feminisim and queer theory are a form of mind control

[pam699]

but bush shows us clearly how reality is constructed through langauge also any definition is arbitary andconstructs the world the way the controllers of language want go read 1984 BY ORWELL ie newspeack-it is here and has always been here

[pam699]

bush shows us clearly how reality is constructed through language
and definitions are arbitary so who controls the definition ie language controls reality
go read 1984 by orwell it is called nerwspeack it has always been there

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 but bush shows us clearly how reality is constructed through langauge also any definition is arbitary andconstructs the world the way the controllers of language want go read 1984 BY ORWELL ie newspeack-it is here and has always been here

I've read Orwelle's 1984, which is a fictional book by the way. I disagree with his sheeplike illustration of human thinking. I think humanity will always have subsets of groups who are not nearly gullible or short-sighted enough to forget everything they were taught and realised in favor of a newly introduced form of "newspeak".

Only killing off those in academia and those who speak out against the mouthpiece for a newly establish dictatorship over the usage of words could allow newspeak and such to flourish. Bush is not doing such a thing, so I do not fear him nearly as much as you seem to. He certainly is no mastermind on the level of Stalin or Mao, that's for sure.

[pam699]

but nevertheless i have given examoples of how reality is constructed through language and is not meary reflected in langague
feminists use this insight to contruct reality just like buush newspeack and the linguistic prarmatists do -once u se this as a conscious attempt to control your mind and idetities u will be able to protect your selves from langauage dictators

this sort of stuff has beeen around for years in usa universities it is called in philosophy pragmaticism the goverments are full of universiies trained pragmatists-it opertaes in foriegn policy decisions the world arouind- in politics there is no good bad evil it is just pragmatitisim

[Jack]

bush shows us clearly how reality is constructed through langauge

I believe you mean that Bush is evidence of... He too dumb to show someone the door, let alone a philosophical observation.

so who controls the definition ie language controls reality

Who do you suppose that is, and how exactly do they go about controlling the language?

go read 1984 by orwell it is called nerwspeack

I've read it several times over the years, and the term is "newspeak". It's a novel, fiction, and based on a society not that much like our own. We may get there someday, but we're not there yet.

[pam699]

but nevertheless i have given examoples of how reality is constructed through language and is not meary reflected in langague
feminists use this insight to contruct reality just like buush newspeack and the linguistic prarmatists do -once u se this as a conscious attempt to control your mind and idetities u will be able to protect your selves from langauage dictators

this sort of stuff has beeen around for years in usa universities it is called in philosophy pragmaticism the goverments are full of universiies trained pragmatists-it opertaes in foriegn policy decisions the world arouind- in politics there is no good bad evil it is just pragmatitisim

newspeack has been here since langauge began u just cant see that fact yet look at ww1 ww11 viretnam u will see newseak in action cl;early -its called prooganda- it is just more finally tuned now in adverstising as an example

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 but nevertheless i have given examoples of how reality is constructed through language and is not meary reflected in langague feminists use this insight to contruct reality just like buush newspeack and the linguistic prarmatists do -once u se this as a conscious attempt to control your mind and idetities u will be able to protect your selves from langauage dictators this sort of stuff has beeen around for years in usa universities it is called in philosophy pragmaticism the goverments are full of universiies trained pragmatists-it opertaes in foriegn policy decisions the world arouind- in politics there is no good bad evil it is just pragmatitisim

It's not an attempt to control your mind, it's an attempt to let you see things from thier point of view.

Females through history have been opressed. This is an objective fact. Thier ambitions were discouraged, ironically enough, due to more ancient, religious forms of newspeak that established females as needing to be submissive and servile to the obviously stronger and more characteristically resolute males. in this sense, any attempt to establish females as individuals, who choose thier own direction in thier life for better or worse, rather than sexual objects or tools for breeding and domesticated matters, is not an establishment of newspeak, but rather the disestablishment of an old one in favor of the true reality of females being characteristically able to succeed in areas other than cooking or having babies.

