--- authauthfriendtejsteinipanix> wrote: > --- In FairFairfieldLifeoyahoogroups, Peter > <drpedrpetersutphen.> > wrote: > > --- authauthauthfriendtejsteinipanixote: > > > > > --- In FairFairFairfieldLifeoyahoogroups B > > ShriShriShriverb_shrishrishriver > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > The difference is only in the superficial > variety. > > > Peter is a shoot- > > > > from-the-hip asshole, whereas AkasAkasAkasha> > AuthAuthAuthfriendessive- > > > > parsing-assholes. > > > > > > So now it's "obsessive parsing" to point out > that > > > a disagreement between two people has occurred > > > because > > > they think a word means different things? > > > > > > Interesting. > > > > Words do mean different things to different > people. > > It's just when one person claims their > understanding > > of a word is the best/actual/real common sense/ > etc. > > that the problems start. > > Some words have a wide range of different and > sometimes even contradictory meanings, and you > can't assume you know for sure what someone > means by them unless the context makes it clear, > or unless they explain what meaning they're > using. > > But when a word has a well-defined meaning in > common usage, as I said in another post, that > meaning is "privileged"--in other words, if you > want to use the word to mean something else, > the onus is on you to explain how you're using > it. You can't expect your listeners/readers to > read your mind and discern that you were using > it in a nonstandard manner. > > > "Tacky" means one thing to me > > and something slightly different to AkasAkashablem > > with AkasAkashathat he keeps on claiming that his > > definition is the actual, common sense, > self-evident, > > obvious definition and is therefore "the" > definition > > and any problems I have with it are deficits in my > > character or something of that ilk and have > nothing to > > do with him or what he writes because HE DOES NOT > > INTEND THAT EFFECT. That is the exact point I'm > trying > > to make! > > Yeah, you're reading a whole lot into what he > said. All he said (and all I said) was that his > understanding of the term was in accord with the > standard dictionary definition. If there was any > "deficit" in your character implied, it was only > that you seemed to think the misunderstanding was > his fault rather than accepting that it occurred > because you had used the term to mean something > other than what it's generally understood to mean.
Judy, this was going great until your last points..... I don't think I'm making my point clear, so.... my take on it: We don't "read into things". This implies an absolute meaning of a word/utterance that is then "distorted" by the listener. Words/utterances mean similar or dissimilar things to people.Similar socialization helps these words/utterances have relatively shared meaning. Hence denotative meanings in dictionaries. But the connotative meanings are the lived meanings and these are always in flux. So I speak words/utterances that have a certain meaning intent but another does not necessarily "hear" my intent. What is heard is a partially general, partially idiosyncratic meaning. For example, Akasha makes what he thinks is a funny comment. That's his intent. But what it means to me is an insult. This is not "reading into" his words/utterances, but simply what it means to me. When I understand his intent, I drop my former meaning. The same works, of course, when I write to him. I see my intent "distorted" by Akasha frequently. So, the point being here is that some people do not communicate well because the words/utterances have a low degree of shared meaning. What ticks me is when the other party acts as if their meaning/intent is some sort of self-evident standard and that others are somehow stupid/lacking/projecting if they miss this intent. No, it is simply what it means to them. > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > httphttproups.yahoo.com/group/FairFairfieldLife and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > FairFairfieldLifeuunsubscribeoyahoogroups > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
