Nick writes: < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >
There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.) Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange> when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work. A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations. To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from. In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too. So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting. < You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories. “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect. I see you with Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds. You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. Something about the category is real. > Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological species is a subjective concept? That I am hijacking the meaning of a person or a dog? Really? < So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest? Would I be more or less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok? > For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl. That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html Marcus
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
