To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/09/14 02:50
Subject: Re: [K-list] Reactions from the inner 2 yo. ... Melissa
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/09/14 02:50, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
03:37:14 Tue, 14 Sep 1999
at SmilingjaguarATnospamaol.com writes:
>> And that is the point I was making. Leaving out qualifiers implies (to
>> me) that the writer is making a statement of "fact,"
>
>Not really. I tend to leave out qualifiers as they are no longer needed.
>Seems unnecessary to have to put all those extra words in every time when the
>truth is that everything is opinion, nothing is fact. Everything
>changes...what is truth today may be tomorrow's garbage.
>
Perhaps this is where we differ here: I don't feel that the qualifiers
are no longer needed, because my impression is that people are
influenced by the way things are written and not just by the logical
content of the text. In other words, although I sure most of us are
aware that there are few if any absolute facts, it is easy to forget a
few days later when trying to recall something that has been stored: the
"fact" is perhaps more likely to come out than the doubt if the original
statement was written as a fact. That is, it may be recalled as a fact
and the conscious censorship forgotten.
So what I am saying is that despite conscious awareness, the conscious
mind is easily bypassed; TV adverts do this all the time. I prefer to
flag opinions as opinions to minimise the chances for misunderstanding
and to avoid misleading people. Chris, in his poetic way, does not.
(I've been experimenting with reading his text as poetry, and it works
quite well like that.)
I feel that it is very easy even for an alert person to be misled by
misleading writing. For example, when we use English, it can be hard to
distinguish facts from hearsay, which is why in a Court of Law,
advocates are very careful to point out when something is hearsay rather
than just a fact: if they didn't do so, it may go unnoticed by the Jury.
However, there are languages where hearsay is automatically spoken in a
different tense: if I saw something happen I speak it in one tense, but
if I am relating what I have been told, I use another tense,
automatically. This just does not apply in English and I feel that we
have to be careful because this is a structural weakness in this
language. The "is of identity" "is" another such weakness, leading
opinions to look like facts and leading listeners and readers to
perceive statements as being less conditional than is normally
warranted.
For a more detailed discussion of this, see:
http://rawilson.com/quantum.html
(By the way, "sombunall" means "some but not all.")
>> Indeed, even when people are writing things that are what we generally
>> accept as "facts," it is fair to say that they probably are not facts at
>> all in many if not all cases. So even though on the conscious level I no
>> longer automatically believe what I read (as I trustingly did when I was
>> younger), that "reading and believing" circuit is still there, and gets
>> triggered by text written as if it was stating facts.
>
>I learned about that long ago...and for some reason seem to distrust things
>written to be fact more than written as opinion, perhaps because things
>written to be facts try to convince you of things, where opinions challenge
>you to a choice.
>
Me too: I get annoyed when just about every sentence causes the same
flag to pop up (Hey! This isn't a fact! It's an opinion! Doh!).
>
>> No; it just requires respect for other people's views (in my view).
>> > I
>> >> think that this Universe operates using a system of survival of the
>> >> fittest, and realism is therefore implicitly demanded by that goal. To
>> >> me, realism equates to truth, which I think of as very important for
>> >> everybody's spiritual growth (although the left-hand path is always
>> >> available too). Maybe that's just a personal foible, or do others feel
>> >> the same?
>
>Survival of the fittest? Hmm...as far as humans go, I don't think so...I
>think it goes "Survival of the richest". But if realism equates to truth,
>and everyone's truth is bound to be different, yet valid, then there can
>never be a universal definition of realism, reality, or truth. And I'm
>perfectly happy with that.
>
Perhaps "survival of the fittest" is a bit circular, since by
definition, the fittest are those that survive. Hence all those happy
tribespeople who have been trampled over by the townies of the past,
simply because a city can support a larger population than a nomadic
lifestyle, even if the city folk aren't as well-balanced or happy. And
yes, I agree with your view that reality cannot be pinned down: that is
the basis for my comment in the first place.
>> Exactly what I was suggesting with my talk of writing using qualifiers,
>> although your suggestion (which I interpret as advice to ignore the
>> issue) is more tactful perhaps. But CW asked Melissa a question, and my
>> thoughts on it seemed relevant, so I wrote. It isn't intended as a
>> personal swipe, just a comment. And I'm interested in hearing his view
>> too.
>
>Not ignore the issue...how to put this....perhaps realize that he may not be
>the issue.
That is why I didn't comment right away, but left it for a long time.
> Would you like to be drug into the street like Chris has been
>done?
I don't feel that that has happened. All I was doing was saying "Hey, me
too! Isn't that strange? What do you think, Chris?" Chris hasn't replied
as yet.
> I think a certain amount of consideration is in order. Could this
>have been done just as well privately,
No. It is a topic for discussion, i.e., who agrees and who doesn't? Why?
And so on.
> or is the effect better in front of
>400 people?
What effect? No effect is being aimed at. You seem to perceive an attack
when none was made.
> I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe in tact.
I think I was only tactless when commenting about the "..." and so on. I
could have left that out, I agree; it is not important and nobody writes
correct English all the time anyway. I feel that the "is" business "is"
important though. However, reading his text as poetry, as I suggested
above, seems to work quite well at dissolving this problem. Perhaps that
is the intention behind his style. I don't know.
>
>Perhaps an odd thing in this day and age, but I do. I'd like to hear Chris'
>opinion on this too; I've been where he is, it isn't fun, but neither is it
>your on fault either. Something rubbing someone else the wrong way doesn
>not have to be the fault of anyone...and surely does not equate to public
>criticisms on style and language use as though he was a third grader. Chris
>has a lot to offer this forum, as do you, if you could learn to live and let
>live.
>
I'm not asking him to stop; just asking his opinion. When or if he
provides it, it can be discussed, if he wants to. I agree with "live and
let live" too.
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.