Why Call Me Stupid?

[Mercutio]

It's only correct to the extent that they apply which, for those who don't understand that they're merely creatures of belief, may never understand.

Did you know, Iacchus...that social psychologists have studied the mechanisms of belief for decades? That we started out with some of the questions you may have had, but then actually did examine them?

Seriously, if you honestly do care about the questions you ask, you should read Fiske and Taylor's Social Cognition. If, on the other hand, you ask them merely to annoy, then never mind.

Your statement here almost sounds intelligent. Unless one is familiar with the actual study of belief, in which case your house of cards reveals itself. You are the creature of belief who does not understand himself. And once again, rather than diving in and exploring, you deflect and distract. There is a fascinating field here, the psychology of belief...but let me guess: You would rather explore that which is self-evident. You would rather take your preconceived notions and drum up support in the form of evasion, distraction, and deflection. Same [stuff], different thread.

 

[Iacchus]

I will not take that bet. I have been here before. Were it not for my foul mood, I would not be here now. Frost said it..."something there is that doesn't love a wall"...we keep trying to set the stones right, but we are up against a force of nature. In this case....willful ignorance.

Labels ... labels ... labels. Yes, but what do they mean? If it's all relative, then there's no true way of guessing is there? And, anything you say, can and will be held against you in a court of law. Ha ha! But of course that implies meaning too now doesn't it? Hmm ...

 

[Mercutio]

No offense, Mercutio, but I hope in person you are fat and ugly.

Guilty as charged. Fat, ugly, and stupid--just ask my wife. Just don't ask the skepchicks who met me at TAM2...for some strange reason, they keep lying about me.

Otherwise, I can't compete with you in any arena.

You are my new best friend.

 

[Mercutio]

Labels ... labels ... labels. Yes, but what do they mean? If it's all relative, then there's no true way of guessing now is there? Whereas anything you say, can and will be held against you in a court of law. But of course that implies meaning too now doesn't it? Hmm ...

So...you have no clue about intersubjective validation, is that what you are saying? No clue about linguistics? No clue about language learning, or meaning, or...gee, what is it that you do know?

Meaning is use...and shared use by a language community. It is necessarily imperfect, but practical. We never know precisely what the other person means, and we cannot, because we have learned the meaning of the words through necessarily different circumstances. On the other hand, it is inaccurate to claim that there is no meaning to any word--that is, of course, a strawman. That a court can ask you to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in no way implies that this is possible.

If you insist on dichotomizing, you will continue to be dissappointed. We are neither completely accurate nor completely inaccurate. We have terms like "perfection" or "infinite" which are abstractions which we will never and can never experience. Just because we have developed a mentalistic vocabulary, do not assume the actual existence of mind. There are any number of things which we have words for, but which do not, in practice, exist.

Thanks for playing. Practice some more and come back.

 

[Iacchus]

Did you know, Iacchus...that social psychologists have studied the mechanisms of belief for decades? That we started out with some of the questions you may have had, but then actually did examine them?

Seriously, if you honestly do care about the questions you ask, you should read Fiske and Taylor's Social Cognition. If, on the other hand, you ask them merely to annoy, then never mind.

So? What exactly were they studying, if it wasn't something inherent about who we are? Why should we have to depend so much on the experts in other words? For typically all the experts are good for is enforcing the established view. And what if they were still telling us that the world was flat?

Your statement here almost sounds intelligent. Unless one is familiar with the actual study of belief, in which case your house of cards reveals itself. You are the creature of belief who does not understand himself. And once again, rather than diving in and exploring, you deflect and distract. There is a fascinating field here, the psychology of belief...but let me guess: You would rather explore that which is self-evident. You would rather take your preconceived notions and drum up support in the form of evasion, distraction, and deflection. Same [stuff], different thread.

Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother? If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does. Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning. So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For this is a sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here.

 

[scribble]

Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother? If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does. Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning. So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth. For this is sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here.

It's painful to see someone like Iacchus responding to something like Mercutio's post.

Not in the usual "it's painful to read anything Iacchus writes" sense.

More of a "that ignorant fool has taken a thing of beauty and pissed on it."

Then again, I guess there's an element of that in all his posts, too.

 

[Iacchus]

More of a "that ignorant fool has taken a thing of beauty and pissed on it."

Beauty? Relative to what? By the way, I'm almost certain this is what he was trying to do with me. Couched in the guise of his own expertise of course. Also, the reason why it took me so long to reply, was that I had to spend all this time cleaning myself off. This is the problem you have when dealing experts you see. Because everything is so designed to confound and confuse. And when I finally do get upset, then I'm the one who's obviously being irrational.

Then again, I guess there's an element of that in all his posts, too.

No, the problem is that when you call someone else ignorant, or stupid perhaps? then you'd better be prepared to account for your own fallibilities.

 

[scribble]

As Mercutio continues to score browny points from those he continues to suck up to.

