Dan Peterson, Football, Faith, and Freud

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Dictionary has it with -s

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jackalope

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/jackalope

AHA!  The arbiters of reality have spoken!!

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Basing what off of “common renditions”? What is your antecedent for “it”?

“The preferred”, as you put it.

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, what might have been.

By the way, if I know what one is, does that mean that in some sense jackalope "exist"?  

In some sense, yes! Have you ever read Silverlock, by John Myers Myers?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

“The preferred”, as you put it.

Still not clear. I don’t necessarily base my preference for a thing on how common it is. I’m not convinced a dictionary necessarily does either. 
 

An error or substandard usage is not rendered acceptable by its frequency. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, what might have been.

By the way, if I know what one is, does that mean that in some sense jackalope "exist"?  

In concept, yes. Anything can exist conceptually. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

AHA!  The arbiters of reality have spoken!!

There are better dictionaries than Merriam-Webster, notwithstanding MW has pretty much cornered the market on search-engine optimization. 

[Calm]

The second link takes its info from Oxford. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Still not clear. I don’t necessarily base my preference for a thing on how common it is. I’m not convinced a dictionary necessarily does either. 

I guess I am not clear about what you meant by this then:

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...although the preferred is the more common rendition of no s on the end. 

What do you mean by “the preferred”?  Are you speaking of your personal preference, or something else?  It sounded to me like you were saying “the preferred” (based on common usage) is “the more common rendition”.  I agree with that.   Preferred usage and definitions should (and are) based on common usage.  Dictionaries are basically historians of common usage of words. Definitions evolve as common usage changes.  Dictionaries are not arbiters.

“An error or substandard usage is not rendered acceptable by its frequency.”

“Substandard usage” becomes standard usage based on its “frequency” of use.  There are no language arbiters who dictate what can and cannot be standard usage.  It is all based on common usage.  That is how language exists and evolves.  No point in snubbing that and trying to change that now.  Let it evolve naturally.  All that really matters is that you understand what the person is trying to say.

Edited February 8, 2021 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

I guess I am not clear about what you meant by this then:

What do you mean by “the preferred”?  Are you speaking of your personal preference, or something else?  It sounded to me like you were saying “the preferred” (based on common usage) is “the more common rendition”.  I agree with that.   Preferred usage and definitions should (and are) based on common usage.  Dictionaries are basically historians of common usage of words. Definitions evolve as common usage changes.  Dictionaries are not arbiters.

“An error or substandard usage is not rendered acceptable by its frequency.”

“Substandard usage” becomes standard usage based on its “frequency” of use.  There are no language arbiters who dictate what can and cannot be standard usage.  It is all based on common usage.  That is how language exists and evolves.  No point in snubbing that and trying to change that now.  Let it evolve naturally.  All that really matters is that you understand what the person is trying to say.

By “preferred,” I mean the entry that is given first in the dictionary. The standard convention I was taught when growing up is that the first entry is the preferred one. It is you, not I, who jumped to the conclusion that commonality necessarily rules the day in what is preferred. It is not necessarily the case that a dictionary will give the most common definition or usage or spelling as the preferred one. Other standards may come into consideration, such as correctness in usage or meaning. 
 

And evolution in usage/meaning notwithstanding, we have to be guided by normative standards, otherwise the utility of the language is diminished. 
 

Reasonable minds can disagree on whether an ignorant conception of the meaning of “beg-the-question” should be universally embraced. But I won’t yield any ground on the need for normative standards in language. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By “preferred,” I mean the entry that is given first in the dictionary. The standard convention I was taught when growing up is that the first entry is the preferred one. It is you, not I, who jumped to the conclusion that commonality necessarily rules the day in what is preferred. It is not necessarily the case that a dictionary will give the most common definition or usage or spelling as the preferred one. Other standards may come into consideration, such as correctness in usage or meaning. 
 

And evolution in usage/meaning notwithstanding, we have to be guided by normative standards, otherwise the utility of the language is diminished. 
 

Reasonable minds can disagree on whether an ignorant conception of the meaning of “beg-the-question” should be universally embraced. But I won’t yield any ground on the need for normative standards in language. 

Historically, shared and common language is not derived from “normative standards” but is more a matter of infection which works it’s way through the culture.  The utility of language has survived thus far despite the lack of historical normative standards and despite the constant evolution of language.

