Communication

@William,

William;68813 wrote:

I my humble opinion, once we begin to communicate divinely, without fear in a language all can understand, any protest will appear more and more and more and more obscene, and "the devil will just just go......poof".

Again, IMMHO.

William

Not sure I understand what you are talking about william.

1 Reply

@William,

i dont believe in the devil...

i think if everyone could read each other's mind that would be the best form of communication-no more lies. language isnt very good-it is the cause of misunderstanding more often than not. but i think we have to first be able to stop deceiving ourselves and hear our own mind talking to us. there is a lot farther we could go on the path of evolution. this isnt really a comment relating to the philosophy of language. oh william, why didnt you put this is the lounge forum?

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;74470 wrote:

i dont believe in the devil...

i think if everyone could read each other's mind that would be the best form of communication-no more lies.

This would be horrifying. Unless we had perfect minds to go with the ability of mind reading we'd all be so busy self-censoring and trying to repress and mask out our inappropriate and/or irrelevant thoughts that no one would ever be able to communicate anything and, I think, we'd all eventually go mad.

1 Reply

@William,

William;68813 wrote:

I my humble opinion, once we begin to communicate divinely, without fear in a language all can understand, any protest will appear more and more and more and more obscene, and "the devil will just just go......poof".

Again, IMMHO.

William

Devil's advocacy, and the power of negative resistance in the positive proof of sustaining humanity...

The human form of weak force, augmenting strong force, is a long evolution. Even when the forces of physics are bridged with numerous dialectical belief systems worldwide, the difference that space and time cause, are the same causes that power us forward.

Any word object, like "fear" or "obscene", have a negative and positive application to the need at hand. Just studying the principle of parsimony, and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, puts the language tool in proportion to foundation survival. The less the base survival need, the more aesthetic. The more immediate survival application, the greater need.

So, therefore, language, to be widely acceptable, must meet a sustainable range of needs behavior. If we just make hierarchical needs, along with communication, math, and science, required learning, we'd curb most of the massive vacillations we have in our more-and-more interconnected civilization, and facilitate prosperity.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;75954 wrote:

This would be horrifying. Unless we had perfect minds to go with the ability of mind reading we'd all be so busy self-censoring and trying to repress and mask out our inappropriate and/or irrelevant thoughts that no one would ever be able to communicate anything and, I think, we'd all eventually go mad.

but no, what you describe is what we have now! with the possibility of mind reading, we would be unable to deceive so there would be no use in trying. i admit that we are not quite ready for it yet though-we would be killing each other off for thoughts like 'i dont like his socks'.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Elmud;74431 wrote:

Not sure I understand what you are talking about william.

I was using the devil figuratively speaking as in a representation of our inability to divinely communicate.

William

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 10:16 PM ----------

salima;74470 wrote:

i think if everyone could read each other's mind that would be the best form of communication-no more lies. language isnt very good-it is the cause of misunderstanding more often than not. but i think we have to first be able to stop deceiving ourselves and hear our own mind talking to us. there is a lot farther we could go on the path of evolution. this isnt really a comment relating to the philosophy of language. oh william, why didnt you put this is the lounge forum?

I have no idea? I have never used the lounge before. I will check it out. But in your response as to "reading minds" I would like to make a comment.

I think we do have the ability to "read minds" to a certain extent. It is my belief it does involve the senses, not absent of them of which is popular opinon we attempt to define that we cannot yet defing; Extrasensory perception, or (ESP). I believe it involves eye contact often described "windows of the universe". Because we don't understand it there is a lot of conjecture surrounding it of which I am not exempt from theorizing myself. I also think there are positives and negatives that are involved as to what it is that we can perceive that we shouldn't, which leads to even more confusion. Such as understanding the awesome ability of predigious savants and what they can "percieve" we are not aware of. If you have ever notice when you are in a one on one conversation and you are "in tune" with that person, you "hear" everything they have to say, with on lapses which can occur when you are not in tune such as can be understood by the phrase, "...are you paying attention?" Ha. Heard that before, huh?

In involves, IMO, ease, eye contact, voice inflection, body language, intensity, assuredness, confidence and the like all consituent with what is involve in "paying attention". Any "Freudian slip" or other inconsistency that disrupts that "flow" cause us to lose that communicative bond and we just "look" like we are attentive. This has happened to all of us. When that "speech" hits a nerve we are not familiar with it causes a lapse, IMO. and we lose that "train of thought" as it applies to the effective communication. It is is true, we would easily follow that speech even if it is different, but it is "similar" to our own. Once we are fully in tune with each other, communication will be as easy as falling off a log. so to speak and we both learn from that communication. This can be explained, IMO as audio/visual perception and not extra sensory, but I do think those perceptions can be fine tuned to the point to where they will be extra, but then they will just be "perception" and that requires "contact" in conjunction with the audio/visual. And that is where my understanding ends. And even this is supposition on my part, but it does make sense to me to some extent.

