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.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (15651)	6/29/2003 8:30:59 PM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 28931

"If we cannot agree on the use of language" The point I was making was that we ASSUME that all words mean the same thing to others, when they do not. Here's an amusing "game" you can play with an intimate: 1) You make a simple, ordinary statement such as: "I like roast beef" 2) The "other" begins a series of questions, EACH STARTING WITH THE WORDS: "DO YOU MEAN.....?" to understand EXACTLY what you mean by your statement. 3) IF one of their questions is pretty close to what you mean, or exactly what you mean, you answer "yes" 4) If not, you answer "no" 5) When they achieve three "yes" answers the game is over then the roles are reversed. 6) They then make a statement and you ask questions in the same manner until three "yes" answers are achieved. If you do this game in an exploratory way you will likely find how difficult it is to understand EXACTLY what anybody means even in the most commonplace of expressions. It is much more difficult in the case of complex statements. If you reflect on the implications you will start to see more vividly how each person lives in their "own" world (all the while assuming that others are perceiving things in the same way that they are). Namaste! Jim