Language is a Parade
Current time: 02-20-2018, 04:43 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: NonEntity
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 3
Views: 614

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Language is a Parade
01-11-2017, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 08:21 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #1
Language is a Parade
The latest podcast from National Socialist Radio's "Hidden Brain" is an inquiry into language, how it evolves, and how to view"right and wrong" language usage. I found it a fun listen.


- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2017, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 12:27 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #2
RE: Language is a Parade
With the perspective of evolutionary's (Muther Nature's) inclination towards tribalism, identity-seek, status signaling, etc, what's the probability that the so-called generation gap where there's so typically new lingo, is a sub-product of that? (ditto fashion/trends?)

(not to mention, the probability that it's indicative of the nature of innocence, prior to indoctrination, aka natural anarky literally in real time practice?)

Next, guess who literally found hissyself momentarily balking at (even, like) calling it "slang"... duh! [Image: banghead.gif]

If i had a hammer dictionary...

[Image: 450px-Newtons_cradle_animation_book_2.gif]


And one offering as to why i think losing one's inclination to control (govern?) in this Realm, is precisely that, in having kept myself persistently, presently observing this (as) anarky in action, i find myself less control-seeking in general. Things loosen up (for me). It becomes more natural to question, rather than make statement (pronounced State-meant). The illusory as reality aspect, kept aware, as forefront, allowing for less frustration> exasperation> anger, and thus lessened tendency to resort to aggression --verbal> physical over the subjective/arbitrary.?

Where the stronger insistence upon the importance of agreement, thus stricter, less anarchial terming comes with terms used for empirical referents --contrasted with the conceptual. The elemental things (regarding the factual, objective) distinguishable from the merely/solely mental (the realm of the subjective). (the stuff of contracts <distinguished from> convo --'er, conversation)
e.g.be4: argument about how many animals Noah took on the ark reindeer pull Santa's sleigh, whether Jesus is red Santa is "white", etc. But where reindeer isn't definable as sleigh, or (a) sleigh with (a) tree, etc. Context oft being the criticalness determinate of such consideration.?
But even here, keeping it quite Socratic: simply just ask, first.?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2017, 12:23 PM
Post: #3
RE: Language is a Parade
Two Thumbs Up (for having placed this in the "Mediums Of Exchange" section) Yess!!!

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2018, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2018 09:59 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #4
Heart Language is a (Signal) Parade
#ButtLuv Heart #signaling #signing #squiggles #ASSociation #socialization #TheMapIsNotTheTerritory [Image: heart.gif]

this sounds 'er signals 'bout right (sum signal licensing, mine):

sum1@ mentalfloss.com Wrote:Why Don't Valentine Hearts Look Like Real Hearts?

Love is in the air this month, and images of two-lobed hearts are all over everything: candy, cards, decorations, you name it. That the heart is symbolic of love and passion isn't surprising—ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, including Aristotle, thought the organ was the center of all emotions.

Why the [Image: heart.gif]heart symbol you see everywhere in February doesn't look anything like an actual human heart, though, is a little less clear.

♧ ♡ The symbol goes at least as far back as the 1400s, when it appeared on European playing cards to mark one of the red suits, though it may even be older than that.

The shape is pretty much a mystery, though. There are a few different hypotheses to explain it, but none of them have been confirmed.

One suggested origin for the symbol is that it comes from the ancient African city-state of Cyrene, whose merchants traded in the rare, and now extinct, plant silphium. The plant was used to season food, but doubled as a contraceptive. A silphium seedpod looks like a valentine's heart, so the shape became associated with sex, and then with love.

Another possibility is that the shape is a crude representation of a pubic [Image: heart.gif]mound, the [Image: heart.gif]vulva, a pair of [Image: boobs.gif]breasts, [Image: heart.gif]buttocks, or a pair of testicles.[Image: tute.gif]

It may even have come from a poor attempt at drawing an actual heart. A lousy artist, an inaccurate description of the subject, or a malformed model all could have led to that shape.

