The Salvation War: Pantheocide -- Off topic discussions

[bcoogler]

Placeholder for off-topic discussions started in:

Board index » Science Fiction and Fantasy » Fanfics >> The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Seventeen Up

[bcoogler]

Well, it's certainly more forgiving in terms of protocol. The military is very strict about things that seem ridiculous to a civilian, like saluting a superior, addressing him by his title, etc. No one in any civilian business is expected to show such obsequious deference towards those higher in the command structure, and any business which enforced such strict adherence to this medieval-holdover convention would probably find itself rapidly losing employees.

PS. It's worth remembering that much of this tangent was precipitated by bcoogler arguing that civilians should be treated similarly. He used it as an example of something he looked for when he himself did interviews for potential new employees.

I never argued civilians should be treated similarly to the military. The point was to relay a real-life event where right or wrong, careful phrasing did matter. And remember, I said I participated in the interview process. I was there to ask the occasional techie question and get a feel for the candidate's technical competence.

This was back when I was working for an outsourcing company -- I had been outsourced there by my prior employer -- and the job called for both technical as well as, for lack of a better term, social skills. While technical, the person would be located on-site in the client's place of business. You don't want someone in that position, even a technical person, who isn't able to handle himself with some tact. That was the intent behind the "move a mountain" question, to see how the candidate handled a request that initially seemed ridiculous.

[Buritot]

I think one should also take the connection of language and ideas/concepts into account. "Can't" is in my mindset always connected to an inability to do something, preventing any further movement on its topic. For examples if I say "Bricks can't fly" I deny every conceivable way the might be able to do so, albeit I know logically they fly if I throw them or attach them to something of sufficient buoyancy. By removing vocabulary ingrained with an idea one lessens the impact of that idea. You can't remove it completely since it is by adulthood practically hardwired into the brain, but restricting its expression in a defined environment its arise is less likely to occur.

To clarify, ideas and concepts are for this argument as afar as I'm concerned ways to think and act.

(I took the answer of the colonel to be a statement of inability rather than difficulty. Therefore it was only logical to remove him from his post since these two may be alike but are fundamentally different.)

[bcoogler]

For examples if I say "Bricks can't fly" I deny every conceivable way the might be able to do so, albeit I know logically they fly if I throw them or attach them to something of sufficient buoyancy.

Well, yes and no. I think that's mixing different meanings of "to fly" to apply to different conditions.

In the most common use of "to fly" (moving through the air with wings) saying "Bricks can't fly" is perfectly reasonable, and people will accept that statement based on their knowledge of bricks, and that sense of the word "fly."

Throwing a brick or attaching it to a helium balloon are examples of actions applied to the brick. The brick never sprouted wings and flew away like a bird. In that context, the statement "bricks can't fly" has not been proven wrong.

But "to fly" can also mean "to move quickly." If I say, "The brick flew through the air" no one will think it grew wings -- just that it is moving fast. The underlying assumption is the brick was thrown, an action applied to the brick. Most people understand a ballistic trajectory is not the same as true flight.

So if I say "Bricks can't fly" and a friend decides to "prove me wrong" by sending me a brick via air mail, all he has really done is to take advantage of a play on words.


---
Wow. I didn't know I could go on so much about a simple sentence. Shows how complicated language can be.

[Buritot]

You see, in languages we're dealing with bijectives, and there is hardly any definite meaning to any given phrase if it isn't phrased with that intent in mind. But if I had chosen my words carefull enough to avoid any misunderstanding my argument wouldn't have held as much water as I wanted. Just lets assume it was clear from the context

[Ghost Rider]

Moving to Fanfic, because there is no reason not to discuss fanfics in said forum. Here...it'll just get buried.

[Simon_Jester]

But how far can we push the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Does forcing people not to use the Forbidden Word really guarantee that the Forbidden Word will be unthought and therefore impossible? Or will they just find workarounds in language they are allowed to use, workarounds that are less clear and unambiguous than the original?

What happens if the S.-H. hypothesis is true, and the Forbidden Word is a necessary concept, such as "Men cannot live with no food and water for six weeks?"

[Alexeon]

All right, so the series continues! I just started the new one and I cant wait for more.

[bcoogler]

But how far can we push the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Does forcing people not to use the Forbidden Word really guarantee that the Forbidden Word will be unthought and therefore impossible? Or will they just find workarounds in language they are allowed to use, workarounds that are less clear and unambiguous than the original?

What happens if the S.-H. hypothesis is true, and the Forbidden Word is a necessary concept, such as "Men cannot live with no food and water for six weeks?"

Work-arounds are always possible, which can be demonstrated by explaining a concept in English that doesn't exist in English. Take "you" for example. Both German and Spanish have singular and plural, formal and informal versions of "you" that simply don't exist in English. You do find informal work-arounds. For example, in the South y'all is a contraction of you all which is an informal "plural you."

