markal Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Maybe not obscure but vitriol sounds rather snobbish.
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice

I'm not familiar with that rule. There's nothing snobbish about using all the language options one has at one's disposal and if that happens to leave some lexically-challenged folks out of the mix, that's the way it goes.

It's a common rule in any book on writing. If you can express the thought clearly with more widely used words, why use the rare one?

Communication takes two sides, and if you don't try to be as clear as possible you are at fault for any communication breakdown. It gets worse when someone is saying people are less educated or uneducated, knowing that they won't know the words being used. It's like saying "I know you don't speak Spanish so I'll make my point in Spanish."

Maybe I shouldn't of said obscure, how about rare?

markal Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Effective communication uses language that most effectively allows what is in one's own mind to be understood by others. Choosing the most accurate word is not always to most intelligent use of language if it fails to accomplish that goal. It's just comes across as mental masterbation.

1. Your "definition" of "effective communication" is tautological (sorry) and based on the lowest common denominator which is not what everyone aims for.

2. "masterbation" is spelled "masturbation"

3. It's generally frowned upon to hyphenate words ending in -ly. (Like "lexically-challenged".)

Tautological? Sorry but it was accurate. One can be so smart as to be stupid.

kanjiwarrior Wrote:If it makes anyone feel any better, Satan is featured prominently in many of my stories.

I used 'satan' instead of the 'grave' primitive. He's just such a cool guy, how can you possibly not include him?

Wally Wrote:3. It's generally frowned upon to hyphenate words ending in -ly. (Like "lexically-challenged".)

Funny (really) and partly true although you can find plenty of instances in which they are.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Tautological? Sorry but it was accurate. One can be so smart as to be stupid.

No need for insulting innuendo. You are entitled to believe your definition is accurate, of course, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise and I'm not going to bother trying.

Nevertheless to say that "Effective communication...effectively allows.." is tautological. Nothing much to discuss there.

A language has a variety of words with similar but varied nuances of meaning and that is part of what makes language so interesting. Those words exist in the language for a reason, and it isn't mainly to make other people feel small. To avoid using the word that most accurately communicates your intent so that you satisfy somebody's prescription for "good communication" or whatever is just encouraging ignorance, in my opinion.

markal Wrote:A language has a variety of words with similar but varied nuances of meaning and that is part of what makes language so interesting. Those words exist in the language for a reason, and it isn't mainly to make other people feel small. To avoid using the word that most accurately communicates your intent so that you satisfy somebody's prescription for "good communication" or whatever is just encouraging ignorance, in my opinion.

I think you're debating against something that isn't being said. No one is saying you shouldn't use a certain word if it is the only way to express your thought accurately. What's being said is "If you can express yourself as well with either, why choose the one that is less likely to be understood?"

Of course my original remark was questioning if people make the word choice based on accuracy, or trying to look smarter so their insult holds more weight.

markal Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Tautological? Sorry but it was accurate. One can be so smart as to be stupid.

No need for insulting innuendo. You are entitled to believe your definition is accurate, of course, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise and I'm not going to bother trying.

Nevertheless to say that "Effective communication...effectively allows.." is tautological. Nothing much to discuss there.

A language has a variety of words with similar but varied nuances of meaning and that is part of what makes language so interesting. Those words exist in the language for a reason, and it isn't mainly to make other people feel small. To avoid using the word that most accurately communicates your intent so that you satisfy somebody's prescription for "good communication" or whatever is just encouraging ignorance, in my opinion.

What is the purpose of communication? Seriously? As bodhisamaya said, it's not "mental masturbation." The purpose is to "communicate" a meaning to another person(s). Otherwise, why are you speaking? Therefore, if you use words that the hearer doesn't understand, you're failing at the essential purpose and goal of communication. I think I remember reading a quote by Lewis Carroll where he said something like, "words mean what the speaker intends them to mean and the hearer interprets them to mean, nothing more."

To a point, people need a certain level of vocabulary to be able to keep up with certain precise discussions. But, justifying the use of any random vocabulary you choose with that logic is just a taaaaaaaad ridiculous if you wish to communicate with a majority of the readers of this thread in a meaningful manner.

Instead of quoting lots of quotes, I'm just gonna say, "wasn't this topic about Christian and his influences in RTK? That crazy feller..."

@markal &onafarm

I like the fact that you've taken the time to go beyond what people consider average in vocabulary, and I think you'd come off less snobbish if you didn't wear your words as such intellectual badge. It takes time and effort to learn what you've learn, I know. Just try to heed a little of the advice people are giving on communication.

When one guy disagrees with you, that's his problem. When many people from different parts of the globe disagree with you, there just might something worth examining on your part.

That being said, I eat a pizza.

@bodhisamaya & igordesu & cracky

Seriously though, your ideas are communist. Why should billions of people trapped on this small rock make any attempt to consider others in anything they do? ..especially when they're making insults. Sure, it's a know fact that the meaning of communication is the response you get, but to hell with that. If you want to call someone stupid, using big words they won't understand is paramount. If you want to make someone out to be a intellectual stiff, throw in some slang that both hurts their ears and boggles their minds. What sort of impact would an insult have if one sat for a moment and thought, "oh, how can I hurt this person in a way that both shows my superiority, and is communicated effectively." Sure the insult is lost in lack of translation, but at least you've showed that guy!

Fair and balanced

mafried Wrote:Curious, is there a distinction between he/she in old Hebrew, Aramaic, or classical Greek?

Wow, we're off topic.