Whew. My only fear here was you'd think I was sucking up to Mercutio. I'm quite flattered to think you see him sucking up to me.

No, the problem is that when you call someone else ignorant, or stupid perhaps? then you'd better be prepared to account for your own fallibilities. [/B]

I'm ready, willing, and able to account for any and every word I've said. Whether that means defending it or whether it means admitting I was wrong.

You cannot say the same.

It's sad to watch you, Iacchus. Every now and then it looks like you're so close to being a cool guy.

Then you go say stupid ◊◊◊◊ like this.

 

[Mercutio]

So? What exactly were they studying, if it wasn't something inherent about who we are?

Um...your sentence has an extra "inherent" in it, which adds nothing to its meaning. Indeed, it detracts, because we have come to expect that this word will be your tool by which you move your goalposts. These experts study something about who we are. Why assume it is inherent? It might be, but it also might be learned, or even a trait which varies from person to person. Oh, wait--perhaps you have some evidence that it is, in fact, inherent. Please share it.

Why should we have to depend so much on the experts in other words?

Good point. Why indeed should we pay any attention to the people who have dedicated their lives' work to a topic, spent years or decades developing a useful research paradigm, and subjected their findings to the scrutiny of critical peers? I mean, what do they have that, say, you do not...aside from a lifetime of work, a workable paradigm, and peer-reviewed literature? Why should we depend on them at all?

For typically all the experts are good for is enforcing the established view.

True again. Everyone knows that the only way to truly challenge the established view is to sit and think. Experts running experiments are all part of a devious plot to slow the pace of progress! History shows us that the majority of scientists are establishment goons, and that all meaningful progress has come from navel-gazers--and I am sure your next post will back your statement up with copious examples.

And what if they were still telling us that the world was flat?

I couldn't have put it better myself! Yes, what if they were! It would show that they don't actually look at the results of their experiments, but only at that which is obvious and right in front of their noses. Oh, wait, that was you. Well, forget that part. Iacchus...I admit, this last sentence stumps me. Exactly which researchers are behaving in any way whatsoever that can be equated to "still telling us that the world was flat."? I know you would not have put that sentence there just to evade...not right after I pointed that out to you...

Please, list a handful of researchers who are the functional equivalent of flat-earthers. I mean, that is a serious accusation--it would be much like accusing someone of relying on such out-of-touch authorities as Jung or Swedenborg...and no reasonable individual would do that...

Nice try. You're very good at sounding convincing, but why bother?

LOL...I must remember to use that line sometime...

If you're trying to prove that meaning doesn't exist, then all you can hope to accomplish is prove that it does.

Oh! Is that it? It's ok to just admit you did not understand what I said. I did not say that meaning does not exist--not at all. I said that meaning is usage; specifically, fuzzily agreed-upon usage by a language community. You are falsely dichotomizing again--when I said we cannot know each other's meaning exactly, you interpreted that as "we cannot know it at all", which is clearly not the case.

Why? Because it can only be accomplished -- and get this -- through the use of meaning.

Ooooh...really? Please explain this. I just (right above, in this very post, as well as before) explained how meaning derives from usage. I'm certain you can explain every bit as well how I am wrong. Please...do more than merely assert.

So please (if possible) refrain from speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Evasion, Diversion...Please, Iacchus...look back through this thread (or any other in which the two of us have both participated). Which of us speaks plainly? Which of us dodges? Which of us is currently speaking out of the other side of his mouth? Or do you merely talk out of your [edited for your reading convenience]?

For this is a sure sign that you're dealing with an expert here.

"A sure sign"....then I am sure you can give many more examples. Please do. I would not want to think you are making [stuff] up.

 

[Iacchus]

Whew. My only fear here was you'd think I was sucking up to Mercutio. I'm quite flattered to think you see him sucking up to me.

I deleted that part by the way, because it didn't quite fit. And what I've said is more than adequate. However, what we're referring to here is "cronyism."

I'm ready, willing, and able to account for any and every word I've said. Whether that means defending it or whether it means admitting I was wrong.

You cannot say the same.

That's amazing. How we can be so sure when somebody else is wrong. Amazing!

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

It's sad to watch you, Iacchus. Every now and then it looks like you're so close to being a cool guy.

Then you go say stupid ◊◊◊◊ like this.

Do you think I'm here to try and impress you? No. So why call me stupid?

 

[scribble]

That's amazing. How we can be so sure when somebody else is wrong. Amazing!

When have I said you're wrong? You'd have to make a coherent claim first. Drop the Spohisty and Zen crap. You're no good at it anyhow. Have you listened to a word I've said? This is what I've been telling you all along. I never said you're wrong. I said you're willfully ignorant.

Do you think I'm here to try and impress you?

Yes.

No.

That's amazing. How can we be so sure what someone else is thinking?

So why call me stupid?

Because you are. You MUST be if you have to ask that after we've spent this whole thread answering it in detail.

