A/ Words Are 'Promiscuous'
Every word has:
1. A 'social range of meaning'; and
2. A 'narcissistic focus of meaning'...
3. Depending on the context of its usage...
4. In a particular speech, interview, and/or body of work...and
5. The context of the person using the word...
6. Who has a particular way of using it the way he or she is used to using it...
All of these six factors need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the particular meaning of a word that far too often gets pulled out of its context and understood differently...to detrimental and/or disasterous consequences....
When in doubt, ask the person using the word what he or she means by it...
Far too often, we automatically assume what the talker or writer is saying only to realize later -- well -- you know what they say about assumptions... unbeknownst to us, we were stuck inside our own narcissistic focus of meaning for the particularly ambiguous word that created the trouble and did not realize the possibility at all of a 'double potential meaning' -- the possibility, and the reality, that the word had a different narcissistic focus of meaning for the other person using the word, and trying to communicate only this meaning to us.
Like the sound of one hand clappin' (a Dylan metaphor), it simply didn't happen...
Result: communication breakdown to be found out later or not at all...
Semantically speaking, one person is on Pluto, the other one is on Mars. It's hard to communicate from Pluto to Mars. You can't hear. Or you don't want to hear. Or you are too busy assuming that you know what is being said when you don't understand at all what is being said...Or you are just plain speaking two different languages...
Same result: No communication.
And then both start pointing fingers and blaming the other for 'not understanding the meaning of the word correctly'....
When all words have different ranges and focuses of meaning...
Do you like fish?
To eat?
Or to watch in your fishbowl or aquarium?
Two different focuses of meaning.
Neither focus of meaning is 'right' or 'wrong'...
Until we specify which one we mean...
Somebody has to take responsibility...
The talker...
The writer...
The listener...
And/or the reader...
Communication demands context and a particular focus of meaning.
It doesn't generally happen by itself.
Somebody has to take the initiative,
To make sure there is communication clarity,
Or unless two people really know each other well,
It simply is not going to happen...
Even lovers, close work partners, and close friends...
Can make bad semantic assumptions...
On both ends of the communication...
Check, check, check...
Particularly when it is most important to get the communication right...
Words have owners...
Multiple owners...
They are extremely semantically promiscuous...
In a communication exchange between two people,
Words need to serve both owners in similar semantic fashion...
Or heated words are likely to develop later...
Between two different owners who are mad that their word is 'two-timing' them...
When it should be 'faithful' to them and only them.
Call this a word that is trying to 'please' multiple owners...
And/or multiple owners that can't get their head around the fact...
That their words are two-timing them...
Each owner is stuck inside an 'either/or' mentality...
While the word is 'playing them both'...
(Please...there are no projections here...)
-- dgb, May 12th, 2009.
................................................................................
B/ Some Commonly Used DGB Concepts, Their Distinctions, and Their Similarities...
1. Dialectic(al): Two people, and/or two ideas, engaging in communication with each other...verbal and/or otherwise... and expressing, accepting, resolving their differences...or not...
2. Multi-dialectic(al): Pertaining to more than two people and/or ideas and different sets of dialectical exchanges between people and/or ideas all influencing each other and having an impact on the whole...
3. Pluralist(ic): Pertaining to multitudes of people and/or ideas all influencing each other in ways that may or may not be tough to keep up with...
4. Unilateral: One person or one group of people or ideas tryng to run the whole show...
5. Bilateral: Two people, two groups of people, and/or two sets of ideas trying to influence, integrate, and harmonize with each other in a way that brings a consensus of acceptance from the two people, two groups of people, and/or two sets of ideas.
6. Tri-lateral: Same as above with three people, three groups of people, and/or three sets of ideas all trying to influence, integrate, and harmonize with each other in a way that brings consensus and acceptance from the three people, three groups of people, and/or three sets of ideas.
7. Multi-lateral: Same principle with more than three people, three groups of people, and/or three sets of ideas...
-- dgb, May 12th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
