Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Okay, rather then use the shout box I'll post it here. Reality and everything in it, ie time, space, the consept of rain, hot and cold, how people look ect ect you get the point, is subjective to each persons view point on life, which in turn is subjective to others view points on life. So, two people may very well be using the same time telling device, but as they have there own view on what reality is, they will read the time differently to each other. Same as if one person comments on the rain, they may say "it's drizzling" but their veiw of drizzle will be different to mine. however, we can agree on the fact that it is drizzling and not raining in the very fact that as they say "it is drizzleing" they let me see some of their reality and so for those brief seconds i can see their rain, or drizzle as it may be. I draw a comparision between people and their realitys and bubbles. Each person is inside there own "bubble", and in this "bubble" their world exists. They may very well stick to other "bubbles" (friends, familys ect ect) and share some part of their realitys, but still the perception of this reality is subjective to thier mind state. When absolute and pure understanding between two people occurs (which could never really happen as this is a higher understanding then humans could ever achive) it is like two bubbles murgeing. using this theory I can explain how when two people say the same thing, it can still be done wrong. Say person one tells person two to paint their office sky blue. Person one and two agree on the color "sky blue" being a light blue, yet the shade of blue that two sees is different to the shade of blue that one sees, so this could sparke an argument as to what color "Sky blue" really is, two sees it as a tone or two lighter then the sky, which is a different sky to that which one sees anyway so in this way they will never fully agree on "sky blue" as the two skys are different anyway.. I think I've explained it all...my mind kinda wanders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Isn't this more of a linguistic problem? At least to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 not really, my meanings of words are slightly different to yours, and the meanings of your words are subjective to my understanding of those words. Even if we sort out the right emphisis of your words and the right intoneation and stuff, I will still persive the meaning as something different to you, even if it's just slight the difference is still there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, I don't mean intonation or emphasis. Your drizzling-example -- if I say it's raining and you say it's drizzling, I don't think we perceive this differently, we just have slightly different words for it...of course, as with sky blue, we won't ever find out, but that's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 yes but what do you mean by rain? For me rain is between a drizzle and a down pour, but for you it could be any wet stuff that falls from the clouds in your sky. a "drizzle" in my reality could be "mist" in yours. "mist" and "drizzle" are not the same things in my reality, but in yours my "drizzle" may well be your "mist" so you would say to me, "it's not drizzleing, it's only a mist!" however thats subjective to your perseption of reality which is personal to you. I my reality, it's a "dirzzle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Exactly. I say mist, you say drizzle. Different words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Totally different things as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 You wouldn't call a horse a dog would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 The painting example. The ultimate decision will depend on the subjective viewpoint of the company that manufactures the paint. And really... no one is that picky when it comes to Sky Blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) You wouldn't call a horse a dog would you? I doubt it... but I think there's more of a difference between a horse and a dog than between drizzle and mist. Perhaps mist and drizzle isn't the best example, but take rain and drizzle instead. Your point, if I got that right, is that we perceive rain differently--I highly doubt that. Edited March 13, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 The colors mixed in the factories does depend on their reality of the color Blue, or which ever color it maybe, but the way i see the paint in my reality is as a different color to that which everyone sees it as. Everyone else sees the paint as a different shade to everyone elses perception of the color as well, so in this way the one color "sky blue" only exists in a pure reality which is the bottle all the bubbles are kept in, no one can see this pure form of everything that exists, but we are all aware that it is there eatiher sub-conciously or conciously. (sorry about my spelling btw, I can't see properly today!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Did it ever occur to you that our eyes may objectively perceive the SAME colour differently? So the same sky blue we both look at may appear different to both of us. It works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I doubt it... but I think there's more of a difference between a horse and a dog than between drizzle and mist. Perhaps mist and drizzle isn't the best example, but take rain and drizzle instead. Your point, if I got that right, is that we perceive rain differently--I highly doubt that. no, you missed it! "Rain" is a measurement (and name for) the wet stuff that falls from clouds. When I say "rain" to me it means it is quite a high level of water falling on me, I would say "it is drizzleing" for a finer level of it. "Rain" is a word, in our own realitys "rain" holds different meanings. Words exist to forfill different functions in our different realitys, as our realitys are different to each others, the ords and there meanings are different too. It may be a slight difference where I say to you "it is raining" and you get the drift of the meaning, that is you know it is wet, but by "raining" i meant it is VERY wet, although it's not importent to you weather or not it is VERY wet or just wet it is a subtle difference and