Another example is how you refer to yourself. English I, Spanish yo and German ich all work pretty much the same way, in that there is just one word to use when you are the subject in a sentence. But in Japanese there are multiple versions of I. Just two examples are: Boku, a less polite form of I, and Watashi a more formal I. Men more typically use boku and women watashi because women tend to be more polite than men. While both men and women may use watashi, if a woman used boku she may be viewed as being a tomboy. In an informal setting among friends, if a man kept using watashi he may be seen as effeminate.

Disclaimer. I have not studied Japanese, just picked up on an idea here and there from someone who has.

That said, if a concept does not preexist in a given language, it may be difficult to explain a new concept in simple terms. Indeed, it may take quite a bit of dialog to explain a concept and finally get the point across.

There's another concept in Japanese that I still haven't got the hang of -- counters. There are counters associated with different types of objects. Flat objects, small objects, animals, long and thin objects (cylinder shapes), generic objects, money, numbers. The list goes on.

Counters are used to make clear what you are referencing. English and other European languages to not have the concept because it is not required.

If I have it right, in Japanese, you can order 2 bottles of beer by saying in effect: Beer 2 [long-thin-object counter] please. The fact you used the long-thin-object counter implies you want your beer in bottles, without having actually said the word "bottle."

[Buritot]

My point was merely to lessen the effect of the idea. If it is in your common language and you can express it, you can't unlearn it.

With respect to the way of counting in Japanese - you know the concepts, you can recognise it, but I bet you would be hard pressed to admit you used it.
Granted, that concept isn't easily expressed in English. But take the polite and informal versions of words, I've read somewhere that until a few centuries ago that was also common in English - just take a look at "thee" and "thou". The relationship between speaker and the one being spoken to can be expressed, it adds information without complicating speech so much, but you probably still wouldn't use it.

And Alexon, thank you. Simon_Jester's post was indecipherable to me but your answer clarified a lot. Probably a forest-trees-thing.

[Alexeon]

@Buritot, my post was off-topic (I was excited that the series continued and didnt realize there was a discussion going on here) so I dont exactly see how I answered any questions, but if I did, Im glad to help.

[Buritot]

Do you ever have the odd sensation of thinking the right thing and still doing it wrong? Alexon, I wrote your name and had bcoogler in mind. I'm sorry for the confusion. But I'm glad you were glad to help

[bcoogler]

Simon_Jester's post was indecipherable to me but your answer clarified a lot. Probably a forest-trees-thing.

No, it's not just you. It was indecipherable to me too when I first saw it. Had to do a little research to figure it out.

Of course, the classic work on making things unthinkable would be Newspeak in 1984 by George Orwell. I would guess George was definitely influenced by the idea of linguistic relativity -- or, at least the government in the novel has bought into the idea -- of limiting thought itself by limiting vocabulary.

[Alexeon]

@Buritot, ah, I see. Suddenly things make sense. No problem.

[Buritot]

Of course, the classic work on making things unthinkable would be Newspeak in 1984 by George Orwell. I would guess George was definitely influenced by the idea of linguistic relativity -- or, at least the government in the novel has bought into the idea -- of limiting thought itself by limiting vocabulary.

Well, that would be the extreme sample. But it makes you wonder if under a realistic setting the effects described would be feasible. Are there studies concerning that?
Great. Now I have to read 1984 again

[Stuart]

Well, that would be the extreme sample. But it makes you wonder if under a realistic setting the effects described would be feasible. Are there studies concerning that?

There's a certain amount of practical experience. "Politically Correct" speech, aimed at changing the language so that certain concepts become obsolescent or disused is a direct application of linguistic relativity.

Great. Now I have to read 1984 again

When you do, ask yourself this "Do Eastasia and Eurasia (and Oceania for that matter) actually exist?"

[bcoogler]

There's a certain amount of practical experience. "Politically Correct" speech, aimed at changing the language so that certain concepts become obsolescent or disused is a direct application of linguistic relativity.

There is that. The term "politically correct" is relatively new, but attempts to consciously alter the language aren't.

Victorians considered the word "leg" to be scandalous, and would avoid it to the point of referring to a table as having "limbs."

Back in the 1970's during the Women's Lib movement, someone who wanted to weed out the "sexism" in English suggested changing all "man" references to "peep," meaning people. Chairman would become chairpeep, manhours becomes peephours, etc. Fortunately, it was pointed out a manhole would become a peephole, and idea quietly went away.

[Buritot]

Great. Now I have to read 1984 again

When you do, ask yourself this "Do Eastasia and Eurasia (and Oceania for that matter) actually exist?"

Why oh why do kids have to read world master pieces of literature in school? By analysing the very ink out of it, teachers murder all the joy of reading in the impressionable youth.
I for instance will read 1984 with mixed feelings - dread for the memories of countless hours spent "analysing" (and promptly forgetting all about) it, and joy at the opportunity to read what I know is a good book.

[Jonen C]

Why oh why do kids have to read world master pieces of literature in school? By analysing the very ink out of it, teachers murder all the joy of reading in the impressionable youth.
I for instance will read 1984 with mixed feelings - dread for the memories of countless hours spent "analysing" (and promptly forgetting all about) it, and joy at the opportunity to read what I know is a good book.

