Words

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

I wish to start a discussion about "words". I have recently been involved in two different threads where "words" were brought into discussion themselves, however not being the subject of the threads, I felt it not approtpriate to expand on it, in those threads. I will start with the quotes from those threads that discussed "words".

Terri(SO) wrote:

Words carry great power in our lives which can deeply
affect us whether consciously or subconsciously.

CJ wrote:

"Words are deeds," Wittgenstein once said. There's
little difference between what we do (or what others do
with and to us) and what we say (or what others say to
us). They're both behaviours.

I disagree with both of these statements. I am going to paraphrase from Waking Life here, because I don't feel like putting the movie on and finding the part so I can quote it, but I will try my best to get it accurate.

[Words are inert, they are dead, they are nothing. For instance if I say the word love, it rolls off my tongue vibrates the air, enters your ear, and then it goes through a series of filters about your experience with your feelings of love or your lack of feelings of love, but you only interpret the sound. How do I know that when I say love, it means the same thing to you that is does to me?]

So much of our experience is intangable. We attempt to describe it with words, but our own meaning of words varies so much, even among people who speak the same language, not to mention those who speak a different language, that we continually misunderstand one another. Not because we chose the wrong words, but because the words we chose, describe our own experience, which may differ greatly from the person we are attempting to communicate with.

What the world can know about me, is a result of my ability to communicate that. Many people go through life defined by others because they either can not, or will not define themselves.

It is my belief that it is not words that carry great power in our lives, it is what those words mean to us as individuals, and what we do with them. They can motivate us, they can sadden us, they can bring us joy. But only after they go through our own personal filter and attach meaning to them.

Spoken words carry no meaning to the deaf, written words carry no meaning for the blind. Words are not deeds, imho. Deeds are deeds. Words are what we use to describe those deeds.

I have had communication many times with others, with no words at all. With a look, or a jesture, or even a prearranged event. A siren, a scream, laughter, crying. But no matter what symbols we use to communicate with one another, it still must be interpreted by our own brain, which gives it it's own meaning.

I will always beleive that communication is the responsibility of the communicator. To fault someone for not understanding what was trying to be conveyed to them, makes little sense to me. In all the classes I have taken, speech, debate, creative writing, and all the "effective management"and "advertising" seminars I have participated in, this is always a theme. To learn how to communicate with others, and to make sure they walk away with the understanding you wanted them to have.

And finally many words and phrases have different meanings depending on context. Sometimes just the inflection in our voice can change the meaning of what we say. For instance I can say "nice dress" but depending on the inflection in my voice or a look on my face or just a gesture, it can be an insult, or a compliment.

It is my beleif that words are inert, but that it is by our actions that we give words meaning, not the other way around.

I welcome the views of my sisters on this matter, becuase it would seem my own views are limited in this regard. My hope is to expand my own knowledge and hence my experience, with and about words.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[DonnaT]

It is my belief that it is not words that carry great power in our lives, it is what those words mean to us as individuals, and what we do with them.

But without the word, can there be any meaning?
Although it is true that communication is key to understanding, communication is usually more than a few words.

Athough we can't alway predict what one word will mean to one person as compared to another person, we do usually have a good idea what a derogatory word will mean to most people.

So, some words have absolute power, some don't.

[Loretta Ann]

Hi Elizabeth,

Words (as well as actions) mean different things to different people. Words can result in one person becoming angry and those same words can result in another person becoming sad, that the person uttering the words may be that in-mature.

CJ. does have a point-words can be like deeds, they are tools, that can assist us in tearing one down or building one up.

You also have a point, in and of themselves words are dead. What matters though is how one chooses to use those tools (words). Words by themselves are often inadequate.

I will always believe that communication is the responsibility of the communicator. To fault someone for not understanding what was trying to be conveyed to them, makes little sense to me. In all the classes I have taken, speech, debate, creative writing, and all the "effective management"and "advertising" seminars I have participated in, this is always a theme. To learn how to communicate with others, and to make sure they walk away with the understanding you wanted them to have.

For me communication is a two way street. I find it helpful to ask of the speaker...This is what I heard you say...Am I correct? One can say the same thing to ten different people and get ten different responses.

Love Darlene.

[CJ]

Hi all,

Hmmm... Again, interesting thread, Elizabeth.

I agree with what you say, in a way: words themselves (whether written or oral) are but mediums, messengers, vessels, by (and through) which we try to convey our thoughts and ideas to others and by (and through) which we try to get a sense of what the other person is trying to make us see or understand. In that sense, thay are, indeed, inert, to some extent.

