Matt and Crushtor discuss General Semantics
Matt: So if I'm not Matt, then who am I?
Crushtor: The essence of this sort of system is to stop semantic blockages. Things aren't what people say they are. If you say "this is shit" then the word becomes a substitute for the object. But a word is a sound to describe the object. It isn't the object itself.
Matt: So what you're saying is, that a word just refers to something, it's not the thing itself.
Crushtor: Exactly. Do you introduce yourself as Matt? You're not a word. You're a person. Your name is Matt, you are not Matt.
Matt: I'm not Matt. My name is Matt!
C: Now we're getting it.
I also used Hayakawa's "What is Red" example at this point, and he almost followed it all as if Hayakawa was writing it down as we spoke. Remind me to stop drinking so much coffee. And stop procrastinating so much. It's taken me ages to even start my Enslaved interview today...
5 comments:
I counted how many of your posts were about general semantics (or, at least, had the phrase tagged).
Fifteen.
You need to, you know, get a life. Outside of general semantics.
Women laugh at you behind your back.
But I support you. I know you're like me: we all hate women.
You know what you should do? You should: "to write, edit, or publish for the interest or amusement of a specific group of readers: a story slanted toward young adults."
I have a dictionary send me wonderful definitions. I like to use them daily. Helps me learn and grow as a person. We can learn and grow together.
I do have a life outside of that! I do many things. Perhaps I should write about them more often. Women probably do laugh behind my back about it though...
Although I wouldn't know what to write for a young adult novel...
Dear me, I was joking! I don't hate women, and I assume you don't either. How would I know if people laugh behind your back? Don't be so self-defeatist and just agree with it.
It doesn't demonstrate confidence at all, really.
Yes, write more about shit that's interesting (to me; not you). Fifteen stories on kittens is fuckin' ace, but gets old after three or so stories. Sure, there's nothing wrong with kittens, but, y'know, there are other things to talk about.
We get it. You like general semantics (even though you never really define it; which, by the way, is kinda wanky and presumptious... it's like you're saying, "I'm elite because I know this theory, but I won't define it, so the ambiguity and awe that is generated from my arrogant discussion of this wank theory makes me look good.").
Now talk about that time you did some stuff and it was pretty funny because of some other stuff [insert context here].
I give you a rating of a solid 4 out of 10 right now.
FOUR.
How come you can be self-deprecating and I can't...double standards my friend...not cool. :P
I do define GS very well (well, I would hope so) - I do some rather major defining and exploration. It's not a discretely and neat little definition; its like trying to define biology and all its branches. I guess the most succinct definition I can give is that GS is the study of the structure of language and human knowledge and how it effects thought and actions.
Next time I will write a humorous anecdote about myself...happy now? :P
I self-deprecate because it's funny and untrue. Besides, I'm just a name; what I say doesn't matter; who I am doesn't matter. It's not about me.
Tip: be more awesome and less not-awesome.
Ok, I admit I didn't actually read all fifteen (assuming I counted correctly) entries, so you probably did define it. I was just kinda throwing fire randomly there.
Your definition satisfies me.
But seriously... why spend so much time dwelling on a theory when you can, you know, think less and make a life of your own?
More humour stories. But not angry stories. There is hate in your heart. It is rotting your precious soul.
Post a Comment