Religion and Language

[Mordecai]

How we speak changes how we think and feel. The "gay marriage" movement has resulted in a new term implying an anti-Christian dogma. The term suggests that there are no relevant differences between a gay union and a straight union. As such, I avoid using the term without quotes. Similarly, society has used word games to trick us into thinking their way on other fronts.

One that irritates and disturbs me is the idea that tolerance in itself is a good thing, as if tolerance of incest, blasphemy or theft were good!

How about unity? During the elections, people were angrily pronouncing that those opposed to Obama were opposed to unity, as if unity, in itself, were a good thing. What a joke! I thought diversity was such great thing, so wouldn't we lose diversity of thought when unifying? And what were we unifying behind except an abstract idea of change, as if change in itself were a good thing. Ridiculous!

In a biology class I took in college, the teacher got off topic and started preaching that people ought to think of themselves as bodies, as if minds and thoughts and character traits could be considered physical! He suggested that when we say, "I" or "me," we ought to think of that as our bodies. Never mind that he has no evidence that his materialistic values were true values.

But more interesting to me is the implications of language usage of which we are not yet aware, as it is so integrated into our culture and the lens through which we see the world and ourselves. A commonly known example of subtle lexical influence is our English distinction between opportunity and problem while the Chinese use the same word to describe both. The implications of this lexical difference are notable.

One that I hadn't thought much about came from the operations manager at one place where I work. One of my clients is a Montessori school, which works with children based on the philosophy of Maria Montessori, much of whose work is based on principles of Catholicism. I overheard the operations manager explain to her daughter that, "The reason we're not leaving you alone is to keep your body safe." I thought this was interesting, as it overtly emphasizes the dual nature of human beings. To say, "We don't want you to cross the street without looking to keep you safe," suggests that getting hit by a car might also hurt our spirits.

We don't believe that's true, and yet that's how we talk every day.

How often do we talk in ways that contradict our belief system or at least do not support it? I thought some people might have some insights or ideas on how we as members of the Church can improve our use of language to be more consistent with our beliefs. The big one lately for me has been "gay marriage," but I am all for analyzing many aspects of language on any subject. I'm interested in getting input on things like this that people have noticed in our way of speaking that may be counter-productive. I'd also be interested in lexical differences among Mormons that are unique to Mormons or perhaps Christians in general.

[LeSellers]

From time immemorial, the word "marriage" has meant something, just one thing. There have been adaptations (as with plural marriage or serial marriage) for different cultures, but the word has had a consistent connotation from prehistory to today.

This meaning is so fundamental to humanity that, in many, perhaps most, languages, there is no distinct word for "wife". Every woman is a wife. There are many languages where there is no distinct word for "husband", every man is a husband. Even in languages where there are separate words for the married man or married woman, those words often see little use.

Marriage (in the classic sense) is foundational to societies and cultures around the world and throughout time. It is a successful reproduction strategy. Women, left alone, do not raise children as well as when they are in a partnership with the child's father. Men are singularly incapable of raising small children (an inability to feed them is the primary cause).

In all major cultures, a man "takes a wife", and whether there is a formal ceremony or not, the community regards them as "married", and imposes certain strictures on the couple. Those strictures vary from community to community, but there is one commonality: they are jointly responsible for supporting and raising their children, and the husband is assumed to be the father of the wife's children.

Marriage is the basic structure of successful societies. We could look at failed cultures and we would discover that many of them share this trait: they abandoned the legal and ethical standards regarding marriage. Many of them also share this one: they allowed homosexuality to become both common and accepted within the society.

In the past, people who ignored the cultural norms of society by committing adultery or homosexual acts and similar things were afraid enough, or gracious enough, to keep their perversion under wraps. Today's in-your-face, we're-your-brothers/sisters/uncles/aunts activists now refuse to allow others to ignore their perversions. In fact, we are now under pressure to celebrate them as equal to productive relationships, to honor them and treat them as if they were identical to marriages.

I am a libertarian. What two people (or twenty-two) do in the privacy of property they legally control is of no import to me whatsoever. However, when they let their activities spill over into areas that have the likely potential of harming my family, I have the right to object, and even to restrict their actions. The claim that two men or two women can be "married" (with the attendant rights and obligations of marriage) represents a huge danger to my family (and, indeed, to all families).

I object, as a libertarian, to any preferential treatment for people irrespective of their lifestyles, so my position is not that homosexuals should be denied what heterosexuals get. (I'd prefer that heterosexuals not get them in the first place, a condition that led to homosexuals demanding "equal rights".) But, as I opened, "marriage" means something. When we weaken that word, we weaken the thing it represents. Eventually, it will mean nothing, as is nearly the case in Sweden where few people get married because it is not useful and the costs are enormously high.

