?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Messenger Icon

One step closer to a clearer sociological M.O.A.T.

So I was thinking about stuff (something got me to thinking about how the lady in the Great Gatsby had a voice that sounded like money, and why that meant exactly something when it is so unclear what it could possibly mean) and I realized a clearer way of describing language and the great effectiveness of fuzzy meaning.

Super-position of meaning. I'm sure I've brought this up before, even in the same context; but it's fresh on my mind I feel I better get it out before I forget.

Essentially, we take all the possible meanings that someone could have meant when they said something, and then solve for the most likely fit. On occasion, this fit is imprecise; this is either evidence of the speaker's failings at precision or their mastery of efficiency. See, we all often say one thing but also mean to imply numerous other nuances - references, innuendo, double meaning, etc. These are not artifacts, but instead count as extra information packed into the same data packet (ie sentence). With greater control and mastery of this, we can say very much with very little actually said. I have always considered great mastery of language to be efficacy of phrasing (though I clearly fail at this often, but also try often so I guess it's still hit and miss for me).

Thus we essentially add up all the possible meanings, applying contextual weight to each one, and result in a nett meaning that is taken as the conversation's general direction. Most people only pay attention the the nett meaning, and slough off the extra 'garbage' data. The more sensitive, though, will note the conversation's twists and turns and undercurrents and thus get much more out of it.

Superposition of meaning would also give rise to my mode of fuzzy thought - the end thought seems to be vague or indeterminate, but it is actually (simply put) a summation of numerous straight logical arguments weighted and broken down into its component parts. Practice makes this almost automatic and subconscious, so the real trick is to not leave out important terms; conversely it is also important to leave out the useless ones, trimming wisely as you go.

The qualification of what is significant and what is not tends to be what most arguments around here center around, or eventually breakdown into. This is terribly frustrating to people who believe that there is no absolution qualification, but is also the main point of interest of those who think it is (I suppose this should be read "why Greg can't stand to argue with Andrew - I'm tend to be convinced of a concreteness to the significance of each term but unsure of overall total meaning, and I think Greg's the opposite). Keeping this in mind, arguments quickly become one of scope, and unless every party is concentrating on the same level (weight/significance of term, term, summation of terms, significance of sums, sums of sums, etc.) then an incompatibility opens and the whole thing just falls apart. Top-down and bottom-up approaches don't seem to mesh well, and this may be a good direction of study.

Comments

and yet you say things like 'how enigmatic'
Yeah, it does bother me how some pointless stuff makes sense to me and a lotta other stuff still utterly eludes me. I get how it can exist, but I don't get it.

'Course, I gotta make sense first, so. . .