A bit more on who defines words.  I need to thank Mark for being such a
great straight man for saying this like:



“You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.  The
environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point
of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't.”



There aren’t yet words in the dictionaries for new things theoreticians and
scientists are discovering like effing the ineffable
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_102-2Deff_2&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=esLlMbKHkWgLkVTX_2-f-BNB1NaefC78jNExXti5vB8&s=kD8Jh7ulB2vIy3cvDbmuTaHJzWpL8Wa5huaBJtE9Iec&e=> which is being canonized in that
survey topic on the best word to use.  Today, it takes hours of discussion
with another philosopher, only to finally realize you are talking about the
same thing, just using different terminology.



Also, the current bad (ambiguous) definition of words like “red”, contained
in the Oxford English Dictionary, is one of the primary reasons we have
such a hard time understanding what consciousness is.  So, if you want to
see what the emerging expert consensus is saying is a better definition for
the word “red”, and a new definition for the word “redness” (the label for
a very different set of physical qualities in our brain we can be directly
aware of)  both of which I predict will eventually show up in a hopefully,
someday, no longer qualia blind Oxford Dictionary, again see “Representational
Qualia Theory <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=esLlMbKHkWgLkVTX_2-f-BNB1NaefC78jNExXti5vB8&s=AQbppq-NQX7yjobuWp2KLqGKhQM46cZM9vm3O8sQco8&e=>”.



And if Mark still doesn't like my usage of the term "canon", he is welcome
to canonize that view, to see if anyone else agrees with him.  If there are
lots of people that think this way, we can make an effort to appease this
view.  Our goal is always to first, find out, concisely and quantitatively,
what everyone wants (by definition, consensus) and then find creative ways
to get it all, for everyone.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> John/Gregg:
>
> This is *classic* . . . !!
>
> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC.  Two different "sensibilities."
> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ??
>
> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are
> *both* now obsolete.  Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror."  Both
> looking backwards.
>
>  From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language
> systems."  From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all
> this out -- "scientifically."
>
> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked.  Neither
> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different
> psycho-technological environments are at work.  And neither will those
> who participate in the "Canonizer" game.
>
> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely
> different sensibility to the "debate."
>
> Yes, this is classic . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC.  And
> it cannot be decided by a "vote."  It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law."
>   What a world of surprises awaits us all.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e=
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1