Language, Sense And A Belief In Ownership

[pagetheoracle]

 

Verbal language is social.  That means it is about assumptions about ownership (pecking order) and asking, not taking.  Physical exchange is visual (masculine) and acts without thought for others, just your own urges.  It sees ’things’ not ‘beings’ and is the predator, not the herbivore or social animal (ant, bee, termite etc).  It is the individual warrior, not the soldier in an army.  It cannot talk but it can see.  It is the unpredictable outsider, the rebel, the outcast, the hermit, the sorcerer, the sage, the mystic, the insane (unstable) when compared to the rest of society.  It is the visionary lost in the future (prophet), not the valued follower of society, living in the present but grounded in the past.

 

Could The above observation be behind sexual differences and attitudes?  Could it also explain crime in terms of sense orientation?

[pgrmdave]

 

Verbal language is social.  That means it is about assumptions about ownership (pecking order) and asking, not taking.  Physical exchange is visual (masculine) and acts without thought for others, just your own urges.  It sees ’things’ not ‘beings’ and is the predator, not the herbivore or social animal (ant, bee, termite etc).  It is the individual warrior, not the soldier in an army.  It cannot talk but it can see.  It is the unpredictable outsider, the rebel, the outcast, the hermit, the sorcerer, the sage, the mystic, the insane (unstable) when compared to the rest of society.  It is the visionary lost in the future (prophet), not the valued follower of society, living in the present but grounded in the past.

 

Could The above observation be behind sexual differences and attitudes?  Could it also explain crime in terms of sense orientation?

 

All language is social - language is used to communicate so there are at least two entities involved.  Saying "Verbal language is social" is a meaningless statement unless you qualify and quantify that.

 

Being social has nothing to do with ownership or pecking orders - again, qualify/quantify this.  What are you trying to say?

 

What is "physical exchange"?  Why is being visual masculine?

 

None of this rant makes sense - it just barely passes the turing test.  And no - the above observation cannot be behind anything, as it is both nonsensical and nonspecific.

[pagetheoracle]

All language is social - language is used to communicate so there are at least two entities involved.  Saying "Verbal language is social" is a meaningless statement unless you qualify and quantify that.

 

Being social has nothing to do with ownership or pecking orders - again, qualify/quantify this.  What are you trying to say?

 

What is "physical exchange"?  Why is being visual masculine?

 

None of this rant makes sense - it just barely passes the turing test.  And no - the above observation cannot be behind anything, as it is both nonsensical and nonspecific.

Sorry for late reply:  You may have heard of the bad storms we've had over here in the UK for the last few days, which disrupted me emails as well as blocked out satellite TV.

 

To clarify: I'm trying to differentiate between verbal and visual communication and your way of interpreting 'social' is not how I'm defining it here.  Visual reaction to others is direct, one to one (You looking out at the world and the world looking back at you:  A hundred people can stare at one person but only one person can stare back - in other words it is an individual response (even the hundred people are doing it one to one, collectively:  It isn't a hundred pair of eyes from a single being but several individuals isn't it?).

 

Being social is saying I'm not a threat but the eyes freak people out when it is accompanied by silence, haven't you found?  Therefore it is more threatening, wouldn't you agree (predatory behaviour).

 

Physical exchange is being masculine men are doers - certainly at the lower end of the scale as we see with manual workers and the love of sport, plus male rather than female violence being the norm (I think this is because women are simply smarter than men and can talk their way out of situations that males respond to with their fists because they are not as verbally apt:  My experience - is it yours?).  Also sex for males is centred on vision or why porn movies and mags, aimed at men? Anthropology and the male as hunter / predator (historical indicator). 

 

Ownership and pecking order?  If you have to ask for something from somebody else (being polite), that implies ownership and not by you but them.  Pecking order is also implied in that they, the givers, are top dogs and you the taker are underdogs.  Is that any clearer?

 

Crime is I believe an attitude towards all this in that a male wouldn't think twice about taking because visual 'language' is about stimulus-response (I see, I want, I take - caveman style).  Sophisticated society or verbal response would be 'You can't take as it doesn't belong to you,' which is as I say 'social/verbal' not 'unsocial/visual.'  Does crime really exist in this sense or is it a clash of attitudes, between crude, more primitive males and more social females as diversified in human society but not fixed necessarily as evinced by societies outside The Western model.  I'm trying to make sense of the phenomena, using the terms at hand. 

 

I'm sorry if it led to misunderstanding on your part. To me (and others?) your response seems more like a rant or reaction than what I took to be an insight on my part.

[ErlyRisa]

You left out...the male (modern) that rants.

 

A new dynamic (apart from old worlde comedy) has been spawn in male society (however femal it may appear)

--Too be able too speak more than one tongue at a time (otondra)...this I find to be more of a male art.

 

---otondra speak, and the reasoning for males being more apt.

 

say female is gatherer, collecting firewood, having a chat about how and why big Joe is always the one dragging the dear into camp.

:Male of the time on the other hand has to stay quite: and therfore quite visual in order to garner a deer for said tribe of women.

b/c of a quite nature (male), the male, learns "other" language...eg. thalanguage of the wind, the smell of the dear, the sound of the birds as they call out too say "idiot human trying to hunt dear nearby".

 

Oracle: Yes. I understand your view point. It is being succint and understanding the ontondra speak of the "higher" (pecking) , scientifically adept speaker, that finds using a typical language set , and being hush in another manner is the normacy of soceity.....FOR: they (the ones with commodity) are actually out of ideas: they are just better at looking like they still have some.'

[pagetheoracle]

Another aspect is experience.   If you've experienced something similar, you can remember your own experience as an approximation of the incident (personal analogy+ e.g. falling off a horse, compared to falling off a motorbike).  If you haven't had anything similar occur in your life, then you can only use an impersonal analogy (If you've never seen a UFO*, then a sci-fi film, might give you an idea of what the person may have seen).

 

Another problem with language is that if you don't have an insight into how something works, then you can't be made to see as a teacher pointed out on a recent TV program in the UK.  If you don't have words in common to describe something, then even new terms fail to convey the meaning, which could explain the point above.

 

+ Hence like and as appearing so often in conversations, where something is unknown to one or more participants.

 

*or something futuristic, limited to a few spectators, hence neologisms.