Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[integral]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

@integral I honestly have no clue where you are getting at and I dont know what you specifically disagree with.

Lets try this - do you agree that terms have no meaning independent of use and  independent of how a given person intend to use the given term? If you can , please start answering with a yes or no , and then explain the reasoning afterwards.

No, we use words to describe something real from our direct experience. The word has to accurately model what is true.

The point of a word is to create the distinction about reality, we draw a line and we created distinction between the left and the right. And then we give that distinction a "word", it's just a placeholder to help us communicate.

Does gravity go up or down? Even a chicken understand this concept and has create that distinction in there mind. There mind understand what a direction is WITHOUT a formal language definition. And Einsteins mind understand that distinction at a far deeper level.

 

[No1Here2c]

Again, this is very difficult to communicate, but it can be understood, and consciously grasped in direct awareness.

Edited 1 hour ago by No1Here2c

[Monster Energy]

This is what I believe a cult is

A social structure in which a charismatic leader becomes an unquestioned source of truth, causing followers to gradually surrender their own independent judgment.

 

 

 

[No1Here2c]

3 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

Again, this is very difficult to communicate, but it can be understood, and consciously grasped in direct awareness.

You demonstrate a mild form of this ability here

14 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

There very few proper definitions of words in isolation without context. 

Light weight.

Turn off the light.

Light sleeper 

Light colour.

It goes deeper than this.

Edited 1 hour ago by No1Here2c

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

2 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

This is what I believe a cult is

A social structure in which a charismatic leader becomes an unquestioned source of truth, causing followers to gradually surrender their own independent judgment.

 

 

 

I would gladly become a cult member of that handsome woman in your pfp. Please take all my money and property my mistress

[Monster Energy]

Just now, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

I would gladly become a cult member of that handsome woman in your pfp. Please take all my money and property my mistress

Thank you so much. That’s my mother in the picture.

 

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, integral said:

we use words to describe something real from our direct experience.

Sometimes we use words to describe that, but how is what you said there is incompatible what I said?

You literally started  your sentence with the word use , which is part of the thesis I was putting forth about meaning of words.

This is what I asked you - "do you agree that terms dont have meaning independent of use and intention" and your answer is that the meaning of  terms has to do with use. So where is the disagreement?

Words can refer to real things in the world - thats perfectly compatible with the "use thesis". The question is about  what does the referring (what draws the connection between a term and the meaning of said term) and the thesis I put forth just says use and intention are the things that make that connection.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[No1Here2c]

Ultimately,

Linguistics are a child's toy in comparison to the highest understanding.

[No1Here2c]

3 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

Linguistics are a child's toy in comparison to the highest understanding.

They are one of the best tools we have to communicate here. If you seek higher understanding, it will never be transcribed or communicated. It must be consciously grasped. Drop the play toys and go for the absolute.

This is all ultimately dependent upon conscious state.

Edited 1 hour ago by No1Here2c

[No1Here2c]

Even the deepest linguistic understanding, utilizing the 'highest potential' definitions, is an infinitesimal fraction of what can truly be witnessed.

[Nemra]

Cults are about exploitative, harmful group organization and structure, and how the members justify those by their beliefs.

Cult leaders set their "teachings" in a way that they can abuse their power.

Cults have intense fear or hatred of questioning how they're structured, because of how blatantly obvious it can be how the members are abused and harmed.

Edited 18 minutes ago by Nemra

[integral]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

Sometimes we use words to describe that, but how is what you said there is incompatible what I said?

You literally started  your sentence with the word use , which is part of the thesis I was putting forth about meaning of words.

This is what I asked you - "do you agree that terms dont have meaning independent of use" and your answer is that the meaning of  terms has to do with use. So where is the disagreement?

Words are sounds/symbols that humans make. If no humans existed, the sound "cult" wouldn't exist. So yes,  words depend on users.

Is this what you're asking?

[integral]

@zurew

Quote

 

Zurew's way (descriptive/use-based): To find out what a word means, you study how people actually use it. The community is the authority. If you want to know what "cult" means, you investigate how English speakers use it, how cult researchers use it, how forum members use it. The "correct" definition is the one that accurately describes the usage pattern. There's no appeal beyond use because there's nowhere else to appeal to.

Integral (realist/reality-tracking): To find out what a word should mean, you investigate the phenomenon it's trying to pick out and design the definition to track that phenomenon accurately. The reality is the authority, not the community. Communities can use words badly — they can be confused, manipulated, lazy, or politically motivated. A good definition cuts past the noise of usage to model what's actually there.

 

Does this sum up both of our positions?

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, integral said:

Is this what you're asking?

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

The question is about  what does the referring (what draws the connection between a term [string of characters] and the meaning of said term) and the thesis I put forth just says use and intention are the things that make that connection.

Different way to put is to say there is a term and there is a referent to the term. And the question is about what picks out the referent.

Edited 59 minutes ago by zurew

[Willy Phallicus]

The case could be made that some members have a cult like devotion to Leo and/or Leo's teachings.  

There are plenty of sound bites from Leo that can be taken out of context to frame him as a cult leader.

There is no real evidence of a cult, just some data being interpreted to fit a theory.

 

[integral]

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

Different way to put is to say there is a term and there is a referent to the term. And the question is about what picks out the referent.

Yeah so a person uses the word to point to something. So a word won't be meaningful put out the user.

[Basman]

All social dynamics have varying degrees of cult-like dynamics, including Actualized. But actualized is a very mild place when it comes to cult-like dynamics. The fact that people are regularly and openly criticizing Leo and the only pushback they get from him is mostly on factual and technical errors. There's more room for individuality here than the average school classroom.

I agree that certain people here should focus on improving their material standards and/or are too mentally ill currently to do the super deep stuff. I consider myself the former. Most of my interactions here are mostly for fun and aren't very serious since I basically already have everything I need to make progress on my goals as is.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, No1Here2c said:

This 'highest potential' definition must take into account all possible usages and variations of a word. This at some point transcends abilities to transcribe or communicate, but it can be grasped & understood.

So you claim it is possible to hold every single possible context of a definition as a knowing, simultaneously?

This appears like an impossible ideal limit.

Definitions simply do not operate in a fixed way. It is a compression of usage across contexts.

I don't think steering toward "Can humans hold every context simultaneously?" And proposing it is possible, with no case, is as useful as asking “Which distinctions are most useful, precise, and experientially honest in this conversation?”