The thing is, words aren't bound by a single intention; we use words for many different reasons, not just to "transmit" an idea or a thought from one brain to another. This somewhat naïve way of looking at the purpose of communication (and I'm not implying that anyone here thinks that the matter is so simple, by the way) presupposes that communication is always "noise-free." Semanticists like de Saussure--who made the study of words their life's work--could very well see that such noise almost always prevented the "sender" and the "receiver" from "picturing" exactly the same "signified" thing (thought or idea) despite the fact the "signifier" (the word itself) was part of the shared, common vacabulary of both sender and receiver. This "noise in the signal" is the sum of each person's own perceptions, knowledge, life experience, values, acuity, and intelligence. All these "filter" what we hear and see when we listen to, and read, words. Hence the necessity, as Darlene rightly points out, for what's often referred to as "active listening," i.e., listening with a view to understand, something that requires us (no matter how vexed we might be at hearing what we thought we heard) to seek from the "sender" a reformulation (or, possibly, many reformulations) of what he or she just now said. In that sense, it's never just the responsibility of the "sender" to communicate well; it's also the responsibility of the "receiver" to make sure he or she has gotten the message, so to speak, as intended. It is, as Darlene says, a two-way street--even in cases where communication with words flows in only one direction (imagine, if you will, a teacher at the front of the classroom, peering into his student's faces in order to see, by the mere looks on their faces, if anything he or she is saying is actually getting through to them).

To get back to the original point, words, in themselves, become deeds--they cease to be inert--when the intent is not merely to inform (to transmit information from one brain to another) but, rather, to persuade, to convince, to cajole, to elicit emotional responses, or to otherwise influence the behaviour of others. When we use words to affect other people, rather than to merely inform them, words become things of power. This is true, regardless of whether or not the "receiver" assigns the same importance to the words (or, rather, as Donna pointed out, to the meaning behind those words) as does the "sender." If this weren't the case, practices such as book-burning, book-banning, and bowdlerizing would never have seen the light of day. To use a fashionable (but by no means non-trivial) example, take the words, "Those willing to die in their attacks on the non-believers for the sake of [insert deity or cause, here] will be martyrs in Heaven." These words may have little effect if spoken to me (as you say, Elizabeth, context matters), but such words spoken to a religious or political fanatic ready to become a martyr in Heaven can (and did) lead to the death of thousands.

I understand the desire to shrug off the weight of words as mere "names that will never hurt me." On the one hand, we have very little control, if any at all, over what people will (and do) say or write, so why act as though we did? On the other, we think we reach a place of inner peace by ignoring the hurtful words others send our way but the fact remains, though, that, regardless of the importance we attach (or don't) to hurtful words, the intent behind them remains potentially harmful and/or dangerous. Yes, deeds are deeds, no doubt about it. Yet, harmful or prejudicial or even criminal deeds are too often committed by individuals for whom words were no longer deeds enough. And one of the main reasons these words were no longer deeds enough is that they no longer elicited the emotional responses the "sender" sought in using them. Best to address a harmful word as a deed than a harmful deed as a deed. No?

Anyway, this is a fun thread... regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks of words as deeds.

Love,
CJ

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

This is great, just what I hoped for. We are engaged in a discussion about words, with competing opinions about what words can mean, be, or convey, with only words as our tools. Each of us requiring the others to be able to understand the meaning of our words, in the way we intend.

Donna,

You are saying that we need the word first so we can assign meaning to it. I agree. However, it is still the meaning we apply to the word that will give it meaning to us. You say that some communcation is so basic that certainly we can choose words to offend when we want to. At least I think that is what you are saying. Again, if we both have the same perception of the words you used.

Darlene,

You say that words can be like deeds because we can use them like tools. I agree, but only when we can be reasonably assured that the words will have the predicted meaning to the person we speak the words to. This is by no means certain. In the end we still rely on the person we are conveying our words to, to understand our meaning.

Further you go on to say that you take it upon yourself to ask the conveyor of information if you are understanding what he/she is saying. And while I admit this a wise and benifits you tremendously, it is also rare. As a person trying to convey something to someone with words, there will not be a large percentage of people who will attempt to make sure that what they understand, is what you were trying to convey. It is more likely that the person will either understand, or not understand and you will never know who did and who did not. And who "gets it" and who does not is still, in my opinion, a matter of thier own interpretation of the meaning of those words.

