On Semantics

By the dictionary's definition, "semantics" is:

semanticsplural of se·man·tics (Noun)

1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"


The example in this definition is a common thought. When debating or even arguing with someone it often occurs that one's opponent (or oneself) may exasperatedly slam the metaphorical door on the debate by shouting "Semantics," or "You're just debating semantics!" This exclamation, of course, is expected to end the debate and somehow tilt the result in favor of the person who exclaims it.


This notion is preposterous.


When did it become acceptable to present the idea that debating meaning was worth derision?
When did meaning become so unimportant that to debate the meaning of an idea means the debate no longer holds value?
When did it become proper for the actual purpose of words to take second fiddle to what someone else might infer?


In my personal experience, all debates exist for one of three purposes:


First, a debate may be simply for the practice of one's debating skills and abilities, as a logical exercise. This purpose explains the existence of debate teams and debate clubs.
Second, a debate may be because two people have opposing, conflicting viewpoints, and seek to change the other person's way of thinking to match their own. This is usually the least rewarding and most fruitless type of debate, but gives the greatest sense of accomplishment if actually brought to a desired result.
Third, a debate may have the purpose of  fully understanding another person's viewpoint while sharing one's own, learning why someone sees and thinks and feels the way they do about an issue while sharing the same thing, in a manner that befits the free flow of ideas while learning how to relate a different viewpoint to one's own. This is usually the reason for my personal debates.


In any and all of these debates there are two sections of what can be and should be debated. Each side should first make sure that their viewpoint is understood. This is the first section. The second is that opposing viewpoints have points of similarity and difference, and these should be delineated, and either reconciled or widened, so as to give a clear picture of a debater's position.


The first section of this debate should by all rights remain chronologically first, though sometimes in the course of complicated discussions that can cease to be the case. However, that is the time in which semantics are most likely to come into play.


After about fifteen minutes of argument sometimes a situation like this will come up:


Person 1:  "I just think that as a society it's important to pontificate on bananas."
Person 2:  "Well, that's just silly. It's practically impossible to pontificate while standing on unstable fruit. Besides, bananas are too mushy to support any real weight."
Person 1: "I didn't say anything about standing on fruit. What I said was that it's important to give long speeches about bananas. I think that's important because banana awareness should be heightened."
Person 2: "Oh, now you're just arguing semantics."


Freeze frame.  There is an issue in this debate. Person 2 and Person 1 are having a miscommunication.


Person 1 used an ambiguous term, a communication no-no. This sometimes allows conversations to be extended by a query for explanation, but usually just results in a communication flaw, throwing the track of the debate off-kilter.


Person 2 guessed at the meaning for the ambiguous term. Sometimes this can be a safe tactic, but the best way to ensure that there no such errors in communication is to simply ask for clarification.


Person 1 spotted this miscommunication and attempted to rectify it. However, this rectification was phrased in an oppositional manner.


Person 2 allowed emotions to enter the playing field, by becoming offended at the correction, and claimed that Person 1 was arguing semantics.


Person 2 was right. Person 1 was arguing semantics, in reiterating the meaning of the original statement, in different terms, so as to explain what the issue at hand actually was. However, when you see the above conversation, you realize that Person 2 was arguing about what made the best sort of soapbox to stand on, whilst Person 1 was concerned with the ever-growing banana problem in their society.


Because of an issue in semantics, Person 1 and Person 2 are arguing in two completely different debates.


Semantics are vital to understanding the positions that are being stated in a debate. Without understanding all of the terms and intent of the statements made, it is entirely possible to misconstrue the statements of the other member or members of the discussion to the point where one's thought processes do not actually relate to the debate at hand.


Any time clarification is asked or given, any time a matter of miscommunication seems to be present, any time a term is used that is ambiguous or obscure - semantics do come into play, and rightfully so. And if someone is clarifying, rephrasing for emphasis, or expanding a statement to include a complete thought process - then he or she is truly arguing semantics, and again, rightfully so. It is each person's job in a debate to make sure that their statements and expressions - as well as the intent behind them - are all accurately understood.


In conclusion, we see now that semantics are an important part of ensuring smooth communication. It is neither unimportant nor undesirable to have semantics mutually understood by all parties in the debate, before going on to declare, delineate, and debate positions and viewpoints. It is the fact that semantics exist that allows us to define and communicate the positions we hold.