If because of common usage (despite your protests) it is understood what one means by “it begs the question”, then your argument of utility is flawed.  This is probably true of most words as they have evolved beyond their original usage.  The utility is still there through common usage, you just don’t like change, it seems.

Edited February 8, 2021 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Historically, shared and common language is not derived from “normative standards” but is more a matter of infection which works it’s way through the culture.  The utility of language has survived thus far despite the lack of historical normative standards and despite the constant evolution of language.

If because of common usage (despite your protests) it is understood what one means by “it begs the question”, then your argument of utility is flawed.  This is probably true of most words as they have evolved beyond their original usage.  The utility is still there through common usage, you just don’t like change, it seems.

All of this begs the question* of weather* grammer* should be prescriptive or descriptive. 
 

Last I checked, MDDB didn’t have a style guide...

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In some sense, yes! Have you ever read Silverlock, by John Myers Myers?

No, what did you like about it?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In concept, yes. Anything can exist conceptually. 

Is there anyTHING that does not exist "conceptually" ?

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is there anyTHING that does not exist "conceptually" ?

Interesting question. 
 

I suppose anything that has not been conceived does not yet exist, even conceptually. 
 

But then, if it hasn’t been conceived is it even “a thing” (to use today’s vernacular)?

Added later: Regarding physical existence, In keeping with our doctrine, I don’t believe in creation ex nihilio (out of nothing). But for something to exist physically, it must be fashioned from extant elements. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Still not clear. I don’t necessarily base my preference for a thing on how common it is. I’m not convinced a dictionary necessarily does either. 
 

An error or substandard usage is not rendered acceptable by its frequency. 

Actually that is exactly how it is rendered acceptable. That is how language changes.  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting question. 
 

I suppose anything that has not been conceived does not yet exist, even conceptually. 
 

But then, if it hasn’t been conceived is it even “a thing” (to use today’s vernacular)?

Added later: Regarding physical existence, In keeping with our doctrine, I don’t believe in creation ex nihilio (out of nothing). But for something to exist physically, it must be fashioned from extant elements. 

The Word created all things.

Why is Jehovah/Christ NAMED "The Word?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The Word created all things.

Why is Jehovah/Christ NAMED "The Word?

 

He created all things that were made. 

“Without Him was not anything made that was made.”

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He created all things that were made. 

“Without Him was not anything made that was made.”

But seriously, what was NOT made then?

We can't say, literally.

I just think that "He made everything" says the same thing? It just seems circular to me to take it any other way, I see it just as kind of a rhetorical device to emphasize His role as Creator, as well as Messenger, Logos, the One with whom we communicate.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He created all things that were made. 

“Without Him was not anything made that was made.”

And we know from the scriptures that everything was created spiritually/conceptually (and so then verbally), right?

Jews, Catholics, Protestants and even atheist philosophers believe that first comes the concept/word, that words create all things, as you say, "that are made"

And then we even have words for concepts which were NOT made, perhaps like jackalope.

But you can go into a souvenir stand and buy a jackalope that someone made, making something that was not made? 

For me, if I can think it, it "exists". There is no gap between appearances and reality.

On that logic even atheists must admit that God exists, as a cultural force, in religion.

Edited February 9, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And we know from the scriptures that everything was created spiritually/conceptually (and so then verbally), right?

Jews, Catholics, Protestants and even atheist philosophers believe that first comes the concept/word, that words create all things, as you say, "that are made"

And then we even have words for concepts which were NOT made, perhaps like jackalope.

But you can go into a souvenir stand and buy a jackalope that someone made, making something that was not made? 

For me, if I can think it, it "exists". There is no gap between appearances and reality.

On that logic even atheists must admit that God exists, as a cultural force, in religion.

 

[rchorse]

I'm not sure if it's relevant to the thread or not, but reading through the Freudian analysis of football made me think of the way archaeologists/anthropologists today interpret and explain ancient religious structures, texts, and practices. I can't help but think that many of the modern mainstream interpretations of ancient religious structures, texts, and practices could be just as (in)accurate as the Freudian analysis of football. I've often had the thought that a society in the far future with no knowledge of television would probably conclude that televisions are religious shrines in the home and objects of worship. Now that I think about it, maybe that's not so far off... 🙂

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2021 at 6:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

No, what did you like about it?

It was a fun read! It was a nice romp through history and literature.

Your post reminded me of it, though I hadn't thought of the book in years. I read it probably thirty years ago, but not since. I'd have to buy a new copy, since I don't have one currently. Perhaps I will do so now.