CJ,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that by being aware that we are filtering words with our own experience and prejudices, we can reach out to find new meanings and hence new and better understanding of words, as opposed to just blindly filtering them and accepting our perception of them. In this way words stop being an abstract thing and have a seperate existance outside the rhelm of the conveyor and the conveyee.

I do belive that is true, although I had not ever considered it this way. I like this kind of thinking, and if this is in fact what you were trying to convey, it is precisely because I am making such an effort to find new meaning in your words, since I can see you are trying so hard to help me find the new meaning in words I seek, which is the point of this thread. I am at advantage because this is not your first attempt to try to get me to discover the meaning of your words, which hopefully I can say until now, I did not understand.



I have tried to tell you what I think your words have meant. Either I am correct or I am wrong. Finding out whether I have correctly understood your words will go a long way to helping me understand if my original premise holds any water or if it does not.

My attempt to understand not just the words, but the ideas behind those words has been my goal in this post. Your continued imput will be appreciated.

Also I welcome the continued comments of anyone who has any ideas on this subject.

Thanks in advance

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Loretta Ann]

Elizabeth,

Understanding the idea or the thought behind ones words, can also be influenced by where one is at in life. There have been things that have been said to me in the past that years later I understood what the person meant.

That has happened as I continued to mature. At a certain level of maturity I was unable to understand what the person was saying, and as I grew I was able to understand them.

So no mater how efficient one can become as a communicator there will always be someone less mature somewhere who will not be able to understand.

Love Darlene.

[CJ]

Hi all,

Elizabeth,

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, where there is no mouth, no ear, no eye, no brain, words are, indeed, as insubstantial as ghosts. Words are deeds (pregnant with the possibility of many different meanings) in the sense that, like a pat on the back or a shotgun blast, they can be carriers of our intent towards others as we relate to the people around us. They're the form taken by the simple act of communication, whenever we exchange with others. Of course, words aren't the only way we communicate; facial and body language is also very important, as are physical actions and behaviours. I just wanted to highlight the fact that we may be mistaken in thinking that "mere" words are any less significant than "actions" in the way we connect (or don't) to the world around us. They matter very much.

One of the things that distinguishes the human species from others on the planet is the fact that we're symbol-making and symbol-producing creatures. I'm not talking just language, here; most species on earth have the ability to communicate in some fashion or another. No, we are (to the best of our knowledge) the only species whose language includes the capacity to convey and understand abstract concepts, such as, say, love, freedom, gender identity. Words inherit their power from this use we put them to in conveying such concepts. Even if by no means perfectly adequate--some things and experiences remain ineffable--words are the ultimate symbols we use in our daily life. A "communication act" (writing, talking) is as dependent for its successful carrying out on the power and aim of its words as a swift kick to the seat of the pants is on the power and aim of the kicker's leg.

About our exploring the different meanings of words, based on our awareness of our own "filters," yes, while that's certainly true, it's not the main point. Whatever meanings we can glean from another's words inevitably remain "multiple" in our own heads... until that moment when we refer back to the speaker or writer and just plain ask him or her which of these possible meanings he or she has in mind. Again, active listening. Although it's true that most people don't "actively listen," it's a skill anyone can teach themselves. Here's a test: how often do you listen to someone talking while simultaneously already trying to formulate replies to what he or she is saying? Same goes for reading. How often do you actually read what someone has written, with a view to understand, to see, to "hear" where the person is coming from--to read it straight through on a first pass--without automatically thinking of a million things you want to reply to? (By the way, Elizabeth, although I say "you," I actually mean any of us.) I'll go even further (and this they teach in basic philosophy courses): how often do we read, or listen to, someone "charitably"? By "charitably," I mean with the intention of trying really hard to see, to truly see, where the person is coming from, no matter how objectionable or unpalatable their words (or arguments) may be? (Sometimes even to the extent of discovering something good about someone's words that the author or speaker hirself never even noticed!)

Anyway, as usual, I'm babbling (can you tell I have a love affair with words? ).

Again, this is a fascinating thread. I, too, hope we'll be hearing from others on this.

Love,
CJ

[Kathy]

I just wanted to pop in here to say how much I appreciate what has been posted here so far. I couldn't even begin to express my view on this as well as any of you have though my thoughts tend to be a mixture of all of the above.

I will simply say this...

Beam me back down Scotty, there may be intellegent life on this planet after all!

[Elizabeth]

Hi girls,

Again, more outstanding posts.

It is becoming apparent to me, because I am making such a strong effort to understand the meaning of what each of the posters is attempting to convey, just how difficult communication can be, even when one is reading "charitiably" (btw, I just love that phrase and intend to overuse it from now on).