I have thought about this on occasion as to what it means trying to understand what other's say it means and have yet to find a plausible correlation that I can get close to relating to those "psychic" abilities or phenomenon we are acquainted with. Yet,there is a part of it that tells me it could be those who possess those "pshchic" abilities could be taped into something they are not meant to tamper with. Meaning, I think they do exist and when the time comes we will all adapt to it, so to speak, but it will be a slow process. Very open to anyone elses thoughts on the subject.

Thinking out loud,
William

PS: Where is the "lounge" anyway? :perplexed:

0 Replies

@William,

"PS: Where is the "lounge" anyway? :perplexed:"..........William

it's another forum where people post things that may or may not pertain to psychology, sort of a more casual laid back type discussion. it is listed as 'general discussion' under the caption the lounge where you also find new member introductions.

1 Reply

@salima,

Ive heard that people who use psychedelic Mushrooms with another person, can sit there together and discuss what they are "seeing". After a while it starts to slip into to that "crazy idea" that one person can "read" another's mind. I understand alot of that has to do with increased dialect and of course the mushrooms make the mind more......acute i would have to call it.

Either way, Ive never read someones thoughts as to understand "how" someone is thinking. I say It was more a feeling and acknowledgment of intention and occasional synchronism's. But to be fare, Its a subject that requires alot of reflection and comparison with other individuals. I dont tripped once with a girlfriend, and haven't done it since (about 5 years). It wasn't bad, it just made a really confusing impression. The idea of tripping now, to explore all the ideas and thoughts I have gone through since then is becoming more exiting with participation.

ummm, I guess thats all I have to say about that. Surprised

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;76009 wrote:

but no, what you describe is what we have now! with the possibility of mind reading, we would be unable to deceive so there would be no use in trying. i admit that we are not quite ready for it yet though-we would be killing each other off for thoughts like 'i dont like his socks'.

I tend to lean more toward what Douglas Adams had to say about telepathy in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
-----------------------
"One of the things Ford Prefect found hard to understand about human beings was their habit of continually stating and re-stating the very, very obvious, as in: "It's a nice day", "You're very tall" or "So this is it; we are going to die".

At first, Ford formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. 'If human beings don't keep exercising their lips' he thought 'their mouths probably seize up'. After a while he abandoned this theory in favor of a new one. 'If they don't keep exercising their lips' he thought, 'their brains start working'.

In fact, this second theory is more literally true of the Belcerebon People of Kakrafoon Kappa. The Belcerebons used to cause great resentment amongst neighbouring races by being one of the most enlightened, accomplished and above all quiet civilizations in the galaxy. As a punishment for this behaviour, which was held to be offensively self-righteous and provocative, a galactic tribunal inflicted on them that most cruel of all social diseases: telepathy. Now, in order to prevent themselves from broadcasting every slightest thought that crosses their minds to anyone within a five-mile radius, they have to talk loudly and continuously about the weather, their little aches and pains, the match this afternoon and what a noisy place Kakrafoon has suddenly become."
------------------

1 Reply

@William,

In response to what you said William, I agree we have some of these "psychic" abilities.
My wife worked with dogs for years and years. She is as good as anyone on TV at dealing with dog behavior, but she used to get really furious at TV's "pet psychic," not because she gave poor advice, but because she described herself as a psychic and not a behaviorists. Sometimes these terms can taint our perception of things.
In addition to body language as you describe, we also use our own experiences and motivations to read other's intentions or thoughts.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

lol to the adams quote above ....

Quote:

william - I my humble opinion, once we begin to communicate divinely, without fear in a language all can understand, any protest will appear more and more and more and more obscene, and "the devil will just just go......poof".

its a nice idea william. but protest against what? "she should be my woman" or "he should be my man" for example? Smile

Obscene? Therefore divine acceptance through perfect communication? (or perhaps divine solution - "We will share her/him" :bigsmile:)

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;78649 wrote:

......its a nice idea william. but protest against what?

Hello Pagan. That's a good question. IMO, there are measures of power that depend on "lack of communication" for in that there is rhetoric, conjecture, supposition, rhetoric and argument etc, that creates a "great noise" represented and defined as relativism as we defend our own perceptions instituting a deafness to the perceptions of others that offer alternative ideas. There is no freedom of speech if anyone is afraid to speak. Any speech that is used to defend the self is fear motivated and a product of ego and the breeder of condescension, hypocricy, hate, animosity cleverly disguised as "authoritative" (dictatorial). In a lesser term it is paranoia stemming from that fear we have of others who are engaged in the same manner; defending their beliefs; to hell with what you think!

Protest from those whose desire is to rule and control have the strongest ego's and will do all in their power to to deter, malign and disarm any speech that threatens their rule and control representative of a very few with the means to deter, malign and disarm using subordinates whom are gratitously compensated to speak for them using a script provided for them such as a teleprompter, for instance dictating the words they use as an illustration.

