default header

Theory

Regarding Semantics

Moderator: JC Denton

Regarding Semantics

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Mar 2009 17:59

This keeps coming up all the time when people talk about my articles -- whether they are about "gameplay", "art", "RPGs", genres, or whatever.

Tyrien wrote:Why do people try and argue semantics like it makes a difference.

Seriously, that's all he's doing.


http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.ph ... ost3956442

The idea that semantics are "silly" and that there is no point in discussing them is ridiculous, and I have no idea how the rabble acquired this stupid notion. Most probably because such discussions can be subtle and difficult to understand, and therefore immediately rejected by those who fail to do so.

The truth, of course, as always, is the exact opposite. Nothing is more important than semantics, because all our knowledge and understanding of the world is ultimately based on signs.

Wittgenstein wrote:In philosophy the question, 'What do we actually use this word or this proposition for?' repeatedly leads to valuable insights.
Last edited by icycalm on 08 Mar 2009 18:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Mar 2009 18:09

Let me rephrase that -- not our understanding of the world, but our communication of that understanding -- something which, for our purposes, comes down to the same thing.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby mees » 09 Mar 2009 03:26

Isn't all perception of signs?
mees
 
Joined: 30 Sep 2008 02:51

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Mar 2009 03:40

No. Perception is signals. Electrical signals, to be exact. Signs are another thing altogether.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Mar 2009 04:26

This is a decent definition for the concept 'sign':

A symbol or word used to represent an operation, instruction, concept, or object.

And since operations, instructions, concepts and objects do not really exist, and since we alone are responsible for inventing them, signs are human inventions -- or artistic creations, if you like. And we are all artists in this respect.

Or, to be more precise, a few of us are. Most are simply content to use (or abuse, as the case may be) the signs that their grandfathers passed on to them (which were passed on to them by their grandfathers, etc. etc. all the way back to the ancients). This is also the reason that many, if not all, of our most important signs are logically inconsistent with one another, and hence why practically all conversations on important matters never lead anywhere except straight to absurdity.

To avoid this, the system of signs used must be logically consistent. This means that one can invent an infinity of sign systems, but only those which are logically consistent (which are also infinite) will lead to understanding -- i.e. a reasonably accurate representation of the world in signs.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby walrusdawg » 09 Mar 2009 05:36

Well Sapir-Whorf hypothesizes that our understanding, and not merely our communication, of the world does depend on the signs we have learned.

But the issue here is whether semantics is trivial or not. And of course it is not. Semantics is nothing more than meaning. Nothing. If you say you do not care about semantics then you are saying that you do not care about the meaning of what you write or say.

So why the fuck should anyone else?
User avatar
walrusdawg
 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 08:49

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Mar 2009 14:31

walrusdawg wrote:Well Sapir-Whorf hypothesizes that our understanding, and not merely our communication, of the world does depend on the signs we have learned.


Of course it does, but there are things we learn for which no signs will ever be invented, because they are unique to each of us as individuals. Signs, on the other hand, are things we have in common, and must necessarily be so if they are to make sense to more than one person.

So the most personal things cannot be communicated, which explains, for example, why "aesthetics cannot be put into words" (Wittgenstein). You can say that you prefer blue to yellow, for example, but you cannot express why you prefer it, though there exists of course a reason. Etc.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby mees » 09 Mar 2009 23:12

Icy, your post about someone's preference between blue and yellow reminded me of this sentence:

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:When we speak of taste—an expression not chosen with any regard for it—we mean the discovery, or, it may be only the recognition, of what is right aesthetically, apart from the guidance of any rule; and this, either because no rule has as yet been extended to the matter in question, or else because, if existing, it is unknown to the artist, or the critic, as the case may be.


Here, it seems like Schopenhauer is using "rule" not to mean natural law, but something like a written expression of a law. The latter part of the sentence seems to say that there are some aesthetic laws which have been discovered and put into words, and some which haven't; in the second case, a person's "taste" comes into play. So, is he saying that aesthetic issues can be explained with words, to some degree, or am I totally misunderstanding this?
mees
 
Joined: 30 Sep 2008 02:51

Unread postby icycalm » 10 Mar 2009 00:15

Don't bother yourself too much with what Schopenhauer had to say on the subject of aesthetics. His entire aesthetics theory was laughably wrong. As for that particular passage:

mees wrote:Here, it seems like Schopenhauer is using "rule" not to mean natural law, but something like a written expression of a law.