Each of the posters has conveyed idea's to me, and the follow up posts make it clear, I still have not grasped the meaning of all of the posts. Again, I will attempt to convey what was conveyed to me. Hopefully in the end, this will help me, and perhaps others learn how to find the real meaning of the words of our sisters here, and indeed humanity in general.

Darlene,

I understand you to be saying that we may hear words or other communications that we can find no meaning in, simply because we have not reached a maturity where we can accept thier meaning. I say accept, because it is my beleif that when you said "maturity" you were not just describing attaining information about what the word means. But more about reaching a point where, because of the maturity process within our own brains and bodies we can accept the message of the word. There are many things that I understand at age 43 that I did not understand at age 19, not because I could not comprehend the meanings of the words, but because I did not beleive the "truth" of the words. My life experience has now given truth to those words, hence I now have an understanding that I was not capable of at age 19.

CJ,

Your ability to use words to express ideas is no great secret to those of us who are continually delighted by reading your words. However, your continued ability to pack so much meaning in your posts always require a great deal of "charity" if one is to fully grasp many concepts that you have conveyed over the time I have been coming here. I have gone as far as to go and make a pot of coffee, and get a cup, knowing I would be not only reading a post of yours, but likely re-reading, perhaps many times, just because I am so prone to start thinking about something you have said, and then miss something in the following lines.

In your post you are still trying to show me how words can go from being inert to something equivelent to an acutual deed. In your last post you say that this can happen because our words can carry our intent, and for this reason, force people to act, just as if we had commited an actual deed. I hope I have this right, because this is a new enlightenment for me. I do agree with that, and again, I have continually beleived that words still require interpretation of the receiver for them to carry meaning. However, for intent, there need be no specific meaning. We can show intent with mere body language, as you stated.

I also love you part on active listening. I have learned about his before in "effective management" courses. Learning to really listen to others, whether friends, loved ones, clients, employees, or even strangers requires us not to be focused on formulating answers or responses while the other person is speaking. It's a great idea, but for some of us who border on ADD, it can be very difficult. Many times in conversation if I do not respond to the person within a short amount of time from hearing them say something, my chain of thought will move to the next thing, and I will not remember either what they said, what I was going to say, or both. For this reason, I much prefer written communications for business or legal matters. Where I can revisit the thoughts of communicator, much as I have done throughout this post.

You also mention gestures and body language. This is of particular interest to me, because I do indeed use a lot of body language, and vocal inflection in my communications with others. The internet has really challenged me to learn to communicate ideas without these benefits. There are many times where I may be misunderstood because I was using sarcasm, or subtilty that would normally be accompanied by body language or vocal inflection as cues, that alone do not convey the idea.

On the bottom of each of every one of your posts is this:

humani nihil a me alienum puto

They are just words, without meaning to most, yet every now and again you will tell us all what they mean. Can you tell us what is the purpose of including this phrase in a language that most readers will not understand? Because this in and of itself, is another special form of communication, imho.


Again I have attempted to communicate back what my sisters here have told me. And it seems so far that with each post that my understanding increases. However, I am making a great effort to understand. This of itself shows me just how easy it is for others not to understand what I write, and how easy it is for me not to understand what others write. I would still love to hear what others have to say on this subject.

Kathy,

Please feel free to post, no matter how long. I for one would love to attempt to hear what you have to say on this matter.


Love always,
Elizabeth

[Loretta Ann]

Elizabeth,

You are correct, I think.

When someone's words are first understood, They can become "Head knowledge." When something happens in ones life, that enables one to say. Ah now I see why so and so said that to me. This is the meaning behind it, and that is why they said it. At that time it becomes yours, it is then "Heart Knowledge."

Love Darlene.

[Virginia]

Yes, as one great sage said, "Words mean things!" However I see on these posts, lots and lots of "words." I do NOT hear any word! Communication, wrtitten or oral can be oh so easily misinterpreted. The beautiful thing here is the intelligence of the ladies here. How many posts have we written that initially seemed to offend one or more of our sisters, but through the written word we were able to "re express" our thoughts or postions without making most of our sisters mad. this supports the abilaity of the girls here to communicate with the written word - Most impressive!
The spoken word seems to me to be more easily misconstruded than the written word. Voice imflection, syllible emphasis, whatever can so easily be mis interpreted. We have all experienced that and sometimes it is followed by "what I meant to say was............" but only when the initiator is challenged or threatened or gets no reponse.
Yes, words are beautiful, but the ability to use them "properly" to obtain one's objective is prettier! Like ,tact:" Tact - the ability to tell someone to go to hell - and make them feel good to be on their way!" Words!!!
Love,
Virginia

[Jassmine(SO)]

Hey Everyone

Very interesting thread!

