"should", "but", "be" etc. . . it seems that I frequently hear of someone trying to remove a word from usage. Indeed this isn't the first time on CoV that this seems to come up. I remember myself some years ago, getting on an "E-Prime" kick whereby all forms of the verb "to be" were excised from my posts, and some other people were doing it too. I don't think memetics is really about words, that way, so much as it is about the underlying metaphors. A lot of people in the psycho-babble community seem to do this too. I have had more than one counselor tell me to stop using words like "should" and "ought", that somehow they were negative and judgmental or something like that. I remember hearing Dr. Laura once intone that "but" negates everything before it, and of course I think that is just about as silly as she is. I just don't buy any of this, from me or anyone else. Perhaps in some particular instance that is how it works, but I think it is the usage (moving back towards the metaphorical level) of the word and not the words themselves that we should focus on, and we ought to quit worrying so much about particular words.
Re: virus: BAD words.
« Reply #1 on: 2005-04-16 14:22:19 »
I believe that memetics is a way of talking - exactly that, a way of stringing words and ideas together associatively.
I am saddened that the entire gamut of communication props that have been put in front of you did not click together as it did when I noticed them - EVERY SINGLE ONE IS ABOUT HACKING THE LISTENER. It's not about the properness, rightness, positiveness, whatever - it is about MANIPULATION. Knowing the effect that those words have upon the listener, so that we can use that effect to our ends IF we want to.
For example - why do we not swear? So that when we say, "Hey Jake! I'm going to Skull Fuck your Mother in her eyesocket." It has an _effect_. Memetics is a layer of information in conversation.
Here's an example that I think will illustrate my point quite nicely, from about 20 minutes ago.
I am in the Bagel Oasis in Seattle, and a small boy was playing with the toys. His father ordered him to go sit with his baby sister, eliciting quite anguished pain in the son. He tried to explain to his father how unfair and unnecessary that was, however Dad ordered him - ordered him - to go sit. Boy was distraught. Father pushed him till finally he broke down sobbing and went to sit in the booth. 6 feet away from the toys, and for no good reason other than to sit with a small baby in a car seat basket, who could care less.
This right here is the culture clash of the left, as Lakoff says in "Don't Think of an Elephant" - the strict father VERBAL STRUCTURE competing with nurturing parent values.
My first impulse was to say, "That was the most unethical thing I have ever seen." I've been fierce with my 5yo before, and I thought that this was pretty over the top in 'crush-your-soul' kind of way.
HOWEVER. I thought about a memetic reframing. I ASKED him instead,
"Hey, you know what I found with my five year old for a trick? I'm trying asking him if he wants to help, which frames him as a helper."
And this guy HEARD ME, took in the knowledge, the meme for how to reframe communications to get a different effect out of his son. He agreed that it was a hard trap to fall into. I let him off the hook by pointing out that it was a clash between the single parent and the nurturant parent model, which we had been infected by by the right.
Memetics is about understanding a tiny little niche in how we speak that COMPLETELY HACKS the person at the other end.
Is anyone in Seattle? I would LOVE to meet someone face to face instead of on computer. I will bet 5$ that I can infect them with a certain kind of hope, in 5 min or less.
Any takers?
:-b
On Apr 16, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Jake Sapiens wrote:
> "should", "but", "be" etc. . . it seems that I frequently hear of > someone trying to remove a word from usage. Indeed this isn't the > first time on CoV that this seems to come up. I remember myself some > years ago, getting on an "E-Prime" kick whereby all forms of the verb > "to be" were excised from my posts, and some other people were doing > it too. I don't think memetics is really about words, that way, so > much as it is about the underlying metaphors. A lot of people in the > psycho-babble community seem to do this too. I have had more than one > counselor tell me to stop using words like "should" and "ought", that > somehow they were negative and judgmental or something like that. I > remember hearing Dr. Laura once intone that "but" negates everything > before it, and of course I think that is just about as silly as she > is. I just don't buy any of this, from me or anyone else. Perhaps in > some parti! cular instance that is how it works, but I think it is the > usage (moving back towards the metaphorical level) of the word and not > the words themselves that we should focus on, and we ought to quit > worrying so much about particular words. > > > Jake Sapiens > every1hz@earthlink.net > Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. > >
Re: virus: BAD words.
