| | Philip Coates wrote: "Michael, just as one example, your statement: "I agree, you are all doubleplusgood ducktalker Objectivists" [#13] has no meaning that will be understood by anyone.
Communication must be objective not subjective or a game played with yourself inside your own head, not whatever words sound funny or clever to you subjectively."
Actually, Philip, you seem to be the only one here who did not understand the Orwellian reference.
Also, just what "communication" is is an interesting topic. The purpose of language is to facilitate thinking. Communication comes as a consequence of that. (To believe otherwise is to endorse the claim that society defines your thoughts.) So, whatever happens inside my head is far more important to me than the affect that my words have on you.
As for "communication" it actually has as its root just exactly the transferring of one's subjective state. Social animals announce much to each other, but it begins within the individual.
Your own subjective internal state makes it difficult for you to understand me. In the wilds, we would drift apart. Here, we are brought together.
Just to underscore how far apart Michael and Philip are in their ability to communicate, in Number 18, I was making fun of you. You said, "he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity." There is a contrast there. You demand crystalline clarity but you do not provide it, exactly. Then, you said, that I use "a lot of terms" incorrectly, but you cite only two. So, I asked, how many terms are in a lot?
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/30, 5:32am)
|
|
