virus: FW: Open thinking
Wright, James 7929 (Jwright@phelpsd.com)
Tue, 01 Apr 97 14:06:00 EST
David wrote a lengthy post, which I am poorly interpreting as follows:
1) "Words mean what I want them to mean" per H. Dumpty, "Alice in
Wonderland".
The discussion involving "clinging to dictionary definitions" apparently
expresses David's desire to change the meanings of words to those outside
of a dictionary. This is perfectly acceptable, David; I think the point
was to preserve a commonly accepted definition of /egalitarianism/, which
others use as-is frequently. If you wish to re-define a word, please make
it clear that you are RE-defining it, in a new sense or understanding,
rather than defining it. Your original message appeared to be proposing
the common definition, which another poster objected to as a
RE-definition, and cited a source for that objection.
Why not just create a new word, David? That happens here all the time
too.
2)>>For instance, a picture-concept of a 'hidden criminal who
distorts people's thinking through the use of language', was first formed
before
the identification and definition of "neocheater" came about. <<
Does RE-defining a commonly accepted word without making it clear that
you are, in fact, RE-defining it, constitute neocheating, David? Would
you consider yourself as having neocheated in the /egalitarianism/
discussion above?
Actually, I agree with your analysis of the open thinking process in
general, and I can agree with the characterization of three types of
thinking process discussed in the last paragraph of your post. I would
contend, however, that the /egalitarianism/ discussion above would
constitute "type 3" thinking (controlling through language) on YOUR part,
although it might have been accidental if you truly thought you were
using metaphor, as you implied in your post. At least I among the group
did not discern metaphor in your prior post, and felt the dictionary
definition was posted to caution you away from a possible error of
definition of a common word.
I'm not sure about the "picture=concept" thinking process described; I
can't describe my own thought processes in such terms. But you do lead me
to pay more attention to those processes, which is helpful.
Cheers!
james