when we apply this difference to other words it could be more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Did it ever occur to you that our eyes may objectively perceive the SAME colour differently? So the same sky blue we both look at may appear different to both of us. It works both ways. This is basicly what i was saying. It is, "sky blue" but my Skys blue is different to yours with which to compere the "sky blue" paint to. In this way, the color of "Sky blue" exists, but my sky with which to compere is different shade to that "sky blue"paints and to yours with which you are compereing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Wittgenstein's Theory of Language might be helpful at this point. If I were at home, I would research and post a link to it. But I'm at work. "Work" is another concept subject to highly subjective interpretation. According to me, I 'm "at work". My employer believes me to be working. My interpretation of "working" is a liberal one...etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I don't feel like thinking so much. I know what you're saying, Bloof, but something like this rarely causes conflicts and human beings are flexible enough to understand and be able to accomodate different variations in meaning of a word. None of us have SUCH a narrow viewpoint of what 'drizzle' is as opposed to 'rain'. The point of the message will get across and everyone will be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 But I'm at work. "Work" is another concept subject to highly subjective interpretation. According to me, I 'm "at work". My employer believes me to be working. My interpretation of "working" is a liberal one...etc., etc. Exacatly! but don't tell your boss that there perspective of the meaning of the word "work" is wrong in your reality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 no, you missed it! "Rain" is a measurement (and name for) the wet stuff that falls from clouds. When I say "rain" to me it means it is quite a high level of water falling on me, I would say "it is drizzleing" for a finer level of it. "Rain" is a word, in our own realitys "rain" holds different meanings. Words exist to forfill different functions in our different realitys, as our realitys are different to each others, the ords and there meanings are different too.. So what you're saying is that words have different meanings to us, right? That's what I'm saying too. It may be a slight difference where I say to you "it is raining" and you get the drift of the meaning, that is you know it is wet, but by "raining" i meant it is VERY wet, although it's not importent to you weather or not it is VERY wet or just wet it is a subtle difference and when we apply this difference to other words it could be more serious. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, but once again, you say it's raining and by that mean it's very wet, I say it's raining and mean it's drizzling. Different definitions of raining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, but once again, you say it's raining and by that mean it's very wet, I say it's raining and mean it's drizzling. Different definitions of raining. When I say that if this is applied to different words its more seroius I mean. It's doesn't make a huge amount of difference to me or you if you think it's wet and I think it's VERY wet, but If I say to you, "I think you should stop" you could take the word "think" to mean, this is my opinion whereas what I really mean by "Think" is "I am saying stop because i have thought about it and it's a bad idea". If you carry on with what you are doing you could hurt yourself/offend someone/drop someone/yourself in it. In this way, the different perseptions of the word "think" in the context of the sentence leads to bigger consenquences then just you not knowing if it's "wet" or "VERY wet". See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 If you say to me "I think you should stop" I pay more attention to the "you should stop" part than to "I think". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 I have known people who have argued me into the ground about the definition of a word being something other than what I've always held. i.e. a young girl is attacked, raped, and her arms chopped off. She's left for dead on the roadside, but she survives, gets prosthetics, etc. (true story). I said once to someone that I felt this was a tragedy. He said, "Trauma. It's not a tragedy." and went on to explain that a tragedy is something that affects millions, such as if something happened to a brilliant doctor who was on the verge of developing a cure-all for cancer - that would be a "tragedy" because so many would not be able to benefit. He said my example is a "trauma" because in this case it affected only the girl and her circle of family and friends. When I submitted that perhaps she could have become a world-class pianist, someone who would bring about world peace with her music, he said, "I'm not going to argue semantics with you" and left it at that. So, whether I'm getting the point here, I don't know. But that guy pissed me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 If the attacker got away and was never caught...millions of others are at risk because he is still out there....thus you can again call this a tragedy based on scope. I however agree that a tragedy can be an event that happens to only one but is of such magnitude that it shakes us to the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 He would have pissed me off, too. People who begin arguments over semantics should at least have the balls to see the argument through.... Aside from that, he sounds like an A1 a$$hole anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 You wouldn't call a horse a dog would you? Yes. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go walk the cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fish Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 My perception of reality is I'm in a giant virtual Truman Show and everyone and everything is just a figment of my imagination, manifested through the computer connected to my brain. Also, millions of people are watching me when I go to the bathroom. That explains what I do to the cameras. } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now