"All our work, our whole life is a matter of semantics, because words are the tools with which we work, the material out of which laws are made, out of which the Constitution was written. Everything depends on our understanding of them. " ~ Felix Frankfurter

Mao Tzu, or, Why the Cats Have No King

 Mao Tzu

or
Why the Cats Have No King

Once upon a time, the Buddha looked down over China, and saw that the cats, great, small, had no king.  They were lawless and many were wicked, taking advantage of the weak beyond what should be allowed, killing those who might stand in their way.  And the Buddha said, "This is not good, who will rule over the cats with strength and nobility?" 
The cats slowly began to die out, for there was no law and nothing to protect them from predators, or from wicked cats.  Until finally, of the cats who were not brigands and ne'er-do-wells, only a small black cat was left, on a mountain.  This cat had been living there for several years, never taking notice of the other cats. Even those who would come to mistreat him would simply shout a few insults and then return the way they had come.  Predators would not harm him, and he never starved or lacked for eating. 
The Buddha saw this, and went to the cat.  "Why is it that you do not fall victim to the same plagues as the other cats," he asked.  "How do you keep them from harming you? How do you stay safe?"  The cat said not a word to Buddha, but began to walk away, and flicked his tail for the Buddha to follow. Intrigued, the great Buddha followed the cat to the gates of the cat's home, where, written on a signpost, were the words "Here resides Mao-Tzu, King of the Cats."  Buddha was confused, and asked, "How is it that this sign is here?  There is no king among cats, for I have not made one."  The cat looked up to the Buddha and said, "O Great One, it is true that you have not made me King over all the cats, but the other cats do not know that." 
Buddha thanked the cat with a smile, and returned to his palace in the skies, certain of how to fix the problem.  When he returned to his palace, he looked down over China and gave to every cat the sense of nobility. Thus there was no longer a need for a king over the cats, for every cat had become Mao-Tzu, and to this day, this is why all cats act regal.


The End.

Dark Thoughts

Dark.  It's a fascinating state.  The absence of light, the presence of nothingness.  As close to sheer chaos as one can achieve on this plane of existence.  Many people are frightened of the dark, or, as one friend has told me, what is -in- the dark.  What is in the dark?  You don't know?  No one does.  So it is fear of the unknown, fear of the Not. 


Am I strange? I feel at home in the dark.  Safe.  Warm.  It's my haven.  The dark provides solitude, safety, solace.  The times of light are by the very nature of them, times for doing, for creating, for experiencing the seen.  The dark takes away what is seen, and leaves one to contemplate, to ponder, to experience the unseen.  It dulls one sense and in doing so heightens all the others.  Certain things are more comfortable in the dark, for everyone.  Passions, usually.  Sex, gluttony, violence.  The 'dark' passions of the human heart.  So aptly named...by coincidence?  I think not. 


It is in darkness and in chaos that all existence has its root, for in darkness and in chaos there is nothing to do but to consider, to think.  Without it, there would be neither creation nor a need for creation.  And yet, the purpose of creation is not to abolish the darkness, but to beautify it, to make it well-pleasing.  For without darkness, the light would not be noticed, observed, or missed if it disappeared.


Thus it is that, while true that evil deeds may more be accomplished in the darkness, and the darkness conceals much that would otherwise be known, this is the highest beauty of darkness, for were it not so, creativity would wilt, wither, and die, becoming rapidly extinct.  All who create send forth light into the darkness, to compare, contrast, and divide the darkness, that both darkness and light may be observed and admired.


I do not fear the dark.  I do not fear that which is in the dark.  I do not fear the Not. Why should I fear that which is, at once, my greatest inspiration and my grand drawing board, my universal canvas upon which to paint the portrait of a life?  The darkness is my ally, and my tool.  The darkness is why we think, create, and do.  It is the root of the eternal, and ever so shall remain.


I do not mean to detract from the beauty of the light, but the beauty of the light is quite well-known.  I simply seek to draw attention to the other side of the coin, the other half of the dualistic nature of the universe.  I seek only to emphasize and, figuratively, elucidate, the oft-overlooked beauty of the dark.

The Forgotten Truths

I was struck while attempting to go to sleep by a sudden piece of inspiration.
For a long time now I've been a teacher, of sorts, to various people, those who recognize what I have to offer.
I often have to re-educate them in how to think, and how to understand the philosophies that directly tie into the skills and abilities that intrigued them to learn from me in the first place.
I've been considering writing out a book of such teachings, both of the practical and conceptual sort, and realised a few years ago that such a book would be an entire expose of my personal philosophy.
After meditating for a while in preparation for sleep I was staring into a candle flame and letting my mind wander. I realised that to a certain extent, if I never began to write anything down I wouldn't, obviously, ever finish it, and so I got a notebook and my favourite pen and began to write by candlelight, sitting in my bed.
The thoughts are written in the notebook in the jumbled order in which they occurred to me, but that wouldn't have made much sense to anyone else reading it. So, I reorganised them in the process of typing them up.
Of course, this is by no means anywhere near complete, for any philosophy will grow and change with the person who holds it, but...it's a nice start, and an accomplishment of a useful sort. I figured I'd toss it out there for everyone to see.