« Reply #2 on: 2005-04-16 17:04:12 »
I understand the following, your framing around a positive sounding word like "help", I just wish to emphasize that after some experience of word playing I don't believe in BAD words, only bad usages of words. Perhaps our difference in understanding is only slight. After reading you for a while, you don't sound as nuts as I first thought, I guess you were just playing with the tuning knob looking for the bandwidth around here. As for Lakoff, I haven't read his latest book, but I am familiar with Lakoff and Johnson via Metaphors we Live By, and Philosophy in the Flesh.
(comment inserted below)
> [Original Message] > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 04/16/2005 11:22:03 AM > Subject: Re: virus: BAD words. > > I believe that memetics is a way of talking - exactly that, a way of > stringing words and ideas together associatively. > > > I am saddened that the entire gamut of communication props that have > been put in front of you did not click together as it did when I > noticed them - EVERY SINGLE ONE IS ABOUT HACKING THE LISTENER. It's not > about the properness, rightness, positiveness, whatever - it is about > MANIPULATION. Knowing the effect that those words have upon the > listener, so that we can use that effect to our ends IF we want to. > > > For example - why do we not swear? So that when we say, "Hey Jake! I'm > going to Skull Fuck your Mother in her eyesocket." It has an _effect_. > Memetics is a layer of information in conversation. > > > > Here's an example that I think will illustrate my point quite nicely, > from about 20 minutes ago. > > > I am in the Bagel Oasis in Seattle, and a small boy was playing with > the toys. His father ordered him to go sit with his baby sister, > eliciting quite anguished pain in the son. He tried to explain to his > father how unfair and unnecessary that was, however Dad ordered him - > ordered him - to go sit. Boy was distraught. Father pushed him till > finally he broke down sobbing and went to sit in the booth. 6 feet away > from the toys, and for no good reason other than to sit with a small > baby in a car seat basket, who could care less. > > > This right here is the culture clash of the left, as Lakoff says in > "Don't Think of an Elephant" - the strict father VERBAL STRUCTURE > competing with nurturing parent values. > > > > My first impulse was to say, "That was the most unethical thing I have > ever seen." I've been fierce with my 5yo before, and I thought that > this was pretty over the top in 'crush-your-soul' kind of way. > > > HOWEVER. I thought about a memetic reframing. I ASKED him instead, > > "Hey, you know what I found with my five year old for a trick? I'm > trying asking him if he wants to help, which frames him as a helper." > > And this guy HEARD ME, took in the knowledge, the meme for how to > reframe communications to get a different effect out of his son. He > agreed that it was a hard trap to fall into. I let him off the hook by > pointing out that it was a clash between the single parent and the > nurturant parent model, which we had been infected by by the right. > > > > > Memetics is about understanding a tiny little niche in how we speak > that COMPLETELY HACKS the person at the other end. > > > > Is anyone in Seattle? I would LOVE to meet someone face to face instead > of on computer. I will bet 5$ that I can infect them with a certain > kind of hope, in 5 min or less. > > Any takers? > > :-b
If I were in Seattle, I think I would have already found you. Alas . . .
> > > > On Apr 16, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Jake Sapiens wrote: > > > "should", "but", "be" etc. . . it seems that I frequently hear of > > someone trying to remove a word from usage. Indeed this isn't the > > first time on CoV that this seems to come up. I remember myself some > > years ago, getting on an "E-Prime" kick whereby all forms of the verb > > "to be" were excised from my posts, and some other people were doing > > it too. I don't think memetics is really about words, that way, so > > much as it is about the underlying metaphors. A lot of people in the > > psycho-babble community seem to do this too. I have had more than one > > counselor tell me to stop using words like "should" and "ought", that > > somehow they were negative and judgmental or something like that. I > > remember hearing Dr. Laura once intone that "but" negates everything > > before it, and of course I think that is just about as silly as she > > is. I just don't buy any of this, from me or anyone else. Perhaps in > > some parti! cular instance that is how it works, but I think it is the > > usage (moving back towards the metaphorical level) of the word and not > > the words themselves that we should focus on, and we ought to quit > > worrying so much about particular words. > > > > > > Jake Sapiens > > every1hz@earthlink.net > > Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> I believe that memetics is a way of talking - > exactly that, a way of > stringing words and ideas together associatively.