The single most important reason for opposing same-sex "marriage" is that this destruction of the basis of society will, in turn, destroy the thing which rests upon it.

Lehi

[handys003]

Often I hear the arguement to counter is "Why can't they be happy?"

[mfbukowski]

It's hard to imagine all the ways that language induces errors in our thinking. All it takes is a few misunderstandings and faulty definitions, and you're there.

One biggie is that abortion is about "choice".

Welfare is about "compassion"

And all that has been done in the quest for "civil liberties"

[mfbukowski]

For us, the word "translate" is a biggie

For Catholics, "Nature", "Being", "Substance"

Dare I say it? "Evolution", Death, Fall

Grace, Works, Doctrine, Truth, Trinity, God vs god

Hell, damnation, Prophet vs prophet

A huge one: Salvation

That's a start, but only a start.

And as for one which is integrated into our language, "reality". All we can know is what we experience and the only way we can think about it is through language. There is no other "reality", is there?

[Montgomery Price]

When someone says "homosexual", you focus on the sexual aspects. When someone says "heterosexual", you focus on the relationships. This creates a double standard in our discourse.

We think of heterosexuals having "relationships", and homosexuals having "sex".

Heterosexuals have "lives", and homosexuals have "lifestyles".

Heterosexuals regularly discuss their sexuality publicly, and homosexuals are "flaunting it".

Heterosexuals have a "moral vision", and homosexuals have an "agenda".

And by the way Mordecai...

There are many aspects of personality, mind, thoughts etc. that have obvious roots in our physical brain. This is why we can divide the brain into sections and pinpoint emotion centers. This is also why personalities and thoughts change after you receive brain damage.

Here's a nice video:

It has a lot to do with word usage as well... So, still on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&feature=sub

[LeSellers]

Often I hear the arguement to counter is "Why can't they be happy?"

10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

Lehi

[BlueDreams]

We think of heterosexuals having "relationships", and homosexuals having "sex".

Really??? I think of both words of having to do with "sex" or at least wanting to have sex when the technical terms are used. Actually...just about anything that's meant to distinguish sexual orientation I think about the reason they're used to distinguish: to tell what someone wants to have sex with. Relationships have nothing to explicitly do with being heterosexual or homosexual.

As for the initial topic, I think that our words are a pretty good indicator already of how we view things....usually at least. How words are used by someone don't usually need correction because the word itself will begin to alter with in its connotation.

Sticking with the main topic, the word gay itself has altered. Once a cute way to say happy quickly altered to describe a more neutral way to describe a sexual orientation and, by around my generation, has a split meaning (depending on the context) of someone who is homosexual/something stereotypically (male) homosexual or stupid/dumb. Tolerance has become a good, benign word in social context because we're becoming a society that now likes the idea of diversity. There is no way to create some universal codex on vocabularly to find their intended meaning or significance. It's just the natural ebb and flow that comes with language. Words and their meaning evolves.

In other words, our beliefs are already very much connected with our beliefs. Words are just symbols. How we come to view our world will naturally work its way into the symbols.

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Love your siggie. How far do you take that?

It's even relevant for this thread. The meaning of words is at least partially "how we are".

[Mordecai]

When someone says "homosexual", you focus on the sexual aspects. When someone says "heterosexual", you focus on the relationships. This creates a double standard in our discourse.

We think of heterosexuals having "relationships", and homosexuals having "sex".

Heterosexuals have "lives", and homosexuals have "lifestyles".

Heterosexuals regularly discuss their sexuality publicly, and homosexuals are "flaunting it".

Heterosexuals have a "moral vision", and homosexuals have an "agenda".

I personally don't care what people focus on. I've never thought of having a relationship as being noble in itself. Lots of evil people have had romantic relationships. So what?

And by the way Mordecai...

There are many aspects of personality, mind, thoughts etc. that have obvious roots in our physical brain. This is why we can divide the brain into sections and pinpoint emotion centers. This is also why personalities and thoughts change after you receive brain damage.

Obviously. But having a physical brain and having things going on there doesn't mean that we are our bodies any more than a computer is merely hardware. The information stored in our DNA and our brains isn't "our body." When you think of yourself, do you exclude the information stored in your brain and DNA? If so, that's pretty dumb. That it is physical in a sense is purely academic. So what? That doesn't mean we are our bodies.

[mfbukowski]

But having a physical brain and having things going on there doesn't mean that we are our bodies any more than a computer is merely hardware. The information stored in our DNA and our brains isn't "our body." When you think of yourself, do you exclude the information stored in your brain and DNA? If so, that's pretty dumb. That it is physical in a sense is purely academic. So what? That doesn't mean we are our bodies.