The Catholic church explains the symbol as coming from a vision that Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque had, where the "Sacred Heart of Jesus"—associated with love and devotion by Catholics—appeared in this shape surrounded by thorns. But Alacoque didn't have this vision until the late 1600s, well after the symbol was already documented. This makes it the unlikeliest of origin stories, but the church's frequent use of the shape was probably a driving factor in popularizing it as a symbol of love.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29989/why...eal-hearts

[Image: light%20man%20kungfu.gif?dl=0]Too bad they didn't delve further into why We (still) speak of "the heart" when We think of love? Noting that in the not too distant past, it was popular to speak of "the bowels" (e.g. KJV bibles) when speaking of love (sort of like we do still with "gut-wrenching"? a "sucker punch", but for most now, a tad higher up? and the science now that tells Us it's our bowels/gut that have/has neural circuits akin to our brains/minds? [Image: cat_yellow.gif]on avg, a cat's worth, in fact)
So how often is "falling in love" akin to having a "bowel movement" (ok, eventually)?? lol

Silly humans and our shortcuts... popularized & otherwise (aggression prompts).¿

(up next, why pink?)

#LanguageParade


* this next bit will likely be a double-post, as i also feel it warrants a post being under "Bringing About A Voluntary Society", but also under something like the Psychology board; so you'll probably find it there (somewhere else) as well; butt it also segues nicely enuff here (your MMV, of course)¿ * apologies in advance, if some key terms/concepts, e.gs. status signaling/status gaming, may require some additional prior/background reading¹ *

With just a tad more of a sobering tone...

sum users on LesserWrong.com Wrote:Status: Map and Territory
akljash Wrote:Feb 2018

I’m here to add another angle to the discussion on social vs. objective truth (example). Here’s an analogy for reasoning about status games and why people react so strongly against improper status moves:

Society is a collective consciousness. From Society’s point of view, the status game is the map. Genuine competence (some combination of skill, virtue, and value) is the territory. The map is meant to track the territory.

Human instinctively play the status game; it’s impossible to just say what you mean. The status game is built into people’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward one another.

If the status game is a good map, you can decide who to befriend, admire, and chastise based simply on their status moves. You can figure out who best to ask for advice by the way they hold their arms. You can trust the beliefs of confident people without individually investigating each of their claims. The human brain opts into the status game by default to partake in all this free value.

If the accuracy of the status game is corrupted, the map loses all value. Trust breaks down and you have to rely on first principles.

There’s an approved way of climbing the status ladder: acquiring genuine competence. Well-socialized individuals naturally play higher status as they become more competent in the relevant domain, since the connection between competence and status is built into their brains. Society approves: the map keeps fidelity to the territory.

There’s an improper way of climbing the status ladder: playing status above your competence. Jordan Peterson’s go-to example is serial killer Paul Bernardo in this prison interview. Note the minute-long interaction between Bernardo and the lawyer(?) on the right. Bernardo acts like a disappointed CEO lecturing a wayward and nervous underling.

Knowing the truth about the individuals involved, I have a visceral reaction against this status interaction: the map has detached from the territory. Even if Bernardo is speaking only literal truths, there’s an instinct that screams he’s lying.

I predict that the neural mechanisms for detecting truth from falsehood (i.e. whether the map corresponds to the territory) are closely related to the mechanisms for distinguishing proper and improper status moves (i.e. whether the status map corresponds to genuine competence). I predict that your negative reaction against lying feels similar to your negative reaction against improper status plays.

Hazard Wrote:
Quote:The status game is built into people’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward one another.

A leap forward for me in forming a useful understanding of social reality/social truth was understanding that almost nobody has sat down and decided that they are going to operate according to the rules of social reality. As you said, it seems baked into how we work. What confused the heck out of me for a long time was how people could acknowledge moments where social reality seems to be "people pretending" (like at career fairs) and still claim that another realm of social reality was "actually the way things are".

Viliam Wrote:The first rule of the social reality club is: you don't talk about the social reality club. But sometimes it simply becomes too obvious. In such case, you minimize damage by admitting that yes, this very narrowly defined situation is an artificial social reality, but nothing else.

But what is the alternative? Imagine an average person admitting that everything around them is social games. How are they going to continue living their life?

source

And an anarchist re'minding everyone that everything they call Fight Club Government is a social game; how are they going to continue living their life?

words = social games?

"improper social moves" = "Illegal! State moves!"? #BuiltIn?

___________________________
1. for said background, consider Robin Hanson's writings i.e. his blogs on the topic @ Overcoming Bias, and his recently released book, The Elephant In The Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life (jic, as word play on the pop phrase the elephant in the room), and or his TEDTalk on the topic.?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)