Do words have a fixed meaning?

I am going to resurrect this thread to try, once again, to illustrate what I am trying to express.

I am going to ask the forum a question. I want the simplest, shortest, most concise answer you can give. I don't want an essay or a lengthy tome, just a short concise answer. How you answer will be used to illustrate my point.

Here is the question:

What is "love?"

 

4 responses all illustrating in their own way the problems we have communicating.

I will wait a while for additional responses before posting my explanation of the question.

 

I don't know how to break the news to you but "storge" refers to the animal instinct to care for their young. It is not applicable to humans.

 

Well, it looks as if only 3 people had the courage to post real answers, so I will not wait any longer for additional responses. (Although I must say that the lack of response is indicative of most of the Baptist Board, unfortunately.)

"What is "love?"

"Love" is a word. That's all. The word is not the emotion. The word is not the feeling. The word is not the act. The word is not the state. The word is just a word. Just as "the map is not the territory."

"Love" is a semantic symbol which may, or may not, mean the same thing to some people (but in this case we can see there is little agreement on the meaning of the word "love").

Now to the point. People read into the question what they are expecting to read. I did not ask "What does the word "love" mean?" I asked, simply, "What is 'love'?" All 3 of the serious responders made a mental assumption that I was asking something which I was not, in fact, asking. And even when they answered what they thought I was asking, they did not agree on the "intrinsic meaning" of the word "love."

This case in point illustrates what I was trying to show you earlier. Our perceptions are flawed (the readers read what they thought the question was rather than what the question really was) and the mental processing of that flawed perception is equally flawed. Precision in both perception and processing is something which must be practiced in order for us to become effective communicators.

Now apply all of that to the bible translation question and you will see, hopefully, that understanding what a translator puts on paper is a much more difficult task than most of us incorrectly assume. We often lack enough information to make a logical conclusion, but jump to one anyway. And we, as a people, have become so insular and proud, thinking we already know it all, that we no longer bother to investigate the grammar and syntax used by the translators, but assume they have exactly the same background and experience we do, and thus the semantic content of the words they chose are exactly the same as we understand them to be.

In other words, we not only don't know the answer, we don't even understand the question!

 

<sigh> Once again, Marcia, you completely missed the point.

 

Marcia, I am sorry I confused you so badly. I really thought most of the people on the forum had the ability to see beyond their own shortcomings and realize what language experts have known for decades, thalamic response destroys communication while cortical response enhances communication. I obviously overestimated at least some of the readers of this thread.

 

No, it wasn't a trick question. It was paraphrased from the syllabus published by the Institute of General Semantics, and was used to illustrate the fact that our presuppositions affect our perceptions and responses.

For Marcia to say the hard science of General Semantics is "self-refuting" is a prime example of a serious failure to understand.

One of the authors mentioned, Alfred Korzybski, is considered the Einstein of communication theory.

S.I. Hayakawa was President of San Francisco State College in the '60s, then U.S. Senator from California in the '70s. He authored many books and articles dealing with language and semantics, including "Language In Thought and Action." Dr. Hayakawa was editor of their journal, "A Review of General Semantics."

Robert A. Heinlein was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a prolific writer.

Buckminster Fuller was a fellow of the Institute and taught there in the 1950s.

These men represent some of the very best minds the world has ever produced and all were associated with the Institute.

Just because you can't understand the information does not mean the information is incorrect. And, because you could not answer the question correctly, you must believe it was a trick question. Your emotions won't allow you to be honest with yourself and say, "Wow! That's right! My assumptions led me astray!" Instead you accuse me of trickery and skulduggery. That is a classic example of the thalamic (emotional) response I have been talking about all along.

Thank you for your participation. It was very revealing.