Indeed. But even without noting any distinction, that God constantly refers to himself as "Father" throughout the Bible seems to seal the deal. Coulda chose "Mother"--that word existed. Again, no genitalia, but he does seem to identify with maleness (which, I know, even believing the genders are fundamentally different apart from genitalia is heresy these days).

plumage Wrote:

mafried Wrote:Curious, is there a distinction between he/she in old Hebrew, Aramaic, or classical Greek?

Wow, we're off topic.

Indeed. But even without noting any distinction, that God constantly refers to himself as "Father" throughout the Bible seems to seal the deal. Coulda chose "Mother"--that word existed. Again, no genitalia, but he does seem to identify with maleness (which, I know, even believing the genders are fundamentally different apart from genitalia is heresy these days).

And there were how many females involved in writing those tomes? (We can use 'tomes' here, can't we?)

And does 'father' carry the same connotation as in English? In some languages the word for 'father' carries gender-neutral connotations as well (can mean 'father' or 'parent'). Outside of direct references to God's genitalia it's hard to say this is not a translation problem. Hard to say that is if like me you know nothing about these classical languages.

In the Old Testament, it seems as if women were thought of as little more than property so naturally God would be male. It would make more sense that a God who creates life would be personified as female. It is women who create life in almost every form of life on this planet. It could be a question of translation as mafried said. It might have simply meant parent in the original writing. I have read that virgin previously meant young woman rather than the current meaning we give it now.

[ファブリス]

*yawn*

ps: As far as I know, James Heisig IS a Christian, and a priest. This was mentioned before on here? That is not a problem for me. It does not affect the quality of his work in any way or form, or the effectiveness of the method.


(Admin) Moved to Community forum for the following reasons:
- getting completely off topic
- religious/political debates should be posted in the Community forum, as has been discussed and agreed before
- in retrospect the original topic itself doesn't invite for constructive exchange, and brings no value to the "RtK Volume 1" sub-forum

Political/religious debates are allowed in the Community forum, but please remember that courtesy still prevails, thank you!

"Father" is most definitely father in this case. The ancient Jews were not a culture that had fuzzy gender distinctions. For "virgin," the Hebrew word primarily means virgin/maiden, and can also mean simply "young girl." There was another word that meant more exclusively "virgin" that wasn't used. What was used was good--since Mary was both a virgin *and* a young girl. It's actually more exact to have used the word they did, "Almah." Since if it was just "virgin" then an unmarried woman in her 40s could've fit the bill, too.

From what I remember, there is one Biblical reference (朋) and one Nietzsche reference (厭). Everything else is fairly secular. But either way, I don't really understand the paranoia on display here.

I'm an atheist and could not care less about biblical references in the book. They make it easy for me to remember the kanji, that's what matters. True atheists wouldn't get worked up over details like this. It's the bottom line that is relevant. The man isn't out there to convert you. Most of us know what is being referenced.

I'll take them over mandala and t'ang.

Does this thread really exist?

raharney Wrote:From what I remember, there is one Biblical reference ...

I specifically recall 朋、元、判 having Biblical references in the 4th edition and I have a feeling there were more that I'm not recalling, and a somewhat Christian flavor to others that weren't specifically Biblical. I found them slightly annoying but nothing to get worked up about; you can always make your own stories even if a suggested story is provided.

Suggested stories that cause me to recall wrong elements or wrong connotations for a character are much more annoying, honestly; especially when they are vivid enough to get stuck in my head on first reading despite deciding not to use them...

At the end of the day it is a pity people are becoming so narrow-minded about the world beyond pop-culture: Lord of the Rings is fine but don't mention the Bible, because...you know...suicide bombers and all that.
I don't understand why people can't enjoy a diversity and plurality of stories from many traditions. It is a perversity of the liberal secular tradition to think that we must ban all images that don't conform to a post-religious "politically correct" perspective. Liberalism is about rough messy freedom not neat clean conformity.

@raharney
You are totally off the mark.
The Christian themes are out of place because they don't represent knowledge held by the majority of potential readers (even your typical only-goes-to-church-for-Christmas Christians probably don't know a lot of what Heisig mentioned). That makes it poor material for creating mnemonics for everyone and thus makes the book a bit less accessible and harder to use.

I would make the same comment if it was a story referencing some element of local Swedish politics as a provided mnemonic.

It's not about being offended by a Bible reference. No one is insulting your sky wizard, so calm down. Also, this thread has been dead for over 2.5 years. Why did you resurrect it (with a counter-post that was factually incorrect and added nothing to the discussion no less)?

Quote:Lord of the Rings is fine but don't mention the Bible, because...you know...suicide bombers and all that.

A strawman made up by mixing together different bits that different people said. Not bad at all.

Quote:It is a perversity of the liberal secular tradition to think that we must ban all images that don't conform to a post-religious "politically correct" perspective.

Pseudo-academic speech to establish an ostensibly superior position over the hoi polloi, whilst simultaneously collectivizing their diverse opinions under a synthetic label, and by directing argumentation against that label deftly avoiding the error of direct ad hominem! Magnificent! I applaud your efforts, sir!

Jarvik7 Wrote:No one is insulting your sky wizard, so calm down.

That's not insulting? That's on par with calling Muhammad a towel-head.

Allah is also an atmospheric magician...

Failing to take the concept of god (I did say "your sky wizard", not "THE sky wizard") seriously is not the same as insulting a particular belief (they are all silly).
Shall I take insult when someone describes Zeus as mythical?

Also, towel-head is a racial slur. Sky wizard is not (gods are not a race).

TheVinster Wrote:Does this thread really exist?

No. There is no spoon.