Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

Another "joke"? I made no such application. Knowing Ellis, in no way do I think of her as a religionist.

BTW, for the record: If you intended to point the finger in my direction--Did you?--I see no positive value in religionism--too much bigotry and exaggerated zeal.

I must confess to LOL at the thought of being a religionist- and the rest of TTs misunderstandings and dogmatic arguments reminded me why I had had him on 'ignore' for literally years!

On the other hand being thought a religionist does speak to the part of me that attempts to be fair-minded, adaptable and tolerant (though obviously NOT very humble!)

Too much or any at all?
I wouldn't necessarily point in a direction because of excessive behavior, but rather application of definition.
A game you have learned to play quite well. Don'tcha think?

Interpretation is it not?
Personally I don't see misinterpretation as an issue unless it's equally spread about. The Rev. Considers me an enigma, and you may think because I don't necessarily tread the same path in identification with your personal reality that I can't interpret what you say..

What is life about? Defining experience and definition into an agreement, or a single path?

I like to think there are higher cognitive functions of the mind than individual perspectives that create isolation and the need to block out parts of our universe. Paths may be seen to converge in the expanded view, where they may not be seen as the same from judgment.
I think most will agree when facing another and their conflicting point of view in principal, but unconsciously, I think personal judgments get in the way of such objective ideals.

Your defining approach is both interesting and revealing.

Is there a name for the art of wrong-footing others by saying something that really says nothing but sounds as though it contradicts what they have just said without actually contradicting it preferably with minimal punctuation so as to make its meaning as ambiguous as possible?

Can't say that particular interpretation of reality is going to be universally accepted.

It may be you will have to take the Rev.s approach and make up your own definition according to how you see it. Then you can try and sell it, to see if it sticks.

It might require an investment on your part to hold a position, or to not hold one.

That could have been a "no", or perhaps a "yes", conditional, of course, with an element of "possibly" or not, depending on one's personal interpretation. Could it be that we are beginning to speak the same language?

Don't think the possibility of that was/is ever missing.
I suppose an interest and a modicum of patience is required to pursue any kind of understanding.

Naah Bill S-- You don't use enough words, and definitely not enough long ones! And don't forget to argue against yourself sometimes--- then vehemently deny it, etc.etc.

Yes bill, never use an incorrect amount of words, long ones are verboten.
Never present opposing view points, and never doubt the authoritative references coming from the pride of the voice representing a single point of view.

Rules of engagement from the feminine side of the Ego?

When all else fails ignore what you don't understand, or like. If you bury your head in the sand maybe it will go away.

It's amazing how something outside of the boxes we create in personal identification, can seem to have so much power over our senses, driving us into emotional dramas we wouldn't think of creating for ourselves.
It may be that G~O~D the Rev. Speaks of which is good, orderly and destructive to illusions that challenges us to evolve rather than stagnate and die.
Then again it could be the devil, looking to irritate the crap out of those that are born to bide their time until they do die.
The meaning of life is so subjective.....

How about "The art of uncivil servantism"?--the kind practised by Sir Humphrey Appleby, one of the main characters, played by Nigel Hawthron, in the BBC TV series, YES MINISTER.

The corridors of power are awash with corruption, back-stabbing and uncivil servants as James Hacker, opportunistic Minister of the Department of Administrative Affairs, and his scheming Permanent Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, fight for control of the ministry.

Yes Minister Series
===================

Quotes from the dialogue

OPEN GOVERNMENT

"Two kinds of government chair correspond with the two kinds of minister: one sort folds up instantly and the other sort goes round and round in circles."

"If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong."

"It is sometimes difficult to explain to Ministers that open government can sometimes mean informing their Cabinet colleagues as well as their friends in Fleet Street."

"Minister's language: 'We have decided to be more flexible in our application of this principle' means 'We are dropping this policy but we don't want to admit it publicly'. "
=====================
OFFICIAL VISIT

"A career in politics is no preparation for government."

"'The matter is under consideration' means we have lost the file. 'The matter is under active consideration' means we are trying to find the file."
=====================
ECONOMY DRIVE

"Asking a town hall to slim down its staff is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery."

"Politicians must be allowed to panic. They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement."

"The argument that we must do everything a Minister demands because he has been 'democratically chosen' does not stand up to close inspection.

MPs are not chosen by 'the people' - they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hats.

The further 'selection' process is equally a nonsense: there are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all."

Bill S- Here's suggestion for the word you are seeking.

A circumlocutionist--- as in one who uses circumlocution until the brain of the listener begins to bleed --- and possibly beyond.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100828054703/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif


Gotta love superstitious people.


Believe in the boogeyman?

Thanks Ellis. Do you think it is significant that Rev used 5 words where 1 would do?



TT, you really should strive to achieve a little more clarity. What might go away; your head, the sand or something you don't like? This is supposed to be a science based forum.

I suppose Clarity is going to be a byproduct of comprehension.

I believe there is a clue to the answer you seek in the two sentences that reference the subject, in the first sentence.

Take a guess. Let's see how receptive you are, and I'll tell you whether you got it or not.
Or better yet describe scientifically how you would come to be confused, by the way the two sentences were put together..

This should be enlightening, if at the least, entertaining.

Alternatively one could suppose, perhaps with some justification, that comprehension is a (by)product of clarity.



Planting clues instead of being specific does, I suppose, leave plenty of scope for wrong-footing anyone who might respond. That could be, as you say, "at the least, entertaining."

Good idea, Bill! Keeping in mind that this is the philosophy and not-quite-science (NQS) section, let's do it. Bill S, any suggestions you, or anyone, have as to HOW to accomplish this, will be welcomed.

My suggestion? In the spirit of agape, may I suggest that theology, pneumatology psychology, sociology, etc. ... fill in the blanks ... are, IMO, all worthy of attention.

This is scientific.

How is a bleeding brain superstitious? Blood vessels inside the brain bleed sometimes- it's a scientific fact that they do, and I was using it as a metaphor as usually the bleed is not caused by circumlocution.

I am very, very non-superstitious-- don't even believe in luck, just hard work. I do get annoyed with solipsism though, so back on the 'ignore' you go TT.

Sorry!? Could you be a bit more clear in how to present the perfect message so misunderstanding can be a thing we talk about as a thing of the past? I would love to see everyone find the perfect road to comprehension and perfection of communication.

True, however I was being facetious.
The first sentence was specific to those things we do not like. I thought that was rather obvious. Sorry you didn't get that without further information.
However, as long as lines of communication are open and not shut, clarity can be achieved thru the exploration of expression. Dialogue without the impedance of fluctuating hormones, psychosis, or lack of objectivity and patience don'tcha know.
One might get lucky and really get to understand life!?

I accepted your metaphor as superstition rather than scientific fact. For the benefit of clarification as prescribed by Bill (being that this is a scientific forum and nothing is obvious as a rule... )
Didn't want anyone to take your inference to bleeding brains when defining circumlocution as a scientific fact in cause and effect.


I'll consider you without luck and annoyed, and myself ignored..