'Rule' and 'natural law', in this context, mean exactly the same thing, and that is what Schopenhauer meant. Your "written expression of a law", on the other hand, means nothing.

mees wrote:The latter part of the sentence seems to say that there are some aesthetic laws which have been discovered and put into words, and some which haven't; in the second case, a person's "taste" comes into play.


A person's taste always comes into play. And this is true even for aspects for which rules have already been discovered. Take, for example, my aesthetic rule for videogames which says that increasing complexity is always a good thing. I discovered this rule -- but what does that mean? Does that mean that every single person on this planet will from now on judge games according to this rule? No -- everyone will keep on following their tastes, which is indeed the correct thing to do. The difference is that MY taste is superior to that of the others, which is why MY rule will end up dominating in the long run.

mees wrote:So, is he saying that aesthetic issues can be explained with words, to some degree, or am I totally misunderstanding this?


Like I said, it is not important what he is saying, because he was confused on the subject, even if he didn't quite realize it.

The bottom line is that aesthetic choices (which in the last resort means ALL choices) can never truly be "explained". You can break things down as much as you want and analyze them as much as you want, but at the end of the day you will have to make a choice between several different, let us say, elementary options -- a choice which will be impossible to put into words, because it stems from very subtle aspects of your physiological makeup, for which words have not and never will be invented.

I will explain all this in detail in my "Acquiring Taste" essay. It is an extremely complicated subject, and even in that essay I am not going to explain everything 100%. More like around 80%. The rest I will explain in the second book, for whoever cares to really understand the issue. It is seriously mind-blowing when you understand where exactly aesthetic choices are coming from.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Afterburn » 10 Mar 2009 01:31

icycalm wrote:It is seriously mind-blowing when you understand where exactly aesthetic choices are coming from.


Isn't taste determined simply by one's genetic makeup?
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby icycalm » 10 Mar 2009 01:36

In a way. But this taste does not exist in a vacuum, and it also comes to evolve over time. So these choices are not preprogrammed, because in order to manifest themselves, they need the action of the environment on the individual. The question then becomes, why does THIS genetic makeup make THAT choice in THIS particular situation, and no other? It is obviously not making choices at random, so on what criteria are those choices based? The individual may not be aware of the criteria, and he is certainly not capable of communicating them, but they nonetheless exist.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Worm » 10 Mar 2009 02:34

You have said elsewhere on this forum, "Morals are conventions. Any convention is just as valid as any other."

So do you say that there are superior moral tastes?

Certainly people feel that way, but I can't see how to bridge the gap between "I prefer this aesthetic/moral" to "my preference is superior," even if people could explain their preferences in a coherent way. We can invent criteria and say that "superior" just means, for example, "results in less murder," but otherwise I cannot even guess what you will say on this subject (I certainly don't think it'll be anything along those lines!).

I will wait patiently for the article and book, but until they drop, how about a hint?
Last edited by Worm on 10 Mar 2009 02:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Worm
 
Joined: 20 Dec 2008 21:06

Unread postby icycalm » 10 Mar 2009 02:43

You are very observant.

Worm wrote:So do you say that there are superior moral tastes?


Yes. (In Nietzsche's terms: slave and master moralities.)

Remember also this:

Wittgenstein wrote:Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same thing.


As for this:

Worm wrote:I will wait patiently for the article and book, but until they drop, how about a hint?


In Nietzschean terms, an individual's ethical and aesthetic choices are expressions of his Will to Power. Indeed, they are the Will to Power's only means of expression.

The superiority of a moral or aesthetic choice, therefore, cannot be determined BEFORE that choice is made. As in any fight -- the winner is declared he who is left standing at the end.

Morals and aesthetics fight battles just like men do. Remember also Heraclitus.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Nervicide » 10 Mar 2009 14:00

icycalm wrote:The question then becomes, why does THIS genetic makeup make THAT choice in THIS particular situation, and no other?


Parents, the way you are brought up by them that is. I know it sounds crude, but let's be honest, no matter what genetic wild-card of a genius child Billy Bob and Mary Jane may receive from mother nature, them raising their kid in a trailer outside bumblefuck saskatewan or wrinkletit arknansas, will not help their offspring aquire a heightened sense of taste.

The kid, named Billy Bobby, may have a chance, but that would require one mean motherfuckin' lucky dice roll; which would manisfest itself in the way of a benevolent schoolteacher that catches him solve a complicated chemistry problem on a huge green chalkboard in college, where Billy Bobby was hired as a janitor and flesh puppet by the Dean, Mister. Knownsworth.