As for the ego based aspect of this "debate":

I could care less about supposedly illusionary egos, if females are a part of the collective whole, and are being discriminated against as if they were different, then thier desire to be treated the same is perfectly in line with the current buddhist philosophy and parlance.

If egos are not illusionary, as I personally suspect they aren't because I am actually an ego myself and seem real enough to me, then the statement that women should be given full reign over thier actions as individuals makes ethical sense as well, as properties and potentials will vary from woman to woman.

That is what I see. You can ignore it all you like, but it does not change anything really, because believe it or not, experiences have more effect on me than words. Words only effect me if I can relate to them as an analogy. They do not control me fully and without doubt, like some piece of code added to my programming like Colin Dean seems to suspect. Words are not magic, they are a method of transmission, which takes an open mind to recieve. That is, quite simply, what words are to me based on my experiences- now I ask you, do you find words to be magical and reality-altering based on your experience? Are you sure you are not the one who has been brainwashed by mere words rather than experience, here?

[pam699]

but u only see the world throug language and he who gives u your language controls u and your world -example a person born in an animist culture will hhave an animist reality a person born in the usa will have a usa reality -via the language games u inhertit from being born in youir culture/language world

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 but u only see the world throug language and he who gives u your language controls u and your world -example a person born in an animist culture will hhave an animist reality a person born in the usa will have a usa reality -via the language games u inhertit from being born in youir culture/language world

No I don't. I don't experience words. When I feel something, I don't experience a P, an A, an I, and an N. I experience the chemical reactions in my body. This body has two constructs used for the integration of my experiences. These constructs are given a name after I have experienced things using it, so I could reference it. I could still see and hear beforehand, which is how I learned this language of differentiation in the first place.

If I did not have sight before learning about "seeing", how did I see the books that taught me language as a child? If I could not eat before I learned about "eating", how did I survive as a baby? Was I a floating mass of nothingness? If that is the case, I was better off being taught this language, and will gladly continue in my so-called "illusion", thank you very much.

[Jack]

You're attempting to address several uses of the language, lumping them all together as if they were equal. They're not.

but nevertheless i have given examoples of how reality is constructed through language and is not meary reflected in langague

No, you haven't. You made several proposals based on your flawed logic. I've rebutted in kind. You haven't offered any support for your contentions, so at this point they remain your opinion.
Even if we accepted your opinion that language creates reality, how can your poorly constructed language create anything but chaos?

Words have power, I don't question that. And their careful manipulation in the right context can indeed have a local effect on reality. I worked with a Psychological Operations (PsyOps) unit in the Army. I know very well how language can be used to shape people. But the situation and the context needs to be just right. Thus far in our history no one has managed to create reality on a large scale by language alone. You're making generalizations and only considering a few examples. Even in those cases not everyone believes, not everyone is seduced.

newspeack has been here since langauge began u just cant see that fact yet

Many of us already know about it. The very fact we're discussing it proves that it isn't 100% effective. It might be news to you, but it's been a known quantity as long as it's been practiced.
So what's this "revolution" revolting against? What are its goals? What's the point? Is it just an attempt to create another reality through the abuse of language? In that reality, written communication would become useless as a means of passing along information. No one would know what anyone else was writing about. That's closer to anarchy than revolution.

[pam699]

hey i said a person born in an animist culture will have an animist reality and experience you seem to think the whole world is just usa culture language games -go study some elementary social anthrolpogy and see cultral relativity -language games reality -in action

[Jack]

I've studied social anthropology, thanks. The rest of your post is lost to me, except that I noticed you can spell properly when you forget to misspell. Now, what's your beef with punctuation?

[pam699]

well if u study anthroplogy u will see reality is dependent on the culture/ langauge game u r born in

[Jack]

Then the deaf have no reality?