I think this is not a useful definition of memetics, and is rather loose in its relation to the meaning of memetics. I think that your method of defining terms is "a way of stringing words and ideas together associatively", rather than a rigorous attention to denotation, which I judge would be more useful in this context.
> I am saddened that the entire gamut of communication > props that have > been put in front of you did not click together as > it did when I > noticed them - EVERY SINGLE ONE IS ABOUT HACKING THE > LISTENER. It's not > about the properness, rightness, positiveness, > whatever - it is about > MANIPULATION. Knowing the effect that those words > have upon the > listener, so that we can use that effect to our ends > IF we want to.
I notice that you are saying your readers are failing to notice that various "communication props" are "about hacking the listener". I think that you are making distinctions that may not apply. While I prefer to use different phrasings than "hack", with less negative connotations for many listeners, I do agree that communications techniques are intended to effect a change in the listener. That's what communication is for.
> For example - why do we not swear? So that when we > say, "Hey Jake! I'm > going to Skull Fuck your Mother in her eyesocket." > It has an _effect_. > Memetics is a layer of information in conversation.
Memetics is a perspective on the spreading of ideas, in which ideas are seen as entities "trying" to self-replicate using us. The effect a speaker wants to have on a listener may be orthogonal to what a meme "wants". For instance, swearing at Jake may encourage him to swear too, thus, the meme spread successfully. But that probably isn't the effect I want most of the time (yes, of course swearing only rarely increases the effect when we do). Choosing which memes to share with Jake, by using what I know of Jake and memetics, is more likely to achieve what I want from Jake, whatever that is.
> Here's an example that I think will illustrate my > point quite nicely, > from about 20 minutes ago. > > > I am in the Bagel Oasis in Seattle, and a small boy > was playing with > the toys. His father ordered him to go sit with his > baby sister, > eliciting quite anguished pain in the son. He tried > to explain to his > father how unfair and unnecessary that was, however > Dad ordered him - > ordered him - to go sit. Boy was distraught. Father > pushed him till > finally he broke down sobbing and went to sit in the > booth. 6 feet away > from the toys, and for no good reason other than to > sit with a small > baby in a car seat basket, who could care less. > > > This right here is the culture clash of the left, as > Lakoff says in > "Don't Think of an Elephant" - the strict father > VERBAL STRUCTURE > competing with nurturing parent values. > > > > My first impulse was to say, "That was the most > unethical thing I have > ever seen." I've been fierce with my 5yo before, and > I thought that > this was pretty over the top in 'crush-your-soul' > kind of way.
I observed a similar interaction in a mall once; a woman was sitting on a bench, while her child of two or three sat on the floor next to her and toyed contentedly with his fingers. Suddenly she sharply and loudly said, "Get up here!" and dragged him onto the bench. He started bawling. I was saddened, but refrained from trying to intervene, not seeing a way I considered likely to work well.
> HOWEVER. I thought about a memetic reframing. I > ASKED him instead, > > "Hey, you know what I found with my five year old > for a trick? I'm > trying asking him if he wants to help, which frames > him as a helper." > > And this guy HEARD ME, took in the knowledge, the > meme for how to > reframe communications to get a different effect out > of his son. He > agreed that it was a hard trap to fall into. I let > him off the hook by > pointing out that it was a clash between the single > parent and the > nurturant parent model, which we had been infected > by by the right.
I'm really glad you were able to adjust that dad's perspective.
> Memetics is about understanding a tiny little niche > in how we speak > that COMPLETELY HACKS the person at the other end. > > > > Is anyone in Seattle? I would LOVE to meet someone > face to face instead > of on computer. I will bet 5$ that I can infect them > with a certain > kind of hope, in 5 min or less. > > Any takers?
You know that I'm in Seattle.
Your bet presupposes that the target doesn't already have the kind of hope you have in mind. I find that an unwarranted assumption that would have to be proven before the bet could be valid.
--Eva
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
***Is anyone in Seattle? I would LOVE to meet someone face to face instead of on computer. I will bet 5$ that I can infect them with a certain kind of hope, in 5 min or less.
Any takers?***
Zach:
Don't take this bet unless you care nothing for money. Then by all means take the bet, and understand that you will not be satisfied.
"It seems to be filling my head with ideas --- Only I don't know exactly what they are"
Author
Logged
