Words Meaning/Understanding

[dark]

I need to know if this is something that is wrong with me. I am sure people here who have read my odd theories have noticed I have different definitions to common words than most people.

I have now encountered that my idea of the word manipulate was completely incorrect and I had been using it in such a way to where people think I am a horrible person.

This happens with all kinds of words, I usually have the main idea of a word, but I miss something about it that makes it have different meaning to other people.

Am I alone in this? This seems to be a big problem with a lot of people. My ex thinks I lie to her because of this. I can't help if I have a different way of looking at things.

I will try to keep this short, does anyone else seem to have this problem? I could list off words all day long where I found I had a different understanding of the same meaning.

 

[typus]

Language merely acts as an arm af arbitrarity for sentient slaves of silly subjectivity. The intrinsic ambiguity of it cannot be avoided.

 

[dark]

^ reading that sure made me feel idiotic, going to have to use google define on almost all of those haha.

 

[Mary]

I agree with Typus. Words are naturally ambiguous and, in my opinion, not the best mode of communicating. They change meanings constantly and tend to have many variances in interpretation.

 

[gnome]

Yeah I am the same way. I sometimes find out I have used words incorrectly. Then again sometimes I look up a word and it has 7 different definitions. One of those definitions actually does work. Whatever.

It reminds me of like when the substitute teacher calls out names and they say a name wrong. The person immediately corrects the substitute teacher like their name means anything. They are fucking stupid. I hope that observation made sense in context with vocabulary and how people think their opinion on it is important.

 

[dark]

Yeah it makes sense. Ok so there is nothing wrong with the way I look at the world just because I see things with a different light eh.

What would be the best form of communication then that we are actually capable of?

I guess I will add this to one of my many things I tell people when I first meet them to be aware of. Damn the list is long and I am not sure if I tell all of them to each person usually.

"Ok and be aware that I sometimes use words in a way that has a different meaning to me than it does to the rest of the world."
"But why would you do that?"
"Because they make sense to me and there is no other word that means that."
"But there is (insert word here) that means just that!"
"Nope that ideas is an illusion, now let me tell you what that word really means and you will understand."

I can see the conversation now, actually I think I have almost had that conversation but the person got annoyed and made an excuse to leave, maybe they really needed to leave but I will never know.

See my understanding for manipulation is similar to the way everyone else thinks of teaching, but teaching is not what everyone thinks it is, I have found it is more of an illusion in the basis of how I see it. I would need to write a new thread to explain this, way to much involved why I think the way I do.

Also I do not want to change who I am just so everyone will be happy. Fuck them if they don't like the words I use or the reasons I use them for, if they wont accept me for who I am, I should not even want to be around them. A friend told me that a couple days ago, probably a week, and now I finally grasped the idea. I must be slow haha.

Also apologies if I sound obnoxious. I do not mean to be.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What would be the best form of communication then that we are actually capable of?

If possible, I'd opt for telepathy which includes mental imagery.

 

[dark]

^ Other than that, which we can't do just yet, is there anything?

 

[nexion]

I fine-tune definitions. Quite a lot, in fact. Once one realizes the true nature of language, it is not a problem. It all depends on context. If you happen to change a definition, though, it is worth telling someone how you define it.

Language is subjective, interpretive, and contextual. It shouldn't be. All of the languages created thus far are terrible at what they are supposed to do. Sure, one could hold a million interesting conversations with others, but it doesn't matter if they define words differently. Associations are part of the definition, a little hidden aspect that no one notices too often.

^ Other than that, which we can't do just yet, is there anything?

No. It is the best we have. Even in thinking, we usually use words.

Actually, art. It is a better form of communicating. Mostly, because it does not have the false pretense that it is objective. It says more than words ever could.

Do you ever have a thought that you can't describe in words? Most thought is done in words, but not all.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's odd... I get in arguments with my wife because she does understand what I mean!

(That's a joke. Laugh)

 

[Jesse]

haha

As long as you understand that language isn't perfect I don't see anything wrong with it. To make it perfect we would all have to speak like philosophers or lawyers endlessly defining words. When reading books as a kid I got the gist of things just by using context.

 

[dark]

@ nil, I am sure art is worse than written or spoken language, just take the psychology thing with the ink blobs, I know not real art but it still shows how we identify differently, which tells me maybe even telepathy wouldn't work.

I can write a poem in such a fashion where everyone who reads it finds a completely different meaning.

Now stick figure art is the only perfect communication I think.