Once there is a free flowing thought and ideas from the majority who represent this Earth's population, that antagonistic rhetoric will lose it's deceptive power and become obscene and disgusting and it's true selfishness will be for everyone to hear and see.

If one has the talent to teach selfishness, which relativism is as it proclaims every man for himself, power has an ally for which it can depend and control that will justify selfishness as a "life force" we "must" have in order to survive; when in fact, it is the very stuff that causes us to war that reduces that chance for survival and deteriorates the landscape that is meant for all to live.

Thanks Pagan. I hope this, my, explanation helped at all. I can relate it to any scenario you choose. Power sucks.........the energy out of all it possesses. IMMHO. :detective:

William

1 Reply

@William,

hmmm... william

while i agree that ignorance is an opportunity to divide and rule, and power through language by ruling elites does indeed occur ..... i do not agree that relativism is ignorance when compared to absolutism. Nor would i necessarily agree that only through an implied (?) form of divine absolutism can such corruption of power be concievably dissipated. What about diversity within relativism as an inspiring of tolerance, that might undermine ruling elites?

Presumably you speculate that by divine communication it is selfishness itself that is undermined, which is the root of ego power seeking? And through the absense of selfishness relativism is thus undermined?

But i cant really picture what this language would be like.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;78669 wrote:

hmmm... william

while i agree that ignorance is an opportunity to divide and rule, and power through language by ruling elites does indeed occur ..... i do not agree that relativism is ignorance when compared to absolutism. Nor would i necessarily agree that only through an implied (?) form of divine absolutism can such corruption of power be concievably dissipated. What about diversity within relativism as an inspiring of tolerance, that might undermine ruling elites?

Presumably you speculate that by a divine communication it is selfishness itself that is undermined, which is the root of ego power seeking? And through the absense of selfishness relativism is thus undermined?

But i cant really picture what this language would be like.

Thanks. It is not "by" divine communication, it is "a" divine communication as we begin to align with that inexplicable senergy and the oneness of it all. Not alien from it. As far as diversity within relativism when it is complimentary with others, absolutely. That is exactly what I am talking about. If those relative perceptions are antagonistic, it necessitates a negotiating and compromising "power" to settle the argument, enhancing and promoting power and the need for it.

As far as your last statement, (highlighted), I don't understand what you are saying? If you could ellaborate a little, please. It is a bit confusing. :perplexed:

Thanks.

William

1 Reply

@William,

hi william

i was trying to understand how you meant by

Quote:

IMO, there are measures of power that depend on "lack of communication" for in that there is rhetoric, conjecture, supposition, rhetoric and argument etc, that creates a "great noise" represented and defined as relativism as we defend our own perceptions instituting a deafness to the perceptions of others that offer alternative ideas.

I thought that you might be saying that relativism was a masquerade of tolerance and is that which is created by selfishness (and division by ignorance and power elites).

But now you have written ....

Quote:

As far as diversity within relativism when it is complimentary with others, absolutely. That is exactly what I am talking about. If those relative perceptions are antagonistic, it necessitates a negotiating and compromising "power" to settle the argument, enhancing and promoting power and the need for it.

.... i see that you do not make that a necessary condition. Smile

0 Replies

@William,

Thanks, Pagan.
We can't deny our unique, relative perceptions in that no two people are alike. That's a given. It's when we use those in a effort to compete we get into trouble and manipulate and commplicate language to defend that uniqueness when it shouldn't be under attack. That's were divine communication comes into play allowing us to establish a common ground in which both can benefit.

As far a what that language will sound like? Good question! We haven't developed it yet, IMO. We are entirely too defensive, I think. It's an ego problem. Who likes to be critized?:poke-eye: Thanks Again
William

2 Replies

@William,

Quote:

william -
It is not "by" divine communication, it is "a" divine communication as we begin to align with that inexplicable senergy and the oneness of it all. Not alien from it. As far as diversity within relativism when it is complimentary with others, absolutely. That is exactly what I am talking about. If those relative perceptions are antagonistic, it necessitates a negotiating and compromising "power" to settle the argument, enhancing and promoting power and the need for it.

well yes i agree. Even as someone who believes that we need multi narratives because for me all narratives are incomplete, nevertheless i believe in the oneness of reality. Our multi perspectives on the face of it fragment and create the illusion of separation and chaos. We then place ourselves in different camps upon the field of reality ..... and what results becomes a part of the reality we have to deal with. Not least each other. Staring at and through our ignorances, and the fears of difference as you say.

Would that we could all see the oneness of it all ...... and communicate with such intent even through the limitations of the languages we have. And through that intent refine how we communicate.

But yes, we see (understand) through language and therein is the problem created. Personally i believe that such a dream will always require good intent to overcome the necessary limitations of all possible languages ..... however divine.

But there is always communication through deeds as well Smile

0 Replies

@William,

Well said.

William

1 Reply

@William,

"the oneness of it all"

is it possible that this could become recognised by humanity as a truth in all languages and all narratives of understanding?

0 Replies

Communication

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know