Re: Authorities

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddabak$581$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On  8-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>
> Some people prefer the function of dictionaries to act as authorities.
> Heck,
> at least one country does this.
>
> Authorities are comfortable - if you know what is right, you don't have to
> think, and certainly don't need to understand.
>
> One trouble with dictionaries is that they don't adequately show context -
> look
> up "database" and see what the general public thinks of this word compared
> to
> what programmers use.   Or learn why someone says "evolution is only a
> theory".
>  Authority has scope, and authoritarians don't want scope.

During the course of this debate I have come to realise how important
context is. It was only when the Doc started removing it (not from mischief,
but because he honestly considered it irrelevant, or simply didn't want it
to be considered in the argument) that I had a flash of insight about it. We
do communicate in shades of grey. Context, including body language and
expression, tone of voice, etc. are all important to the message.

One of the reasons Chuck was offended by my original post is because he
believed I  was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. That was fair
enough, but he then went further and decided that there was implicit
contempt in the posts. None of that was ever intended by me. I am forced to
wonder whether he would have had the same opinion if we had been sitting in
a bar discussing it over a beer. Would my body language and tone of voice
have made a difference to his interpretation of my meaning?

I'm inclined to believe it would have. (But, obviously, I can't prove it...)

Are we so conditioned by the adversarial approach to argument that we always
expect the worst? Is it always a contest? I honestly don't know.

I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.

Context is much more important than I realised previously.

Pete.

In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>During the course of this debate I have come to realise how important
>context is.

Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.

>It was only when the Doc started removing it (not from mischief,
>but because he honestly considered it irrelevant, or simply didn't want it
>to be considered in the argument) that I had a flash of insight about it.

At times, to learn of a building one might do well to strip away externals
and examine the structural steel... there are things to be learned, and
unlearned, from such an approach.

>We do communicate in shades of grey.

Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.

>Context, including body language and
>expression, tone of voice, etc. are all important to the message.

It has been said that the one who talks to the spirit-world is the
underlying theme or idea... or that the medium is the message.  (sorry,
couldn't resist)  What you mention above seems to be a subject of study in
a field called 'semiotics'.

[snip]

>I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.

... and on the other hand constantly having to clarify idiosyncratic uses
can make for a weary, weary time, Mr Dashwood... as some who have read my
postings might point out.  As has been said about thighs, 'In media
felicitas est.'

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddchvk$pj4$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> 
>
> Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
> like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.
>

No, I don't think so. Context is important but it isn't everything. Neither
is dictionary definition. They are all useful in arriving at meaning, but
none of them alone is the full story.  It's as if there is a cloud of
possible meaning and parts of it are more probable than other parts... Until
understanding is attempted, all meanings are possible, but once a particular
meaning is seized upon, the wave collapses and no other meanings are then
possible.

But then, perhaps I am spending too much time considering Young's
experiment, EPR, and Quantum Mechanics in general :-)
 
>
> At times, to learn of a building one might do well to strip away externals
> and examine the structural steel... there are things to be learned, and
> unlearned, from such an approach.
> 
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.

Hahaha!  Absolutely... :-)

> 
>
> It has been said that the one who talks to the spirit-world is the
> underlying theme or idea... or that the medium is the message.  (sorry,
> couldn't resist)

That just sounds like MacLuhanacy to me...

>What you mention above seems to be a subject of study in
> a field called 'semiotics'.

I claim no expertise in this field but I have a passing acquaintance with
it. (mainly gained from reading the  fictional works of Professoer Umberto
Eco who holds the chair of semiotics at the University of Bologna.)  My
understanding, (which may be flawed) is that it is about subliminal
symbology and the meaning ascribed to symbols in different cultures. I guess
that could be an area of context exploration, as you suggest.

>
> [snip]
> 
>
> ... and on the other hand constantly having to clarify idiosyncratic uses
> can make for a weary, weary time, Mr Dashwood... as some who have read my
> postings might point out.  As has been said about thighs, 'In media
> felicitas est.'
>

et in vino veritas...:-)

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net>,
>Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>[snip]
> 
>
>Have a care, Mr Dashwood... next thing you know you'll be saying things
>like 'the meaning of a word is in its use'.

"'When I use a word' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I
intend it to... Neither more, nor less.'".

