This thread sure is putting a lot of energy into definitions. Perhaps that's an
avoidance technique.
Even as I run out the door for an appointment, I have to not let this go by. (Look how much trouble jlallen got into for letting posts go by! LOL)
No. Not avoidance at all.
Words have to have agreed meanings. Otherwise they are just rocks thrown at each other.
Words are the tools of communication. If we let them get bent out of shape, let them lose their clear meanings, communication becomes increasingly more difficult. It's hard enough as it is. Look, for example, at the word "Peace" applied to the Middle East. It's become a useless word because everybody has such a different definition of it. So each side accuses the other of being "against Peace" and by their definition is right. But the exchange of insults further poisons the possibility (mixed metaphor but I really am late and can't be more precise) of achieving what used to be meant by Peace.
Word have power, both to hurt and to heal. Look at yesterday. All just words. Poet was strenuously challenging me to define the terms I was using, and I did so because I agreed with her that the meaning of words matters. I'm disappointed that she hasn't followed through on the same principle today.
But no, it isn't an avoidance technique. It's an attempt to find out what, really, is being said and meant, what accursations are and are not being made, what behaviors are and are not assumed, etc.
Heck, the federal government has to use, what did I once read, 27 pages to define "ladder"? As you well know, almost every serious government report starts or ends with a series of defined terms. That's not avoidance; it's making sure that people have the best possible chance of knowing what they are talking about when they talk seriously.
Now I really MUST go. So if I don't answer for a while, don't take any false assumptions from my absence!
With applogies for spelling, grammar, etc. errors. |