Whoa there! "The soul" is a unity of body and spirit- which is what we are when we are alive. Not sure what you are saying.

[Mordecai]

Whoa there! "The soul" is a unity of body and spirit- which is what we are when we are alive. Not sure what you are saying.

I'm just saying that there are things that exist in living human beings that are proven to exist that are not "our bodies." So if you say that all you are is a body, that is scientifically proven to be false, seeing as information is not part of one's body (although it is incorporated into it). The way I behave is not part of my body, for example. That's known to exist and it stems from information stored in my soul/brain/DNA.

[Mighty Curelom]

I'm just saying that there are things that exist in living human beings that are proven to exist that are not "our bodies." So if you say that all you are is a body, that is scientifically proven to be false, seeing as information is not part of one's body (although it is incorporated into it). The way I behave is not part of my body, for example. That's known to exist and it stems from information stored in my soul/brain/DNA.

Of course you are your body. A computer is made up of hardware and software, but even the software--the information--is physical. It's stored in memory as 0s and 1s, which themselves are representations of voltages states, which are purely physical in nature. All the neat stuff a computer can do is nothing more than a manifestation of underlying physical phenomena. You can't separate the information from the physical storage and manipulation of that information.

The same goes for the human body. Your thoughts, memories, instincts, habits, etc. are electro-chemical reactions. You cannot separate those electro-chemical reactions from the physical matter they are composed of; in other words, the information you refer to IS part of ones body, and does not exist in any meaningful way apart from the body. It's more than merely "incorporated into it." Separate from the physical manifestation that is the body, a DNA code (for example) is nothing more than a series of letters. These letters, apart from the chemicals that they represent, do nothing. They don't replicate, they don't construct organs or repair cell damage. The code is meaningless without the physical structures they represent.

The same goes for thoughts. Even if someone decodes the particular language the brain uses to store and retrieve thoughts, a brain would still be required for those thoughts to actually exist. A disembodied mind (ie, a soul) is as nonsensical and impossible as computer software functioning without a computer.

You are your body, because when your body ceases to exist, so do you.

[BlueDreams]

love your siggie. How far do you take that?

Thank you, and pretty far. I can't think of a topic I don't apply it to in some way. Be it race, religion, culture, sexuality, politics, art, and breakfast. But sense I'm a judging type of personality (and human for that matter), some things and opinions I value/agree with more than others.

It's even relevant for this thread. The meaning of words is at least partially "how we are".

Completely agree. Furthermore, how we interpret the meaning of words is dependent on how we are.

With luv,

BD

[krose]

I'm just saying that there are things that exist in living human beings that are proven to exist that are not "our bodies." So if you say that all you are is a body, that is scientifically proven to be false, seeing as information is not part of one's body (although it is incorporated into it). The way I behave is not part of my body, for example. That's known to exist and it stems from information stored in my soul/brain/DNA.

What are you talking about? What has been proved to exist that is part of you but not part of your body?

[Mordecai]

What are you talking about? What has been proved to exist that is part of you but not part of your body?

My personality isn't part of my body. Obviously. A personality is an abstract concept. As I said, information isn't physical anymore than potential energy is. Since we know that energy and matter are the same "stuff," do we say that the potential energy in a stretched rubber-band is part of the rubber band? Please. That is no more part of the rubber band than gravity or electromagnetism is part of any piece of matter. Similarly, information isn't considered part of computer hardware. It obviously exists and interacts with the physical universe, but there is a difference between matter, energy and information. The potential energy, the information and abstract concepts like personality and even moreso, consciousness, can't, with any respect for the integrity of language, be called part of the body. That's just mindless drivel to say so.

Speaking to children as if they are only a body would be really odd. My understanding is that children define themselves according to their experiences and consciousness more than their bodies (the technical term is megalomania, as they think that their experiences of the world around them are them). Since young children don't understand metaphor or synecdoche, my boss's daughter, as I mention in my original post, may benefit from her mother suggesting that she wants to keep her body safe, rather than just saying she wants to keep her safe.

[Montgomery Price]

Mordecai, did you watch the video?

Also, define "body", as you are using it.

I think we've come to a problem-point with language usage.

[Montgomery Price]

Really??? I think of both words of having to do with "sex" or at least wanting to have sex when the technical terms are used.

Heterosexual and homosexual in those statements are not the actual words used, but the subjects the words are being directed towards.

It's speaking about a heterosexual person, but not saying "heterosexual" out loud. Probably not even thinking it either. We don't think "heterosexual" when we see the "regular" people... But we do think "homosexual" when we see those we suspect or know to be homosexual.

