On Linguistic Semantics

*** Let me preface this post by saying that it is my latest response to an ongoing discussion around Linguistic Semantics.  So if it appears to not have an entirely proper introduction or conclusion, that is because it comes from the middle of a discussion.  At some point I will add the beginng, and the ending, but I think this abstraction as some value on its own. ***

 

 

On Linguistic Semantics: Context

The Context in which the speaker infuses his chosen vocabulary with some amount of unspoken Qualifications, which may or may not be perceived correctly or even at all by the listener.

Semantics is a qualitative, literary arsenal of obfuscations or clarifications ( case dependent of course), used either offensively, defensively, or haphazardly, depending mostly upon who you are, where you are, what comprises the sum of your life experiences, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your experiential recall, and most importantly, your desire and ability to partake in the arts of “Crowd-Sourced Meta-Cognition.”

                I just said a lot, but really only 2 things are important, (possibly 3, but we will find out, but don’t trust my opinion, I am the writer):

1.       Linguistic Semantics (LS) can be used offensively, defensively (see #2), or haphazardly (#3).

2.       LS can be used as a weapon of Mass Communication (see “Crowd-Sourced Meta-Cognition”, etc. a bit further down…)

3.       Unintentional gunshots have just as much potential for discernible impact as those that are intended, it’s only the location, and thus the relevance of the impact that may be quite different.

I think we all understand, have considered, and used words as defensive shields and offensive weapons.  So I am not going to discuss those scenarios, much, but I will some, but only at a wholesale level.  What I find more interesting is the “haphazard” use of linguistic semantics.  This scenario may come about when:

1.       The speaker or writer has no understanding of LS (Linguistic Semantics), and through their communications, begin firing off rounds in all sorts of directions, which is clearly observable to someone who knows a bit about SL, but is completely unknown to the literary gunman. ( like in the movies where the would be heroine fires a big machine gun for the first time…completely out of control, but definitely producing large amounts of unintended impact).

Now who here hasn’t delivered a speech to a few thousand people, only to find that what you had intended to impart upon the audience, and their subsequent reaction, was something very different than what you may or may not have expected, based of course on your understanding of the collective mind-states of the audience.

Like “they” say: “Words don’t kill people, people do”

2.       Now, time to be offensive!  Packing along our Literary Arsenal of complex academic theories and philosophies, we prepare to get down and dirty in the Empirical mosh-pit of Intentional Communication Interchange Theory(IC IT).  Our first empirical experience might as well be as big as possible (we can always retreat if we live through it, right?).  So Fetchez La Vache!! ( I’m told that in Spanish that means “ On to Part II “)

Part II: The Wisdom of the Crowds: And how to use it against them.

“Crowd-Sourced Meta-Cognition”(CSMC, pronounced like “Cosmic”, thus COSMIC), when properly understood, can be the propulsory recipe enabling the speaker to successfully launch COSMIC ROCKETS( Relativistically Objectivistic , Contextually Knowledgeable, Explanatory Transumptives, thus ROCKETS ).  And all of that from now on will simply be referred to as “CS”.

Since we are now talking about Space and Rockets, it definitely would be no fun if we didn’t first say something about Uncertainty, and Metaphysical Contexts, so:

Could we say that until the speaker( if  they so choose ) reduces the number of possible interpretations of what he has just said from a possibility of ALL, to a certainty of One, the listener could not possibly eliminate all uncertainty in regards to Meaning and Intent?

Further, unless I am the speaker expressing words and thoughts of my own design; simply stating to the audience my assumed meaning and intent likely will have no value in terms of acutely defining my communications resulting in a common understanding, as even the smallest deviations in “Secular Context” (Physical + Mental State of being) amongst the listeners, can result in massively irreconcilable gaps between what was intended and what was understood.

Linguistics will always have a Trajectory through Space and Time, with a comprehensive Velocity in direct proportion to the Perceptions of the listeners, such that any impediments to the communication reaching its target, is simply a function of the combined: Aptitude, Experience, Attention, Apathy, and Knowledge of the target audience, taken in consideration of the prevailing Contextual Density( the less homogenous the audience, the less dense the context, and the lesser the impact on the collective target).

I think it stands to reason, that if Semantics is the ROCKET carrying a Linguistic payload, and the speaker has certain COSMIC awareness, the impact of the ROCKET will be all consuming.  But if on the other hand, the speaker incorrectly selects the ROCKET most appropriate for the COSMIC target; its impact will be of no discernible measure.