.... or literal translation. Which is real? How can we know either? Should we agree on the version of the dictionary before intending to attempt communication? Should we throw away the books and just get to know one another?

How does your mind work? Do you know what I mean or what I say?

For either, do you resent or despise the other for some reason? Explain please.

Which is more important? Can you really know what I mean if I don't say it literally?

When we communicate, perhaps the degree to which we feel we can relate to the audience sets our confidence in our ability to infer intended meaning - unless of course we have no confidence at all.

Are they equally important? I suppose that's completely situational... valued-based even.

So if I know what you mean but you know what I say, can we really communicate?

If you want to discuss something, you do not necessarily need the definition from the dictionary, you can well give your own, that should help with communication problems.

Alas, if someone does not give a specified definition, I would resort to the one that is commonly found in dictionaries, since those are fixed and accesible for all.

What matters in communication, above all, is finding common ground.
Sticking to excessive pedantic arguments of semantics does not further the effort of effective communication, it hinders it.

People's minds do work differently, and I've noticed here that speaking the same language doesn't at all guarantee 2 people will understand eachother in the slightest.
On top of that, people don't really try that hard to understand eachother here, everyone quickly decides who they'll pay attention to and thats it. I'm guilty of this too.

If everyone assumed they were talking to the next shakespeare, they'd work to understand what they were saying despite their different mind. They'd probably end up finding the essence of that persons thoughts, and much much more.
If we found out truthseeker's posts were made by someone who we greatly respected and considered a genius we'd come to the conclusion that the truthseeker alias was making some brilliant conceptual social commentary or something. But as it stands, we just think he's a simple moron. What if we're wrong?
And more importantly, what if I'm right about everything but nobodies paying close enough attention?

But as it stands, we just think he's a simple moron. What if we're wrong?
I'm willing to play the odds on that one. :D

I have to say though, I did try, on numerous occasions, to find a common ground with truthseeker. I never completely discount him. However, without finding that common ground, even though we speak the same language (or so he claims) we have great difficullty communicating even the simplest of ideas. Without that communication, we get NOWHERE.

I'm willing to play the odds on that one
Yeah, I know, I was just using an extreme example. I'm pretty confident he's a legitimate moron. I can't see anyone having the patience to play that joke for that long.

hmmmm, you all seem to be gossiping about 'truthseeker'...so i got curious and wanted to see what he says to make you feel the way you do....i had assumed there must be previous pages to this thread. found there aren't......so. how strange!
where does truthseeker hangout then so i can read her him? and judge for myself

Why not look into truthseekers user profile?

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=4973

I think bashing him is pointless and would like more direct answers to my questions, damnit.

.... or literal translation. Which is real? How can we know either? Should we agree on the version of the dictionary before intending to attempt communication? Should we throw away the books and just get to know one another?

How does your mind work? Do you know what I mean or what I say?

For either, do you resent or despise the other for some reason? Explain please.

Which is more important? Can you really know what I mean if I don't say it literally?

When we communicate, perhaps the degree to which we feel we can relate to the audience sets our confidence in our ability to infer intended meaning - unless of course we have no confidence at all.

Are they equally important? I suppose that's completely situational... valued-based even.

So if I know what you mean but you know what I say, can we really communicate?


Quoting what I wrote in some other thread:

"Usual communication rests on the assumption that we all understand all words the same way; this assumption is shown to be false in cases of misunderstanding, while for all other cases, understanding is assumed.
The assumption that that each person understands a certain word a little differently than the other person seems adequate to reality, but leads to nothing."

(Lyons: "Introduction to modern linguistics"; my translation from the German edition from 1995, pg. 420-420)

If we say "everything is subjective" -- what have we said thereby? What explanatory value does "everything is subjective" have? None.

The assumption that we understand eachother, and that we can and should understand eachother is what makes communication possible.
I can imagine that this assumption comes naturally from being a social being living together with other social beings of the same kind.

"The version in the dictionary" is called upon only when we discover a misunderstanding, otherwise, we don't really care about "dictionary versions."
Regarding dictionaries it must also be said that they are not absolute authorities -- dictionaries are made by people, and are subject to change.

Meaning is the flower that grows from a stem. Whether the stem is literal or figurative isn't as important as the flower, or where it's planted.

Dictionaries are gardens of cultivated meaning, carefully picked, pruned, packaged and labelled. They do not always represent the same flower found in the wild. The map is not the territory. It's important to agree, but then you must move on to what's actually before you.

Without the help of the "literal", my intended meaning above would hardly have been intelligible. And without the help of the "figurative" I would not have been able to express that meaning. All communication relies on a little background information - "common soil".

.... or literal translation. Which is real? How can we know either? Should we agree on the version of the dictionary before intending to attempt communication? Should we throw away the books and just get to know one another?

How does your mind work? Do you know what I mean or what I say?

For either, do you resent or despise the other for some reason? Explain please.

Which is more important? Can you really know what I mean if I don't say it literally?

When we communicate, perhaps the degree to which we feel we can relate to the audience sets our confidence in our ability to infer intended meaning - unless of course we have no confidence at all.

Are they equally important? I suppose that's completely situational... valued-based even.

So if I know what you mean but you know what I say, can we really communicate?First of all, we should know what we ourselves mean before speaking. Not talk about things we don't ourselves understand.

Explaining everything to the person you are talking to would just ruin the point of what you are trying to say.

I've been in many situations where I felt that I had to explain what I meant and that has mostly resulted in ruining the point by explaining the basics.

If someone disagree with you then at least you have to figure out if he really understood you. If he misunderstood then of course he might disagree, even though you understand yourself why it is correct.