Use of Words

2002-10-8 14:18:00

Larry:
What you seem to be saying is that we can only communicate clearly if we accept your definition and meaning as being the only definition and meaning that can be discussed or used. For the reasons given above I do not accept that assertion.

JJ:
I am saying that in responding to what I write that it only makes sense that you use my clearly explained definition or else there will be confusion. This has nothing to do with me dictating to you what you can use on your own. Otherwise, it is like me talking about a branch office and you talking about the branch of a tree.

Now if you want to start another subject where you are talking about branches of a tree then it makes sense to use a different definition. The point is I know what I am trying to say, I give you my definition, and when readers respond as if a different definition is in use then it makes it sound like I disagree when I do not.

I have done this successfully with the much difficult word "soul." I gave the group my definition (which is not even in the dictionary) the group accepted it and read my writings accordingly. Because they did this we were able to move forward with understanding. Why we cannot do this with the much more simple word of "tyranny" is difficult to assess. It's almost like some do not want to understand what I am trying to say and insist my words are interpreted from their definitions rather than my own. This, of course, makes understanding impossible.

According to the way I use the word tyranny it is about a much different situation than when you use it. I accept the way you think about it, but if you want to understand my writings you must understand how it is defined by me (and many others) when using it.