Language issues or "what did you mean by...?"

[potia]

In an effort not to further derail the "Is Paganism more relevant today than Christianity?" thread I thought I'd start up a thread to try and open out this thorny issue of language use on the forum a bit.

Every now and again we get threads that start using terms that some among us look at with glazed eyes. Those using the terms are usually only to happy to explain what they mean if asked. Those who don't understand what is being said are often rather hesitant about asking for explanation.

People who use these terms naturally (regardless of educational background) can get frustrated with requests for simpler language and may see it as requests for dumbing down of ideas.

People who haven't come across the terms before (again regardless of educational background) can feel embarrassed and sometimes slightly ashamed that they don't understand more.

Sometimes those who are asked to explain things realise that they could have explained things better and in explaining what they meant to say are able to clarify their own thoughts on things to a greater depth than they had before.

Sometimes those who ask for an explanation then feel the joy of learning something new and realising that there is a word for a concept they were groping with but struggling to find the right words.

We sit at our keyboards in the safety of our homes or workplaces typing out our thoughts. We may not want to be challenged emotionally as we sit but even in highly intellectual debates our emotions can not be divorced from who we are. Most of us don't like being pushed out of our comfort zones even when it's good for us.

Text based interactions are notorious for causing problems of mis-interpretations and then escalations of emotional responses. None of us will be totally immune to that effect.

Can we all try and keep each other in mind a bit more as we type?

And perhaps this thread can be used to ask for explanations of words if we don't want to post the question in the thread the words came up in for whatever reason?

New words for me recently:
Theophany
Exegetical (still not sure I have grasped the meaning of that one actually but think it's to do with explaining things from a philosophical point of view)

Edited once for clarity

[Heron]

Feb 7, 2010 14:19:00 GMT -1 potia said:

Text based interactions are notorious for causing problems of mis-interpretations and then escalations of emotional responses. None of us will be totally immune to that effect.

Can we all try and keep each other in mind a bit more as we type?

And perhaps this thread can be used to ask for explanations of words if we don't want to post the question in the thread the words came up in for whatever reason?

New words for me recently:
Theophany
Exegetical (still not sure I have grasped the meaning of that one actually but think it's to do with explaining things from a philosophical point of view)

Edited once for clarity

This is well said Potia and is a reasonable request. AS one who has introduced a philosophical thread that some might find esoteric I can only hope that the words themselves are not a problem for people as i have 'translated' the arcane ones as much as possible, though, as Deiniol says, it is not always possible.

By the way, 'exegetical' comes from 'exegesis' which originally simply meant explaining texts in the Bible.

[deiniol]

I'm happily on board with this. I would love it if we were to advocate people overcoming their "intellectual cringe" and not be scared to ask what something means- what's the hoary old cliché about admitting ignorance being the first step on the path to wisdom? Actually, is that a hoary old cliche, or did I watch too much Bruce Lee as a teenager?

For what it's worth, in a broader context than Heron's definition, "exegesis" is just explaining the rationale of religion, or beliefs.

[megli]

Usually in the sense of eluclidating a text, I'd add.

I think this is a great idea too. Thanks for organising it Potia!

[Francis]

I find my position on this likely to appear at least a little hypocritical. I admit to replying to the post that kicked this off with a request for further clarification , but I'm not sure there is a need to change the general approach here?

I really wouldn't want there to be any conflict on the board here - or worse still factions to develop, or indeed anyone feel the wish to leave - but how can anything other than the current well intended status quo really work?

I wrote a reply to Heron's thread 'is all matter conscious'. Living as we do in the 'rational' 21st century West my approach was one described relative to the core premise of Phenomenology. I read it several times after knocking it out at speed and started editing it in the vain hope of not offending anyone.

After I'd tied myself up in knots in an attempt to make everything as explicit as possible - explanations of terms, basic ideas etc. etc. - I was left with a huge unreadable post that would have annoyed everyone and so binned it. (Although you could argue I should have played to my strengths and posted it - annoying eveyone! )

I wonder if the only way this can work is to be mindful of when we're in very specialist areas, but otherwise to assume this board is a self-selected group of folk with enquiring minds and access to the internet and all its resources?

There is every chance that to do otherwise just leaves the well intentioned sat scratching their keyboard between a rock and a hard place - If a word or concept is left unexplained people may call intellectual foul, when a word or concept they are familiar with is explained they feel patronised.

I would suggest that everyone posts in the language they feel comfortable and familiar with, and if someone requires explanation, clarification or even suggestions for further reading around a concept they ask. I think we have to have some faith in each other and believe/know that everyone is posting honestly, straightforwardly and with good intentions. Surely nobody here thinks anyone is posting with the intention to confuse, belittle, show off or from a need for the positive external affirmation of a pat on the head from Megli ?

Let's have some faith in each others motives and see any stretching of our boundaries as the wonderful opportunity for learning that it is. My fairly solitary outdoor life is wonderful, but the only obvious thing I learnt last week came about through Deiniol's post.

[redraven]

One of the reasons for my continued presence on this forum is that the approach taken here has always been robust, but not to the point of insult, and responsible enough to make the subject matter more important than the petty ego's seen on some other forums. This has been achieved by people being prepared to ask for clarification and I can't recall anyone ignoring or getting upset when this has been requested. It has been one of the strengths that has created connection between us and a continuation of this approach would appear to me to be the sensible course of action. ( I do think that this thread allowing for clarification for specific terms useful, as it may be applied to threads not currently active!)

RR

[megli]

Part of what has made this whole discussion difficult is the question of what makes a turn of phrase or a word or an argument 'intellectual gobbledegook', to quote Midori. No one here can magically see inside anyone else's mind. I can't tell that a certain term is considered difficult to another person. How could anyone tell that?! Perhaps we should all provide lists of our vocabularly when we sign up.

People here are honest and good-hearted. That's what makes CF worth belonging to, and makes its discussions richer and more profound than other pagan forums which I know. We're interested in real answers and robust debates. That means people have to be honest and treat each other as equals, and not succumb to the passive-aggressive tendency to see other people as trying to get at them when no such attempt is intended.