I'm not saying that I manage to follow this entirely or consistently, but it is what I tend to hold myself to as much as possible. I'm fallible too, and make mistakes.

Anyway, feel free to ask questions or make comments. I don't expect you all to agree with everything contained herein, but many of you might find new methods of thought that you hadn't formerly considered, and oftentimes even understanding a concept is interesting, even to those who do not choose to hold it for themselves.

The Pillars of Responsibility are three: Honor, Duty, Benefit.


Honor is the first, and a high good, for it is the honor you gain and the honor you give that inspire others to good works. Give honor where it is due in full measure.  Give honor more than it is deserved to any and all. Accept honor with grace and dignity. Do not demand honor, for in demanding you forfeit any right you may have had thereto.


Duty is the second, and a higher good. Do not hesitate to sacrifice your honor to fulfill your duty. Do your duty to the best of your ability. Your duty will be revealed in due time by natural occurrance and process. Do not be afraid to ask for aid in the completion of your duty, but only ask for such aid if it is truly required. Do not hesitate to give aid in the completion of another's duty, but not at the expense of your own, and only give such aid if it is requested.


Benefit is the third, and the highest good.  Sacrifice, if you must, your own honor and duty for the greater good, without fear or hesitation, yet be aware that the most common and effective way to work for the greater good is to perform your duty and maintain your honor.
Work for the benefit of those around you and for your own, but in everything place others above yourself.  Thus you may inspire others to do the same.  Sacrifice of self is necessary for the benefit of all.  Be selfless, for selfishness benefits no one on the whole.


Be aware that at times the ends justify the means, and at times they will not. Do not expect your ends to justify your methods, on the whole, for such thinking leads to personal corruption of the most vile sort.
Be aware, also, that if unjust means are taken for a right end, the act is nonetheless tainted. Use such methods only as a last resort, for it will still not be a wholly good act. For an act to be truly good, both goal and method must be truly right.
There are two levels of thought; to understand, and to know. To understand is to comprehend with the mind.  To know is to experience in full. There is little we understand, and still less we yet know. Seek always to understand and know more, and more fully.
Choose, and act. Choose, for without conscious choice, actions are erratic and unguided, instinctual and base, reducing you to the level of a beast. Act, for without action, choice has neither purpose, nor effect.




Above all things, understand and know the teachings that follow hereafter:


You are fallible, and imperfect. You can and will make mistakes, you can and will be wrong. Accept proof of such events with grace, dignity, and contrition.
Forgiveness is only truly forgiveness when undeserved. To hold a grudge even until reparation is made is to the benefit of none.
Truths are always greater than the words we use to describe them, for we can only perceive part of the truth from our own point of view, and to express it understandably is yet more limited.
To live is to know pain. Pain always has both cause and purpose. Understand one, and you may eliminate pain. Understand both, and you may begin to tolerate pain, even to welcome it as an old friend. Do not cause others pain unnecessarily.
Steal at need, but only for need, and only from those who can afford. Explore all other options before resorting to theft, and make reparations when you are able.
Never steal from one who possesses less than you.
Material possessions are not worth the life of another.
Do not lie.  If you are questioned in any matter, speak only truth, thereby to keep your conscience clear.
Give generously to those who have not, keeping only for yourself what you need.
Know the motives of those around you. If you cannot know, do not assume. Judge only by a person's actions and what is certain of their mind and heart. Do not presume in arrogance to know the full.
Keep your vows. To break a promise is to become a liar.
Show care and courtesy, even to those who deserve it not. Thereby you will keep your conscience clear, and may influence others to greater deeds.
Do not crush hope that has any chance of truth. Explain fallacies in false hope once, but no more. If one clings to such hope still, there may be a reason you do not understand, and you may be surprised by the events that transpire thereafter.
Do not allow any hope you hold to be crushed.
Persevere in all things, to their fullest extent. Having begun a task, follow it to completion. Begin only those tasks which you are sure to complete or which you know to be right.
Be compassionate, lending strength to those below you and giving support to those above. Even the strongest beam may break without the proper bracing, and even the weakest link has its purpose.
Reduce strain on others as much as is possible without inflicting undue strain on yourself. To overwork yourself is to become useless.
Follow logic to its fullest extent. When it leads to no end, follow your heart. If that, too, should prove fruitless, make choices as best you can for the benefit of those around you.  Do not discount the profound guidance of intuition.
Know always that your choices will invariably have greater effects than you can perceive.
Be just and fair, but remember that not all justice is thine to dispense, and not all wrongs are yours to right.
Listen to those around you. They will always have more to teach you than either you or they can know.
Do not refuse aid to any who ask it humbly and honestly, unless it is at another's expense.