( You must think we're as stupid as you are, linking twice to the thread we're currently reading in. Hey, I'm here reading it, I don't need a link. )

 

[Piscivore]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

:toss:







thunk

 

[Iacchus]

Nice try!

 

[Iacchus]

Um...your sentence has an extra "inherent" in it, which adds nothing to its meaning. Indeed, it detracts, because we have come to expect that this word will be your tool by which you move your goalposts. These experts study something about who we are. Why assume it is inherent? It might be, but it also might be learned, or even a trait which varies from person to person. Oh, wait--perhaps you have some evidence that it is, in fact, inherent. Please share it.

But why feign to be an expert on anything? What purpose does it serve? It almost seems to suggest they've been specifically ordained to do what they do or, at least make it appear this way. But why do this?

Good point. Why indeed should we pay any attention to the people who have dedicated their lives' work to a topic, spent years or decades developing a useful research paradigm, and subjected their findings to the scrutiny of critical peers? I mean, what do they have that, say, you do not...aside from a lifetime of work, a workable paradigm, and peer-reviewed literature? Why should we depend on them at all?

Is this to imply that they have a sense of purpose about something? What do you mean? I don't get it?

True again. Everyone knows that the only way to truly challenge the established view is to sit and think. Experts running experiments are all part of a devious plot to slow the pace of progress! History shows us that the majority of scientists are establishment goons, and that all meaningful progress has come from navel-gazers--and I am sure your next post will back your statement up with copious examples.

And such wonderous examples of a concrete world (hmm ... the consolidation of fact?) which has no meaning.

I couldn't have put it better myself! Yes, what if they were! It would show that they don't actually look at the results of their experiments, but only at that which is obvious and right in front of their noses. Oh, wait, that was you. Well, forget that part. Iacchus...I admit, this last sentence stumps me. Exactly which researchers are behaving in any way whatsoever that can be equated to "still telling us that the world was flat."? I know you would not have put that sentence there just to evade...not right after I pointed that out to you...

But why are they so busy trying to justify anything? What are they trying to prove? If life has no meaning, what's the big deal?

Please, list a handful of researchers who are the functional equivalent of flat-earthers. I mean, that is a serious accusation--it would be much like accusing someone of relying on such out-of-touch authorities as Jung or Swedenborg...and no reasonable individual would do that...

Just about anyone -- who, through the notion of materialism -- insists that a spiritual reality doesn't exist. So how many shotguns will I need to cover that one? Well forget it, I'm not Rambo.

LOL...I must remember to use that line sometime...

Yes, it goes to show you how important is to you in your lack of meaning.

Oh! Is that it? It's ok to just admit you did not understand what I said. I did not say that meaning does not exist--not at all. I said that meaning is usage; specifically, fuzzily agreed-upon usage by a language community. You are falsely dichotomizing again--when I said we cannot know each other's meaning exactly, you interpreted that as "we cannot know it at all", which is clearly not the case.

Like I say, why bother?

Ooooh...really? Please explain this. I just (right above, in this very post, as well as before) explained how meaning derives from usage. I'm certain you can explain every bit as well how I am wrong. Please...do more than merely assert.

What do you mean?

Evasion, Diversion...Please, Iacchus...look back through this thread (or any other in which the two of us have both participated). Which of us speaks plainly? Which of us dodges? Which of us is currently speaking out of the other side of his mouth? Or do you merely talk out of your [edited for your reading convenience]?

However, the best way to be evasive that I've found, is to simply imply meaning doesn't exist. Talk about copouts of copouts!

Which, is why we seem to be so predisposed towards arguing here. And for what? ... JUSTIFICATION.

"A sure sign"....then I am sure you can give many more examples. Please do. I would not want to think you are making [stuff] up.

What, are you saying I should refer to something which actually means something? Understand this, I'm not the one who's being evasive here. Or, if I am, it's only to the extent that I'm not going to serve you that which doesn't belong to you. Hence the old addage from the Bible ... "Don't cast your pearls berfore swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn around rend you."

 

[scribble]

Damn, it smells like piss in here.

Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not.

 

[Iacchus]

Damn, it smells like piss in here.

Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not.

And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long.

 

[scribble]

And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long.

You apparently did not get my joke. My point was that you just went.

It's okay. I know that I should have spelled it out more explicitly for you. This time, your misunderstanding was my fault.

Now you get my joke the way it was intended, and you can laugh with me.

 

[Iacchus]

You apparently did not get my joke. My point was that you just went.

It's okay. I know that I should have spelled it out more explicitly for you. This time, your misunderstanding was my fault.

Now you get my joke the way it was intended, and you can laugh with me.

No, but I'm abouts to go and I'll try to keep you in mind, Okay?

 

[scribble]

No, but I'm abouts to go and I'll try to keep you in mind, Okay?

Crude, but I'm hardly in a position to complain. Go right ahead.

 

[Iacchus]

Crude, but I'm hardly in a position to complain. Go right ahead.

Thanks. That was a relief!