> [Michael] > "Dialogic nature" is by definition wholly useless for the purpose of > establishing a commonly accepted definition of a word. > > [Arlo] > Surely you can see the error in this. Establishing a definition is always > dialogic. Word meanings change over time, not because any one authority "says > so", but because we are always in the process of negotiating meaning. > > [Michael] > Etymological constancy is the foundation for dialog, *not* the other way > around. If the meaning of words are dialogic in nature, dialog becomes > meaningless. > > [Arlo] > No. Because meaning is dialogic, dialog is possible. The "constancy" is simply > a moment of shared concensus; not final nor permanent in any manner. MP: I should have been more clear to note that my reference to "constancy" was a relative term. The definitions of words are relatively constant as compared to the rate of change of ideas, either in society or in personal dialog.
> [Michael] > That said, I don't discount that wikipedia has value. But recent changes > being > proposed to deal with the very problem I point out only re-inforce my > point... > > [Arlo] > What you see is the lack of meaningful negotiation. Whether or not its "in > the > open", these problems (well, they aren't problems per se) exist even at > "authoritative publishers", you simply aren't privy to the backroom dialog at > Britannica HQ. > > [Michael] > when the topic is politically charged, wikipedia's reliability as a neutral > source breaks down where other more "authoritarian" models hold up. > > [Arlo] > Many would disagree, myself among them. There have been countless criticisms > over the year of "bias" in Britannica and other "authoritarian" models, again > you simply aren't privy to them. But if you think the consensus reached by > "authoritarian" models is any less dialogic, or any less contested, you are > sorely mistaken. MP: Yes. I do not take issue with the dialog, but with the lack of meidation in the wiki model of those instances where negotiation breaks down. It is in those instances where the hard sources prevail in that they have an established mediation process to resolve such conflicts where wiki does not; survival of the fittest editor's definition is the only rule. Wikipedia's recent moves to use flagged revisions is a sign of their recognition of the problem I am highlighting: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ft=i&cr=&ie=UTF- 8&tab=wn&ncl=1296949150 > [Michael] > Meaning by democracy is not meaning. > > [Arlo] > Yikes! I'd say meaning without negotiation is impossible, but imposed "meaning" > when it occurs is arbitrary and illusionary. MP: Democracy and negotiation are not the same thing no matter which definitions we chose. ;-) The US system of government is a form of democracy, but is by no means democratic. It is an amalgm of systems modelled on democratic principles, but all crafted to avoid the many pitfalls of pure democracy. Wiki, in contrast is something akin to something I'd have to call "pluratocracy" for lack of a word to describe it; *everybody*'s way wins. > [Arlo] > (My personal opinion is that "bias" is a charge only leveled against a source > you disagree with). MP: And mine is to agree and add that without "bias" we'd have no dialog either. > [Arlo] > Back to the dictionary thing, I am tempted to point out the similarity > between > this and Pirsig's ZMM talk on how instruction manuals are written. Their > genre > tends towards the appearance of an absolute "right way", and provides them with > an air of legitimacy, but really they are one or more people simply stating > what they think is the right way, and a system that has limited dialog to > present alternatives. In short, dictionaries are (to me) the least valuable > source in ascertaining meaning. Corpora, real language in context across a > broad sampling of use, likely gives a much richer portrait of what any "word" > means. MP: Again, I'd agree. Back to our "theism" definition issue, in my view to not have an agreement on its meaning in a discussion of that topic would be akin to a disagreement on what we were actually trying to piece together with that instruction manual; you convinced its a BBQ grille, me that its a wood chipper, and the manual is so vague as to allow it to end up being either one if you read it that way. The problem we had with "theism" was that there was no other word that would suffice that didn't raise the same problem in its own right. "Zen", much as you preferred it for your understanding, rendered my understanding moot, so wouldn't work. And ultimatelly, my issue was with an understanding of the meaning(s) of the word theism, and how they affected discussion when one meaning was disgregarded. I never said my meaning I was pushing for was the only one, but rather one that appeared to have been discarded where I saw it as the simplest one, and in many ways most useful. What we couldn't do, neither democratically, nor by negotiation, was arrive at a commonly accepted meaning of one word, and that failure led to failure in dialog. There is a lesson there in advocating for a wiki style approach to meaning; negotiations can break down. At some point, an authority is sometimes needed to mediate and resolve such negotiational impasse. The hybrid approach to anything is invariably the most flexible, most resilient, and as such most useful. Sincerely, Michael. ---- "Don't believe everything you think."
Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