Would you rather they read bad fiction - say Twilight - and analyze the crap out of that?

[Buritot]

I can't say if Twilight is bad fiction, I never read it and sure as hell am not planning on it.

But would it hurt to give them a book to read, threaten them with a test a week after the deadline for reading and then analyse it? Or how about not expecting this and that for an analysis. I hate being put on rails to proclaim everyone is Jesus in Purgatory. (damn you tvt!)
Now, if I read "Brave New World" without any preconceptions I would have find it mildly interesting with boring technobabble parts. If I had to interpret it... I actually don't know what I would have written or actually did write then. The memory is buried under resentments.
But do you see what I'm getting at? I would never ever read the book again (in the next ten years) whereas I usually read good books 1 1/2 to 2 times. To be honest im giddy for reading books I read and know to be good! I don't want to know how often I read the various Mars books by Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars is definitely in two digits. But then again I'm obviously no standard specimen concerning reading.

PS: The times I was speaking of 1984 I had "Brave New World" in mind. The time we could vote which one to read I voted on 1984, but my schoolfellows didn't see the ideal connections on the PATRIOT Act. Still have to read it, though.

[Stuart]

Why oh why do kids have to read world master pieces of literature in school? By analysing the very ink out of it, teachers murder all the joy of reading in the impressionable youth. I for instance will read 1984 with mixed feelings - dread for the memories of countless hours spent "analysing" (and promptly forgetting all about) it, and joy at the opportunity to read what I know is a good book.

It's not a matter really of analyzing the book, more of asking questions to yourself about whether anything contained in the text is true. when one does that, one really realizes what Orwell was driving at; given complete state control of the media and historical resources, they can literally create any world they want to. For example, ask the critical question, whether Eastasia, Eurasia and Oceania actually exist and then read the book, it becomes apparent there isn't a single shred of evidence that they do. In fact there's substantial suggestion that they do not (most notably the sudden Eastasia/Eurasia switch). For all we know, "Airstrip One" could be a tiny isolated island off the coast of Europe that exists only in a self-contained void. Much, in fact, like North Korea.

One of the roles (arguably the most important role) of fiction is to get people to question things by placing the question in an unfamiliar context. If we look at the environment in which 1984 was written, it becomes intriguing. During WW2 Britain had a very tight control on news and public information; people were given a very restricted diet of data and that was severely canted. They were fed a distorted and inaccurate version of what was happening. What 1984 did was take that to extremes. None of the information that's presented in the book is reliable. There may be a war going on, there may not. The protagonists may exist but probably do not. Everything is manufactured by the state for its own ends and there is not a single way anybody can break free from the net. It's a self-contained kline-bottle world and any attempt to get out of it simply takes one right back in. At the end, Winston Smith is right back where he started and he doesn't know any more there than he did at the start.

[Gil Hamilton]

Dang, before I got to Stuart's last post, I was going to bound in with the correct answer to that question about 1984; that is "It is irrelevant if Eurasia and Eastasia actually exist, or whether Oceania does. Whether or not any of it is real, the end result for Winston and all the other people is exactly the same."

When I read 1984 I came to the conclusion that Eurasia and Eastasia could exist in that world, but if they did, they all part of the same body politic. Any "war" that exists only does so as a dumping ground for excess proletariat and as a means to keep production up without increasing the standard of living for all three Parties.

[Stuart]

When I read 1984 I came to the conclusion that Eurasia and Eastasia could exist in that world, but if they did, they all part of the same body politic. Any "war" that exists only does so as a dumping ground for excess proletariat and as a means to keep production up without increasing the standard of living for all three Parties.

They could exist, certainly, but the full horror of the situation is that there's no way anbody can find out. Whatever route one could take, eventually one runs into the same roadblock, the Government controls the answer. In modern media terms, we run into the same question will Dollhouse. Anybody could be a Doll, their memories, characters, all fabricated and having no existance beyond a very short time in the past - and there's no way to find out otherwise. That's what lies at the heart of 1984. On the surface, its a grubby and brutal dictatorship but when we look deeper, its something much more worse than that. It;s true, high-octane nightmare fuel

[bcoogler]

Fortunately, I have not had to read 1984 as a class assignment. It's been ages too since I last read it.

My own thinking at the time was Eastasia (or Eurasia) and the war might well have been real in the beginning, but there was no way to tell if that was still true any more. Eastasia/Eurasia could easily been defeated long ago, but live on in name only as a convenient excuse to maintain control.

The movie Brazil borrows heavily from 1984. The "terrorist attacks" in Brazil appear to me to be nothing more than crappy machinery breaking down. And how about the department of "Information Retrieval?" One of the more unsettling scenes for me was the secretary being completely blasé while transcribing the sounds of torture. Just another day at the office.

[bcoogler]

Speaking of Dollhouse, now that Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles has been canceled , I think it would be cool if Summer Glau shows up on Dollhouse. Then we have to watch out for code words like "Miranda" and Fruity Oaty Bar advertisements.