Semantic Restructuring is the pursuit of enlightenment, enlivenment, empowerment through the creative re-arranging of the building blocks of meaning. For a better description, Start Here.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
Bateson, books, cogling, context, CPB, embodiment, framing, I Ching, paradox, perception influence, prisdem, semantic punctuation, sensation, techniques, unconscious
Liberals would be better served to read Elgin than Lakoff. Specifically, "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense for Business Success" would be a much better choice for learning to deal with the intellectual thugs in the conservative camp than Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant." Why? Because Lakoff's work presupposes a context of otherwise legitimate and intellectually honest discourse and debate, whereas Elgin's work starts with the assumption that there are people who will try to use language to dominate, harm, and humiliate.
Elgin's assumption is that some people engage, knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unconsciously, in behavior that can best be described as verbal attacks. She makes a strong case, with examples that most people can relate to from personal experience. Then she presents relatively simple and straightforward methods to avoid being victimized by these people. And that really is the point, to avoid being victimized.
Of course the first way to avoid being victimized is to remain out of reach of the attacker. That holds just as true in political confrontations between conservatives and liberals; don't engage unless there is reason to believe you can prevail in and profit from the exchange. But where engagement cannot be avoided, there are ways to nonetheless side step verbal violence, and Elgin's wonderful collection of "Gentle Art" books are tops for this purpose. Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" makes some valuable points that would be good to keep in mind when engaged in honest discourse with legitimate conversation partners. But all too often the exchanges between conservatives and liberals lack honesty and legitimacy; instead they are bash-fests in which liberals willingly participate as ideological piñatas.
And that is perhaps the single hardest part of this point: We liberals need to admit that all too often we are not being invited to discuss matters, we are only being set up to act as punching bags. And precisely because this is the case no amount of dry, academic finesse will be of any real value. If you have to interact with bullies it is vital to know how to avoid being victimized by them.
Now, for a practical example: Consider each of the following, even try reading them out-loud:
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
Why does Oblio hate America?!
If you have taken the time to read each of the examples as expressively as possible you will have noticed the subtle nuances between the various versions. But what all of the versions share is the presupposition that Oblio indeed hates America. This presupposition might not be factually correct, but nonetheless the question simply doesn't make sense without presupposing this one item. There is more. Not only does the question "deductively" presuppose that Oblio hates America, but each and every different emphasized version presupposes (as Elgin points out) that the questioner knows in advance that any reasons given are inadequate, and that Oblio should feel bad for hating America.
Of course Oblio should feel bad for hating America (it just so happens that Oblio loves America with a capital-L.) I think most of my readers (both of you) will agree that hating America is bad. But notice, the power of this pattern holds regardless the content, as can be seen with the examples, below:
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
Why does Oblio do [X]?!
It really doesn't matter much what you replace "do [X]" with, whatever Oblio's reasons they will be inadequate and Oblio should feel bad for doing X and for having such a lousy excuse. And this is an example of the kind of rhetoric the Coulters and Limbaughs and O'Reillys are trained in.
You really ought to read that link and then review this post. The first and foremost linguistic concern in the worthy goal of helping liberals not get pulverized by conservatives is perhaps the simple realization that it's not our imagination: they really do cheat. If you then choose to sit at the table with a known cheat, so be it. But don't make the naive mistake of thinking a better command of the odds for completing an inside straight is going to do you any real good.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
- -
---
- -
- -
---
- -
Kan, the abyss or gorge, doubled. Danger doubled. Or perhaps not.
I have always had trouble with this trigram and the assumption of dangerous badness related with it. Sure, if the image is about being on a high mountain pass and seeing a river raging in the ravine far below, sure, then there is danger---of falling. If the image is simply standing on the bank of a raging river, sure, there is danger---if one is foolhardy enough to try to swim it.
Before thinking further on this image in isolation, contrast it with Tui, which is the marsh or lake. What is the difference between these two types of water? Structure, relationship to gravity, boundaries. Kan is a time of clear gravitational pull and well defined boundaries. Tui is a time of near gravitational equilibrium and amorphous boundaries.
And so Xi Kan, the doubling of the torrent, is a time when the outer and the inner principle alike are in clear relationship with the primal forces and are well structured. To foolishly oppose or even try to cut across such currents is destined to failure. To follow along the bank to the place downstream where the waters calm is destined to succeed. Soon it will change.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
Tags: I Ching