Oh wait, these guys do it. .

Guess what this means.

... ... ... ... !!!

 

[typus]

Hmm.

Might solipsism, in fact, be deemed correct? Did someone just forget to put 'subjective' in front of it for emphasis? Surely, we must be alone in our subjective, phenomenal words? We might live in an objectively existing world, we might sense concrete, tangible, existing objects, we may interact with other individuals who themselves live in their own worlds, but aren't we truly alone in our own universes? Are not our interpretations of words, art, people, everything, just our subjective projections of them? Are we not, in fact, the creators of our own worlds, and alone in them, were it not for avatars, approximations, of other people? Do not the reasons for complications with communication find causation in the consummation of our congenial, contextual non-concrete creations, our lonely islands of subjectivity in an objective ocean which we cannot truly know?

 

[Bird]

Do not the reasons for complications with communication find causation in the consummation of our congenial, contextual non-concrete creations, our lonely islands of subjectivity in an objective ocean which we cannot truly know?

The alliteration in this
sentence is fabulous.

 

[nexion]

... ... ... ... !!!

Yeah, maybe.

Machine gun guy is . He killed people and then died. People were happy that he died so they cheered.

 

[nexion]

Hmm.

Might solipsism, in fact, be deemed correct? Did someone just forget to put 'subjective' in front of it for emphasis? Surely, we must be alone in our subjective, phenomenal words? We might live in an objectively existing world, we might sense concrete, tangible, existing objects, we may interact with other individuals who themselves live in their own worlds, but aren't we truly alone in our own universes? Are not our interpretations of words, art, people, everything, just our subjective projections of them? Are we not, in fact, the creators of our own worlds, and alone in them, were it not for avatars, approximations, of other people? Do not the reasons for complications with communication find causation in the consummation of our congenial, contextual non-concrete creations, our lonely islands of subjectivity in an objective ocean which we cannot truly know?

This... is beautiful.

 

[dark]

@ nil, you are almost completely right, he is a Nazi, but he didn't die, I was just showing him killing people then he got happy from killing.

@ typus, very nice illustration. Sounds a lot like my idea of how we are each in our own worlds and we only notice the other worlds via our senses etc but I wont go into it, which I am sure I posted somewhere on this forum. I have posted so many odd things I can't remember them all.

 

[nexion]

If we are going to create hypothetical, idealized situations, can we at least have the guy who killed people get killed, so as to keep some type of justice/balance?

*insert sad emoticon here*

 

[dark]

Ahgh, I am tired of miscommunication problems. I get so frustrated having to explain myself about everything. It gets worse when people turn against me because well they think I am lying from having to do said thing so many times.

I think I give up on humanity to much because of this. I get in dazes when I get so frustrated with these people. Like right now my mind feels dazed, to much... err people... need to stop talking to them. How dare these people getting offended at me, I didn't do anything wrong, I did not jump to assumptions at what they said or meant, why can't people just be human to one another without jumping at each others throats for everything.

Not just me, I see it happening everywhere, no one cares to understand the other person.

 

[nexion]

*insert sad emoticon*

 

[warryer]

Typus is absolutely right.

A perfect example of why i try to communicate using shared experience or metaphors.

 

[typus]

Understanding what I said completely subverts my point!

 

[SkyWalker]

It is because you don't memorize words like other people memorize them.

When you pick a word, you pick something deeper from your mind (your idea about the idea of the word: a meta-idea, a class of words instead of a specific instance), and then you let your Ne generate all possible superfiscial ideas of that word (the actual words that are instances of your class/meta-idea), and you just pick one of them (they are all the same anyway to you) and you spurt it out.

unfortunately, other people cannot read through the lines and see your intent, they take words for face value and see all kinds of wrong subleties in them that you never intended

 

[GYX_Kid]

there is a point that all words and means of communication are socially defined and arbitrary, but you can't just name your baby cuntnigger without being purportedly obnoxious. doesn't need to be stated, but the meaning in this sentence comes from a consensus of the english language. speaking of which...there's a chance that the way i used the word 'purportedly' is a slight degree off, but that it would hopefully be understood in context by a majority?

for people open to creativity, you could make an adjective like puzzlular and maybe they'd come close to the assumed conclusion that you were talking about an object that literally or figuratively resembled a jigsaw piece, or something that was "puzzling."

yeah, i think people like us (subjects of this forum) can delve into gray area ballparks regarding communication. it makes things more interesting.