Words do hold great power, but their power lies only in how the listner/reader percieves them. So, I think that it is the speaker's/writer's responsibilty to communicate their ideas clearly. If one wishes to speak of something that bothers them, without making the listener feel defensive (nothing closes down communication faster), one must state his/ her feelings in a non accusatory manner. If one is stating one's personal beliefs or opinions, one really should preface the statement with, I feel, I think, or in my opinion. I have noticed that people get very defensive and stop listening when one states their opinions or beliefs as facts. I also think that it is the responsibility of the listner/reader to really "hear" what is being said and if they don't understand, to ask for clarification.

One needs to take great care with the words one uses...After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.

*Hugs & Love*

[Lydia]

Hi all,

I have been away for the past couple of weeks – taking care of my SO and her new knee. As I scanned through the posts that I missed, I ran across this most fascinating thread on "Words." Being a word wonk, I just have to add something to the pot.

Probably the most misused and misunderstood word in language is "is." Bill Clinton really made a profound linguistic statement when he said:"That depends on what the meaning of "is" is." (I may be misquoting a bit).

When you say "This cat is black." that is quite different from: "This man is black." The connotation of "black" is different in the two sentences. "Is" is not necessarily the same as an equals sign. In many cases, a word in isolation is virtually meaningless or at best ambiguous. In context there is what is called a "semantic reaction", and the word acquires baggage and a new meaning. The precise meaning may well depend on the listener, and even the listener's politics, religion, gender, and emotional state.

Written words are subject to more ambiguity and misinterpretation than spoken words. Often the body language or gestures that accompany words will alter the semantic content and reaction. Emailers have learned to add smileys and other symbols to substitute for the body language.

English is without doubt the richest language in the world, being a mixture of Latin, French (twice, at least), Scandinavian, etc. Just compare the size of our unabridged dictionary to French or German ones. So there is no excuse not to find the exact word to express what you want to say. Mark Twain compared the misuse of words to being off key in music - just a bit sharp or flat.

I think these cautions apply to this form - and especially here where we are dealing with sensitive and personal subjects. In our writing, we must be careful not to evoke erroneous semantic reactions in our readers. Furthermore, correct grammar, usage and spelling are important, since you don't want to distract the reader (or listener) from what you are saying by the way you are saying it.

Love,

Willy

[CJ]

Hi all,

Elizabeth wrote:

On the bottom of each of every one of your posts is this:

humani nihil a me alienum puto

They are just words, without meaning to most, yet every now and again you will tell us all what they mean. Can you tell us what is the purpose of including this phrase in a language that most readers will not understand? Because this in and of itself, is another special form of communication, imho.

I guess the purpose is aesthetic, mainly. Aside from my fascination with "dead" languages (Latin, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek), I find that many languages are beautiful in and of themselves. Latin is one of these. It rolls off the tongue and sounds very melodious... who-MAHN-knee KNEE-heel AH MAY a-lee-YAY-noomb POOH-tow. I guess I have a penchant for languages that aren't too guttural; Latin happens much more at the front of the mouth than in the throat. Call me biased, but when I hear friends arguing with each other in their own, guttural, language, I want to whip out my brass spittoon. I say I'm biased because, on the one hand, my own mother tongue, French, has Latin roots and, on the other, I associate Latin with perennial mysteries--no doubt because it was the language of the mass when I went to (Catholic) church as a child. I find it has a beauty all its own, regardless of whether or not I understand the meaning behind the words (for the record, I don't have much Latin, although my being a francophone will allow me to decipher some of what I read). So, there you have it, Elizabeth. You're right; it is, in a way, a special form of communication. But it might not be the one you had in mind (I don't know... like an appealing signal to an esoteric sisterhood of intellectual initiates or something?). No, the form of communication it represents is, as I said, more aesthetic than rationally meaningful. Words as art, if you will. (For an example of how far some authors/poets have taken this, check out Guillaume Appolinaire's Calligrammes: http://www.modernlanguages.pwp.blueyond ... mples.htm#)

Willy,

A "word wonk," eh? Welcome to the club. I think. Just not too sure what a "wonk" is. Well, there you go, you managed to elicit an ambiguous semantic reaction from me!

Love,
CJ

[Lorna]

Great post! I have always judged people based on their actions which always speak volumes more than words ever could.