But by the end of the day, very few get such dice rolls twice (the first being his genetic composite) , let alone once... so Billy Bobby will probably end up knocking up his mother, Mary Jane, and using his big gray luscious brain to chop up his dad and shove him in the walls of their Panamerican.
Then he and his mom would probably find a very interesting post-it on the news board in the very college in which, in an alternate life, he would have found his mentor and lover, the witty absent minded chemistry teacher, that actually passes them as Billy Bobby skims the newsboard.

He grabs the post-it, which asked for companions regarding a trip across the american wasteland in search for famous murder sites and homes of famous murderes, and calls his future roadtrip companions, a hot brunette photo/video skank and her lover, a long haired handsome wannabe writer... and the rest is legend.


Of course, entourage, neighborhood and such are also very important, naturally. I mean, If I were to show LuckyLicks, a black skinny gangsta' motherfucker that grew up in the mean streets of harlem, a diamond encrusted platinum plated over gold plated rolex (which means nothing to me, since I wear a calculator watch) , and ask him "want this?" He would without a doubt, say "jyeah!" and grab it before I can even finish my question, after which he would stab me in the liver.
Then he would prance around the block showing off to his homies and Laqueesha, the neighborhood hoe that was too rich for his blood. All this until Tyrone, the real top dog and Laqueesha's pimp, comes along and stabs him in the liver. Poor LuckyLicks, his ambition got the best of him...

If I were to show the same diamond encrusted platinum plated over gold plated rolex to Obama, and ask him if he would like it, he would say " No thanks, I'm the president... and half white."


Meaning that, in the end, the most important "dice roll" an organism will ever make is who will his parents be. Since that will place him/it somewhere in history, and somewhere in the food chain. One's aesthetic sense is ultimately linked to this very important dice roll. I mean... it's pretty simple right? The day and age you live in, the current state of affairs, etc, all affect not only your genetic composite but also your growth, and therefore your aesthetic sense... all this boils down to your fucking parents, which in turn boil down to their fucking parents, and their fucking parents, and their fucking parents, all boiling down to a whole lot of very important fucking.

I know everything I just said is extremely crude for you guys. I think we should be more worried about the lack of common sense in our peers than their level of aesthetic knowle-... shit, they're the same thing aren't they? Oh boy, we are so fucked.
Nervicide
 
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 11:43

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Apr 2009 19:09

Here is an example of an artfag getting out of a conceptual difficulty by muddling about with words:

Herr Toups wrote:what it comes down to for me is that MGS's controls aren't "complex" so much as they are "detailed", and that detail functions aesthetically in much the same it might in a drawing: it calls attention to things which are normally ignored...


http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopi ... 420#515420

As if detail was not merely another form of complexity!

Also: "Detail calls attention to things which are normally ignored", lol. What things? Other details?

Also:

Herr Toups wrote:MGS's control scheme is meticulously thought out and actually quite elegant for its complexity, and this complexity isn't pointless since it expresses and embodies the basic gameplay themes that the series is based around, while also creating a unique kind of immersion that appeals to the body/brain instead of the senses.


"Basic gameplay themes", lol. The guy must have been really sweating. Note that this guy loved my "gameplay" article when it was first published.

All of which leads us back to Schopenhauer:

Schopenahauer wrote:The fatal tendency to be satisfied with words instead of trying to understand things -— to learn phrases by heart, so that they may prove a refuge in time of need, exists, as a rule, even in children; and the tendency lasts on into manhood, making the knowledge of many learned persons to consist in mere verbiage.


http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_education/

Also (emphasis is mine):

Nietzsche wrote:We need not worry for a moment about the hypothesis of a created world. The concept "create" is today completely indefinable [This word is illegible.], unrealizable; merely a word, a rudimentary survival from the ages of superstition; one can explain nothing with a mere word. The last attempt to conceive a world that had a beginning has lately been made several times with the aid of logical procedures--generally, as one may divine, with an ulterior theological motive.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Bradford » 02 Apr 2009 20:38

Herr Toup wrote:a unique kind of immersion that appeals to the body/brain instead of the senses


Yeah, it particularly appealed to my eyes and ears instead of my sight and hearing... Honestly, how do these people make it through the day without getting squashed underfoot or eaten by something bigger than they are?
You know he knows just exactly what the facts is.
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA


Return to Theory