Do words have a fixed meaning?

Thanks rsr.

An amazing conversation, I didn't know Humpty was a theologian.

Just kidding.

HankD

 

It wasn't ad hominem. You say that General Semantics is "new age." Architecture is "new age." Naval Engineering is "new age." Psychotherapy is "new age." That sounds more like Riplinger than Riplinger does! </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't know we were talking about naval engineering and psychotherapy! You were presenting these people as experts on semantics and language and I do not think Bucky Fuller or Heinlein qualify and I am not sure about the Russian guy. Even if you think they are qualified, that does not mean their theories on semantics and language are valid or good. Fuller's worldview is very questionable. He may have built good domes and been brilliant, but his worldview is very compatibile with New Age beliefs which is why he is so popular with New Ager philosophers.

One of the big things of Zen Buddhism, which I was into for many years, is that words cannot convey truth -- that they are useless in defining real truth or thought. Of course, one has to use words to say that, which I point out in my lectures on New Age thinking. That is self-refuting.

I don't throw around the term New Age lightly. That list I posted earlier I agree with. I am very familiar with New Age thinking, having seen the world that way for close to 20 years of my adult life. I write and speak on this topic now. The problem a lot of Christians make is to assume the New Age is always blatant. It actually can be very subtle and has made a lot of inroads that way. I am not a conspiracy person either -- don't buy into the Tex Marrs thing. In fact, I have told people who own his books to throw them away.

My past in the New Age is one thing that helped lead me to see that what Gail R. was saying was invalid.

 

P.S. I never said naval engineering or pschotherapy is New Age. That was a straw man attack.

 

P.P.S. And just because I point out the worldviews of some people as being New Age (which I only do from evidence), that does not make me Gail Riplinger.

 

The Institute believed they were qualified. And he was Polish, not Russian.

It seems, to the contrary, you do! </font>[/QUOTE]But how valid are the Institute's beliefs and authority? I don't think that's been shown, especially if they accept people like Heinlein and Fuller who, as far as I know, have no qualifications in this area.

Please show me how I throw around the term New Age lightly. If you are going to accuse me of that -- and you really know little about me and should not make such accusations lightly -- then please back it up or retract it.

 

The Institute's credentials may be impeccable (I could say according to whom but I won't), but that does not mean their theories are necessarily accepted or even widely taken as valid. Language theorists disagree with each other and there are different schools of thought in this area.

Heinlein and Fuller may be giants in their fields, but this does not give them authority or credentials in the field of semantics or language. Writers do not automatically have insight on theories of language or philosophy of language, which is another field.

You still have not shown how I threw around the term "new age" lightly. The things I called New Age or the people I mentioned are, in fact, in the New Age worldview camp. I do not use that term unless I have read the people and/or can back it up with evidence. That is the way I am. I almost went to law school (didn't go due to a personal situation) and was a paralegal in the area of criminal law for several years, and I am very evidence oriented. That is why I reject the writings of people like Gail R, Texe Marrs, New Age conspiracy theorists/writers, Rebecca Brown (though she was alleging occult things rather than New Age), and many others of that ilk. I speak around the country and on radio, and one of the main things I warn believers about is that there is a lot of inacurrate information out there.

I strive for accuracy, not just because the Lord has called me to full-time ministry in this area, but I am trying to equip believers with solid information, and reaching out to those lost in these same areas I was once engulfed in, and would still be in, if not for the grace and mercy of the Lord.

 

I did not accuse any entire academic discipline of being New Age. I stated earlier that some of what you were saying reminded me of what some atheists and New Agers said when they attacked words as being able to convey meaning or truth. Then you posted the info about the Inst. of General Semantics. You mentioned those men - I recognized Heinlein, Hayakawa (and I said I read him and Heinlein in college), and Fuller. Fuller did have influence on New Age thinking and is highly revered among many New Agers. I posted a list of people that included Fuller, so that did have something to do with what you brought up. I also pointed out how this approach is used by New Agers. That is very different from saying that the Inst. of General Semantics was New Age.

I did not say this. I said that certain statements you posted were self-refuting statements.

I also would not call General Semantics a hard science when what they are proposing are theories. The theories of Hayakawa and others can be evaluated Biblically just as any other theory or worldview or philosophy of language.

For example, the Inst. of General Semantics says this:

I do think some of their observations are accurate and interesting, especially the view of the difference between humans' and animals' ability with language, but I am not necessarily going along with their worldviews.

 

Semantics is defined as a subset of linguistics:

 

I believe in absolutism. I believe in absolute truth, and a God of absolute good, justice, and mercy. I believe that words can convey truth because God chose words as the vehicle to convey truth to us. There was a reason that what you were initially posting sounded familiar to me -- these theories of the IGS included and/or influenced key people who used some of those theories and/or conclusions in New Age worldviews. To clarify, I am NOT saying that the IGS or that Hayakawa was New Age; however, some of Fuller's ideas and some of the IGS theories were evidently adopted and used by some New Age thinkers, by Scientology and by NLP, hence, the familiarity for me.

 

But if it means two different things to two different people, how do you dogmatically assert that your understanding is the one, and only correct, understanding?

Of course, but remember, our fallen nature causes us to have a flawed perception, and a flawed processing of that flawed perception, so "coconut" cannot be understood apart from our inner emotional response to the word.

But, again, how do you dogmatically assert that your understanding of the author's intent is the one and only correct understanding? </font>[/QUOTE]And thus, is the flaw of the post-modern mind which says that there is no objective truth and eventually, if carried to its final destination, leads to the denial of ultimate truth and atheism. There is objective truth out there. Just because you don't know what it is or have an emotional misunderstanding of it, doesn't change the fact that the truth is still the truth. We all have our subjective responses to words and truth, but that does not change the objective reality of the truth. If I tell my son not to touch the stove because he will burn himself, his subjective 10 month old mind would say, "the old man is crazy. This stove is not gonna hurt me." This is his subjective response to objective reality. It does not change objective reality though. If I tell a band student that a quarter note gets one beat, but he says it gets two, that may be his subjective response. But his subjective response does not change the objective reality that a quarter note is one beat. If I say that Jesus is the Son of God, and an atheist says he isn't, well, that doesn't change the objective reality that Jesus is the Son of God.

You see the core of post modernism is that truth is whatever you percieve it to be. This might make for good science fiction like the Matrix, but it makes for terrible theology and leads to all kinds of heresies and denial of the truth. Post modernism is based on emotional subjectiveness in deciding truth which leads to the philosophy of "if it feels good then do it".

Joseph Botwinick

 

Great thoughts Joseph. I had never thought about applying the principles of our post-modern world to the versions debate.

Thank you

 

Amen, Sister Marcia -- Preach it!

BTW, you need not keep repeating yourself.
Everybody but Skanwmatos figured out what
you said the first time AND agreed with you.

 

Thanks, Brother Ed! I do tend to get rather intense in some of my discussions and can get a tad repetitious.