[pam699]

dont know but i do now a new guinea animist see an experiences a plane differently to you based upon his cultures language games

[Zinkovich]

I major in anthropology, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can use it as an authority against me.

Most animist cultures relied on something that by thier own admission could only be seen in special or extraordinary circumstances, such as under the influence of certain divine plants in the case of some the native american tribes in the past. Regardless, the only aspect of thier religion the majority of animists experienced in thier day to day living was extensions of these proposed invisible entities- one did not see a rock spirit when he was angy, but rather experience a landslide in his vicinity while climbing up a mountain, where he would find what he could have sworn was the same rock he "angered" the other day. In this sense, animism is only experienced in ways that do not inequivacally prove your point. Rather, they only represent the self-implied definition of objects(or experiences, if you will) being influenced by language, not the nature of the objects and experiences in and of themselves.

If you want to make the arguments that experiences under the influence of certain mind-altering drugs are real in an attempt to validate animism, that is a whole other chestnut.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 dont know but i do now a new guinea animist see an experiences a plane differently to you based upon his cultures language games

He feels differently and interprets differently, yes, but does that mean it is different in actuality? If he, for example, told everyone the plane was a thundergod, and everyone in the world suddenly believed him, do you really think the plane would then fly down to the earth as a thundergod and demand sacrifices? Do you really think the objects take on the qualities a language gives them in actuality?

If that is the case, ad hominims seem the best debate tactic from this point forward, that's for sure. If I can only convince everybody my opponent is really, truly dead, then he should just go away forever! Am I right?

[pam699]

once you admitt quote
He feels differently and interprets differently, yes
you admitt how his culture has constructed him via its langague games
reality is seen through and construcyted by lanaguge thank you for admitting
He feels differently and interprets differently, yes interpretation is via langague
I REST MY CASE

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 once you admitt quote He feels differently and interprets differently, yes you admitt how his culture has constructed him via its langague games reality is seen through and construcyted by lanaguge thank you for admitting He feels differently and interprets differently, yes interpretation is via langague I REST MY CASE

You are ignoring many aspects of thought on this issue- actuality for one.

His culture was constructed for him- yet, do you think when he tries to build something exactly the way he thinks it should be built through his own usage of language, it will work? If he does not understand the concepts behind the plane, how does he see it when it would not exist in his frame of language or thought?

After all, if you cannot comprehend something, you cannot have it's language. If you cannot have it's language, by your philosophy, it should not be in his reality.

What it suggests is that he saw something we had built off of our concepts. That shows me that what we are building would work in any reality construct. If this is the case, we have nothing to worry about concerning our mathematical games and the supposed magic we do with science, because it will work in one form and another as obviously some base is allowing these concepts to work within any cultural viewpoint on reality.

Thus, science wins. There is no need to get rid of science still. Feminism wins, because if feminism claims it is beneficial to the woman, and everybody believes it is so, than she is happy and well. If everybody believes gay theory allows freedom and goodwill and does not oppress, then both qualities are true. Gay theory wins merely by extolling it's own virtues.

Thus, all your issues with certain forms of thinking is harming the concept's ability to be beneficial. You should accept these concepts as beneficial ones so these beneficial aspects can become a reality. Thus, everything you are currently with all the making feminism and such seem bad is harmful according to your very own philosophy, and I thus REST MY CASE.

I also suggest Colin stop applying negative qualities to certain ideas and attitudes if he wants reality to be better. Really, the idiot should just accept that everything is beneficial- then, after all, his cultural viewpoint would allow him and everyone around him to live in heaven rather than hell.

[pam699]

u miss the point completly u r only saying that our concepts may work and his dont

the lighistic contruction of reality says nothing asbout truth or if something works or not it only say reality is constructed via langage -u cant escape from your western techno-scientific langague game -u seem to think you western university langague game is the priviliged language game in the whole universe -well it aint is is just as arbitary and relative as the animists -regardles if yours see to work or not v