 

[nexion]

Understanding what I said completely subverts my point!

One only thinks he understands what you said, while it is impossible to truly understand what you said because you said it entirely based on your own subjective experiences, whereas someone else interprets it according to his own subjective experiences.

 

[Words]

A problem via efficiency of words as language? I had a walkthrough yesterday. I saw no problem. I would say error occurs at about 0.5%. Pretty good. This is accounting the average conversation involving the average persons. Alternate complex scenarios may require not another language but more words. Or is more words already a different language?

I feel like Flemeth. Also, :3 "Words".

 

[typus]

One only thinks he understands what you said, while it is impossible to truly understand what you said because you said it entirely based on your own subjective experiences, whereas someone else interprets it according to his own subjective experiences.

Yes, that's what I said.

lol.

 

[Words]

One only thinks he understands what you said, while it is impossible to truly understand what you said because you said it entirely based on your own subjective experiences, whereas someone else interprets it according to his own subjective experiences.

Based on various assumptions, open-ended interpretations can be negated. Based on various assumptions. Assumptions are...humanely unstoppable but truths are not on person.

Sigh. How to justify assumptions...?

 

[nexion]

A problem via efficiency of words as language? I had a walkthrough yesterday. I saw no problem. I would say error occurs at about 0.5%. Pretty good. This is accounting the average conversation involving the average persons. Alternate complex scenarios may require not another language but more words. Or is more words already a different language?

I feel like Flemeth. Also, :3 "Words".

Based on various assumptions, open-ended interpretations can be negated. Based on various assumptions. Assumptions are...humanely unstoppable but truths are not on person.

Sigh. How to justify assumptions...?

We need less words, with objective definitions. Less words will considerably lessen the gap between understanding and misunderstanding, while objective, single definitions will allow open-ended interpretations to disappear, making assumptions unnecessary for understanding. These two, of course, must happen in unison... they must be inextricable, two objects acting as one entity... for it to work. Objectify the language and make it concise. The words themselves will be the framework rather than assumptions, interpretations, experiences, and associations.

Yes, that's what I said.

lol.

Which proves that what you said is universally applicable.

 

[Deridaburi]

We need less words, with objective definitions. Less words will considerably lessen the gap between understanding and misunderstanding, while objective, single definitions will allow open-ended interpretations to disappear, making assumptions unnecessary for understanding. These two, of course, must happen in unison... they must be inextricable, two objects acting as one entity... for it to work. Objectify the language and make it concise. The words themselves will be the framework rather than assumptions, interpretations, experiences, and associations.

We maked newspeak speedwise. It doubleplusgood. Oldthink and oldspeak doubleplusbad.

 

[IssphitiKOzS]

First impressions, when you first hear a word you used, you learn it in that context and consequently use it in that same context until you hear differently. Unless your like me with my dictionary app.

I'm sure you aren't using these words incorrectly, like you said, they have many definitions and one usually works.

As I've only just begun reading for fun, my vocabulary expands all the time, which is why I need the dictionary app, so that I can fully grasp an understanding of the usage rather than the definition.

phlegm, I found out recently can also ironically mean composure.

"His phlegm was admirable"
"like wtf bro!"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phlegm

 

[IssphitiKOzS]

A new way of communicating?

I'd say the tools we have now are great, perhaps they are just being misused.

Earlier you mentioned something to the effect of "I don't want to change who I am so others will be happy". I think therein lies the problem, we all need to change, we need to allow others' personalities and idiosyncrasies to rub off on us, just a little, while we rub off on them. Best friends rub off on each other, pet owners start looking like their dogs. Maybe changing to please others has to do with admitting we are wrong, or maybe it has to do with feeling subordinate, or that it will go unrequited; so we refrain from doing it and hold ourselves captive in ivory towers.

I've heard in Naruto that you cannot truly understand another's pain until you've felt it for yourself. Since that's impossible (and I wouldn't just limit that to pain), the only way is to allow ourselves to change, to mimic or mirror others while they mimic us. Then it wouldn't matter what tool of communication we use, as long as we're open, we'll understand each other just fine and have massive orgies in the United nation's centre.

I've oft criticized my Mom for matching the person's accent when she talks to them on the phone, "Let them match your accent" I'd tell her. She says she doesn't notice it, but I notice she has a different voice for whomever she speaks with, and she's the most understanding nonjudgmental person I know.

I hope someone comes up with a good rebuttal for this, I don't want to leave thinking I've learned something here.