[Montgomery Price]

Also, to add to the video... Why would we need to identify ourselves as the "body" you are discrediting, if it was our body?

Should we even expect to identify with the "personality" or as you claim, other "non-body" things if they actually are part of our bodies?

[cinepro]

One thing that always jumps out at me is how, when discussing dreams, we'll either say "I had a dream that my grandma told me..." or "My grandmother appeared to me in a dream and told me..."

The latter version assumes some type of supernatural "dream vision", whereas the first is a more conventional telling. It seems to be up to he person telling the story which wording to use.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai, did you watch the video?

Also, define "body", as you are using it.

I think we've come to a problem-point with language usage.

I'm defining body similarly to how one would define hardware in a computer. You can't seriously expect me to describe consciousness as part of my body, can you? Philosophers have been trying to define what consciousness is and it is still being debated today on so many levels of academia. You can't just say it's part of the body and expect a warm reception. Similarly, you can't talk like gravity is part of the earth and not expect blank stares.

[mfbukowski]

Of course you are your body. A computer is made up of hardware and software, but even the software--the information--is physical. It's stored in memory as 0s and 1s, which themselves are representations of voltages states, which are purely physical in nature. All the neat stuff a computer can do is nothing more than a manifestation of underlying physical phenomena. You can't separate the information from the physical storage and manipulation of that information.

The same goes for the human body. Your thoughts, memories, instincts, habits, etc. are electro-chemical reactions. You cannot separate those electro-chemical reactions from the physical matter they are composed of; in other words, the information you refer to IS part of ones body, and does not exist in any meaningful way apart from the body. It's more than merely "incorporated into it." Separate from the physical manifestation that is the body, a DNA code (for example) is nothing more than a series of letters. These letters, apart from the chemicals that they represent, do nothing. They don't replicate, they don't construct organs or repair cell damage. The code is meaningless without the physical structures they represent.

The same goes for thoughts. Even if someone decodes the particular language the brain uses to store and retrieve thoughts, a brain would still be required for those thoughts to actually exist. A disembodied mind (ie, a soul) is as nonsensical and impossible as computer software functioning without a computer.

You are your body, because when your body ceases to exist, so do you.

You may be your body (to me) but I am not my body (to me).

The mere fact that we speak of two entities, you, and your body, or me, and my body shows there are two things going on there. There are two viewpoints. I do not see myself as my body and I would wager you do not either.

Where precisely is the sense of "self" in YOUR body? Get out your microscope and find it please. Take a picture of it while you are at it.

That is what we are talking about. The sense of self is not a physical part of your body.

Imagine your own car, or house.

Where is that picture? Why can't I see it? If I chop you into little pieces, will I finally see that picture?

It is not a thing, it is a point of view.

Yes, it is about language use, but you see that is all we have. Every sentence on this board, every thought you think is about language use. Ever y scientific idea, every perception you tell us about, every alleged "fact", is about language use.

To avoid this problem, please do not use language in your next post.

[mfbukowski]

Where in my body is "courage"?

[Mordecai]

Where in my body is "courage"?

It's right below the medulla oblongata. heh heh

[Montgomery Price]

I'm defining body similarly to how one would define hardware in a computer. You can't seriously expect me to describe consciousness as part of my body, can you? Philosophers have been trying to define what consciousness is and it is still being debated today on so many levels of academia. You can't just say it's part of the body and expect a warm reception. Similarly, you can't talk like gravity is part of the earth and not expect blank stares.

I don't expect you to assert that consciousness is part of the body. Do you wish to assert that consciousness is not part of the body?

I'd also say, that the proposition of a physically rooted consciousness is much more likely than a non-physical entity. Given that a non-physical entity raises all sorts of problems as shown in the video.

Now, where in your body is "courage"?

Well, if you actually watched the video. The analogy was given of the camera and the ocean.

You take a picture of the ocean. Then you view the picture. Do you expect water to pour out of the camera? Is there really a non-physical entity inside the camera showing you this representation of water?

No. We know there's no "spiritual" component to a regular camera. You accept that the picture is a representation of the physical processes going to work in the camera. You wouldn't expect a representation to manifest physically as the what it is representing.

If it wasn't a representation, it would be a physical duplication.

"Courage" is a representation of the physical components of your brain. So, when you ask "where is courage?"... The neural processes and chemical reactions that create what you perceive and represent as "courage" are located in your brain.

The hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine can create chemical reactions that you would undoubtedly perceive as courage. Do you admit that, at least, the "courage" produced by adrenaline is rooted in part by a physical processes?