--
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

In article <3lu3d7F13e2alU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ddchvk$pj4$1@panix5.panix.com...
 
>
>No, I don't think so.

At one point, Mr Dashwood, some people thought they'd always be sopranos
with hairless axillae... funny how things can change.

>Context is important but it isn't everything. Neither
>is dictionary definition. They are all useful in arriving at meaning, but
>none of them alone is the full story.  It's as if there is a cloud of
>possible meaning and parts of it are more probable than other parts... Unti
l
>understanding is attempted, all meanings are possible, but once a particula
r
>meaning is seized upon, the wave collapses and no other meanings are then
>possible.
>
>But then, perhaps I am spending too much time considering Young's
>experiment, EPR, and Quantum Mechanics in general :-)

Sounds more like Schroedinger's cat, I'd say... but in that you posit 'a
cloud of possible meaning' (which I translate as 'a variety of possible
interpretations') it may be more like kittens.

[snip]
 
>
>Hahaha!  Absolutely... :-)

Glad you enjoyed, old man.

> 

[snip]
 
>
>I claim no expertise in this field but I have a passing acquaintance with
>it. (mainly gained from reading the  fictional works of Professoer Umberto
>Eco who holds the chair of semiotics at the University of Bologna.)

One might do well to be careful about what one learns from novels, lest
one learn that the Earth is hollow and inside there is a wond'rous
civilisation from the Oldene Dayse.

>My
>understanding, (which may be flawed) is that it is about subliminal
>symbology and the meaning ascribed to symbols in different cultures. I gues
s
>that could be an area of context exploration, as you suggest.

Perhaps there's something new to learn, Mr Dashwood... at least one can
find the mistakes others have made before one goes about making ones of
one's own.

(A few decades back, when I would have long, passionate, nightlong
discusions about Truth and Falsity with other inebriated Kollidj Kidz I
recall - vaguely - batting back-and-forth with a lad a concept along these
lines.  His assertion was that learning from others in this way was a sort
of subordination, in that one took the Truths of Old Authorities over
one's own discoveries.  My question was 'Which is better... to have
someone else's Actual Truths or to have My Very Own Mistakes?'; his
response was 'Well... at least they're *mine*, doesn't that count for
something?'

This was before I knew to respond with 'answering a question with a
question is no answer at all' so I replied 'Not if the bridge falls down,
no.')

DD

In article <ksljf1lo95id0a5r8dj0gn28hkh927ih0s@4ax.com>,
Jeff York  <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>"'When I use a word' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I
>intend it to... Neither more, nor less.'".

Now one must consider what is more worthy as a basis for action... an
aphorism by a fellow whose history was described in a book-review in The
Economist as 'Lifestyle of the Profound and Potty' or a fictional, talking
egg?

DD

On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
 
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.

As programmers, we are comfortable with unambiguous interpretation of what w
e
code.   And are frustrated when the users are upset when they get what they
asked for instead of what they want after seeing what they got.

In article <ddcv82$kij$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>As programmers, we are comfortable with unambiguous interpretation of what 
we
>code.

That, for me, is one of the delights of coding... the translating of the
swirling greys of 'the world out there' into the Aristotelean 'the bit is
on or the bit is off'.

>And are frustrated when the users are upset when they get what they
>asked for instead of what they want after seeing what they got.

'I know it's what I told you but it's not what I want.'

DD

On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
 
>
> Well, there it is... in 'black-and-white', as it were.

Let me adjust my monitor to look at it in green and yellow.

On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> (A few decades back, when I would have long, passionate, nightlong
> discusions about Truth and Falsity with other inebriated Kollidj Kidz I
> recall - vaguely - batting back-and-forth with a lad a concept along these
> lines.  His assertion was that learning from others in this way was a sort
> of subordination, in that one took the Truths of Old Authorities over
> one's own discoveries.  My question was 'Which is better... to have
> someone else's Actual Truths or to have My Very Own Mistakes?'; his
> response was 'Well... at least they're *mine*, doesn't that count for
> something?'
>
> This was before I knew to respond with 'answering a question with a
> question is no answer at all' so I replied 'Not if the bridge falls down,
> no.')

On the other hand, if we have to make our own ethical decisions, we don't fe
el
good about having an authority send our kids to kill.

Some compromise seems to be in order here.