Words are merely developed by humans as an easier way of communication, although, irony is it's the most confusing, misinterpretted way of communication.
This is where offensiveness & defensiveness, hate, judgement, hurt, misleadings, and lies stem from. Words.
We need to slow down the process of our speaking and our thoughts, and truly gather and send out what we really feel. Sometimes it's hard to put into words how you feel, but once you take a moment to think about it, you will know how to perfectly release your feelings into words.
take your time, only say what you mean, and speak only when necessary.
I have always been the fairly quiet type, although I love social interaction. I don't say much unless I feel I need to and I take my time with it. I used to be so conscious of myself, trying to find things to talk about, but soon I realized it's not for me, and I have observed that the people who talk on and on aren't listening and truly don't know who they are, usually attempting to be someone they're not.
Words sure can have an effect on others. Be careful with them, they are powerful, although they may not be genuine.

taliendo

Language is a construct; it's innate, dead. Written language is nothing more than a group of symbols that we as a people have agreed to represent perception through. I believe that the need to communicate between humans and the invention of such a system to do so is a much more exciting innovation in the experience of mankind.

And, one of my favorite lines, "Every word that we utter was given to us by another; it is the assemblage of those words that makes them our own." -August West.

__________________
-LIFE IS ABSURD-

tisonlyi

Ahhh, the cool web of language.

What poem is that from?

Constricting our minds and poisoning our souls.

The sooner we can communicate to each other in direct sensation/experience, passed to one another by means of cybernetic brain interface and wireless networks the better.

Or hangon, no.

Wait.

Wouldn't that mean puns will die? Hey, I _LOVE_ PUNS.

KILL THE TECHNOLOGY, BURN THE HERETICS.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

tisonlyi

Words as the shackles of our mind.

Powerful, but not really relevent.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Willowsr

ya know... I read the original post by halx... and I waded through the rest...

I agree halx... words hurt... and likey leave a 'mark' that won't easily wash away... seems like a no brainer... interesting how many 'know it' but don't 'live it'.

Halx

...or maybe they live it to it's fullest...

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

~springrain

words can hurt deeply...
i try to use care with my words... always being true to myself, but also keeping in mind the other person's feelings...
i would never want to injure another person with my words... not for any reason...
to hurt another person for the simple experience of expressing my words, or "living them to the fullest" does not make me feel good about myself... i have done it in the past... and i didn't like the person i saw in the mirror...
there is enough negativity and bullshit in the world... enough pain...

do i OWE it to anyone to take care with my words? perhaps not... but i still do take care... i want to live in joy and love... hard to do that when you're buried under words and rhetoric.

wilbjammin

On the other hand, how much should you censor yourself from your real feelings and thoughts to protect others?

I preface all of my relationships with the knowledge that I will be open, honest, and that I am not going to intentially try to hurt anyone... that helps, but sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes there is no way to say something in a genuinely nice sounding way.

In the end, I can't handle living with weights on my chest, and that is why I've adopted this practice. People's feelings have been hurt, and I have been apologetic, but not feeling or thinking those things - but for wording them in a hurtful way. Beating around the bush, or hiding things all together encourages decadence, weakness, etc. I say - it's better to have everything in open so that you can work with it.

__________________
Innominate.

~springrain

i could not agree more... and i am not saying the one should "censor" there words and not be real...
i do find though that people often speak first, and think second... sometimes those spontaneous eruptions can be very hurtful...

i guess all i'm saying is be true to yourself... be real... be honest... but it doesn't hurt to stop for a moment and keep yourself in check... i care about what impact my actions and words have on others... not everyone feels that way, and that's okay... i can only speak for myself.