Why truth?

Walsh:

That one can hide in words makes no difference. In use, words communicate.

Your saying a sentence to thedope is for the purpose of sharing knowledge, even if only with yourself in gain.

Keith:

No, that only makes it easier. It is really only possible because we seek power over exchange.

Like thedope said, truth is recognized in ourselves. I don't see how the possibility of untruth damages truthful information in the slightest. It's like suggesting that untruth is truth rather than only a version of it! lol

 

But Dope was saying we communicate what is inside. That's the part I am disputing. I fully agree that the use of words is what is important.

 

Why dispute it? We communicate all else through ourselves. How could what's inside fail to be communicated? The 'limits' lie in what of anothers truth we are able to ourselves receive.

 

As far as I'm concerned, and as far we are talking about 'communication' and not someone's inside fantasies, the form is the content. I hear you speak the sentence "I am in pain". What is the content of that? I don't know from just the words - you could have just been shot, or said them as an actor on a stage, or you are a Japanese man with no knowledge of english reading them from an english book. The context in which they are said, the situation surrounding them reveals to me their meaning. Whether that has anything to do with "what is inside" is not my concern. You could be a robot, for all I know.

 

Form, in the way I am using the word, means the word itself. For example the sentence I have an iron in the fire, is probably not talking about irons or fires, but the content is more along the lines of the person has a project working. this is what I mean about confusing form with content.

Yes, and the words I am in pain could stand for emotional suffering as well and you are using cues larger than the words themselves. Not the least of which is your model of reality. The content of I am in pain, is sufficient to the extent that it is. "I am in pain", signifies some uncomfortable experience. Beyond that you can ask for details if what is meant is not immediately apparent. Words of themselves mean nothing at all, they are symbols of something else.

Whether or not you care, a persons speech accurately describes the processes going on inside them. The difference being do you see the truth or just what you care to look at or just those things you are interested in.

 

That the person has a project working can be gleaned from the words themselves - the content is not what is going on in someone's head.

No, it doesn't. The example of the actor on the stage should be enough to demonstrate that.

This is about the 10th time you've said this, without any logical reasoning and without responding to my arguments.

Again, a child learning the sequence of words "I am in pain" and repeating them accurately reflects that they are in pain? Ridiculous.

 

Really, there had to be something going on or the words would not have been spoken.

Yes, even if the actor says it, it would be part of the story. And if he is acting his words demonstrate that.

I will try to happen upon a string of words that will ring a bell for you as I have responded to all your points.

The word human is not human, it is a symbol chosen to represent, human.
The word ice is not ice, it is a symbol chosen to represent ice.

Words are symbols, not the things themselves. They are symbols of condition.
The word table is a symbol chosen to represent an assemblage of matter.

Well if the effort to learn is coincidental with the experience of pain, then yes it does. If it is not, then it accurately reflects that the child is learning to associate those symbols with common experience. Perhaps he may be mocking something he is watching on a kids program, it still reflects the processes going on inside him.

Up to this point, your lack of comprehension of what a symbol is and does,
really doesn't put you in a good position to ridicule and I am not ridiculing you. I would like us to communicate fully on this issue and I will continue to respond as long as you have questions.

 

why NOT truth? because it is inconvenient to the clumping up of little green pieces of paper? its not the little green pieces of paper that are unhappy.