Digger71 said:
sigh
It is not a matter of choosing a definition that pleases me. It is about being as accurate as possible with definitions and descriptions. Unfortunately, once we try to get to the specifics we generally find that the specifics contradict the headline understanding.
To you you see this as ‘choosing’ a definition I like, while I see your attitude as filtering information that your world view has difficulty integrating (denial is not integrative)
I do not change what the other person writes, I simply point out there are other ways of reading it, or there are limitations in the wording which immediately falsify the statement. Under such conditions I hope for clarification so we can move on.
Digger - are you taking a class in literary criticism at the moment?
It is one thing to pick apart the many possible threads of contradictory meaning in a piece of literature, and another to apply this method in conversation. A piece of literature exists for its own sake, to be analysed and mined for multiple meanings only enriches it. Conversation, written or spoken, is intended to convey a specific message. We are forced to make use of the language that exists, which has developed over hundreds of years and is still developing, to convey our ideas. I am well aware that just about every word I use can have multiple meanings, however, I depend upon the listener/reader to make some honest attempt at understanding what I am trying to convey to them with these limited linguistic tools. Applying deconstructionist critical methods to a bulletin board posting may be an interesting exploration of the ambiguities of language, but it does not contribute to understanding of the concepts being discussed. You seem to feel that my choice of words offers some key into the secrets of my psyche; however, as I’ve said, any word I choose offers multiple shades of meaning from which you pick and choose in order to paint a picture of me that suits your own prejudices. It is an ad hominem attack, and therefore, does not actually contribute to the discussion, but rather, serves as a distraction, an attempt to discredit me. However, I could be a psychopath in an asylum and still make a valid point, so assumptions about my intentions or my personal life, aside from being mere speculation, are not relevant to the validity of an argument that I; along with many others, attempt to articulate.
You say you hope for clarification; however, it has been my observation that when it is offered, you pick apart this clarification in turn, ignoring the context, in order to find a contradictory meaning which suits your purposes. While this may give you a sense of satisfaction, it does not further your argument, since it does not address the objections the other person has raised, but sidesteps them by deliberately narrowing the focus to a word or two, when the concept behind the statement could have been just as easily expressed with a different wording (though I’m sure you would find something in that to deconstruct as well).
Perhaps you should remember that your own ideas are communicated with this same language, and that the phrases you construct in order to convey them are just as vulnerable to deconstruction as ours. If you wish to convey something to us, you must depend upon our willingness to read for your intended meaning rather than some other meaning we choose to extract from your words.
