Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (80080)	5/26/2000 2:59:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Haqihana, I am not versed in Freudian psychology, so I am not sure about the superego, id or the other Freudian ideas. (Except I warm up to him when he decides our problems have to do with not enough sex, lol) As for the dictionary. Rambi I can assure you is a very careful user of the dictionary. (Although in her apostasy she prefers that American Heritage Dictionary, clearly not the true written word of Noah Webster. I am a Websterite, finding the Oxford Orthodox tradition too hidebound even for me.) And I really don't know how to effectively convey this - but Meaning and Truth are two different things. A dictionary occupies itself strictly with meaning. I can find definitions of Vampire in the dictionary, even though I frankly disbelieve in vampires. But I accept the fact that there is a word Vampire, and that there are specific meanings and stories connected to it. ...Just because the dictionary defines a word does not mean that the idea behind the word is real-life. I think this is ALL that Rambi is trying to convey. Of course, I'm scooting out onto a limb by putting myself into her head. (Mixed metaphor, don't get me started, lolol) Neocon posted a long treatise on soul earlier. This is fine if the reader accepts the premises, which seem to match those set forth by mainstream Christian doctrine. Whether I believe in it or not, I can still appreciate in an slightly removed sense that Neo's post is true to the doctrine. In any case, I have grown to appreciate that a discussion of dearly-held ideas can appear to be nice, neat and dispassionate to one participant - and something of an assault on the honor of the next participant. I have learned to make like a duck's back when I see what might be an attack, and to try on the idea behind the maybe, maybenot insult and then talk just about it. It's worked for me marvelously. But then again I'm just this big pussy, lol