One thing that stuck out to me was the suggestion of a separate badge, determined by a standardized test of some sort, as a proxy for the intelligence signaling that would be unavailable to speakers of a language devoid of the synonyms we have (which as you pointed out, exist on a gradient of intellectual prestige).
I’m more interested in the implications of the opposite—a forum where pure concepts are in dialogue without the trappings or filters afforded by the diverse ways to express them. It could establish sort of an anonymous meritocracy, forcing people to navigate the logic of others’ perspectives objectively. It would likely ameliorate some of the prejudice associated with various dialects, or the lack of them.
It would depend on, and I am myself unsure of this, whether one thinks those trappings are misleading or convey important information. When we leave out the subtext provided by phrasing, diction, or even, (as has started many ad hominem/ad spelling-em arguments on the internet), grammar and spelling — are we purifying an idea to engage in more objective conversation, or missing out on valid portions of meaning?
I agree with the overarching premise that ideas exist independently of the words we use to describe them. But whether different semantics elucidate, inform, or obscure the ideas themselves is a rabbit hole that’s way above my paygrade.
I could phrase my second paragraph “If people could judge each other based on their ideas, and not the way they talk, we could avoid certain ideas being ignored for not important reasons. We could also avoid ideas being respected for not important reasons”.
It’s pretty much the same. It’s hard for me to pinpoint what’s gained or lost, or more importantly, whether what’s gained or lost is valuable.
As an aside, would it be possible that a reduced lexicon, out of which complex concepts had to be assembled like legos, would diversify our range of thought through invention, or make room for more creative associations? I could see such a language being a fertile place, and not a graveyard, for ‘poetry’, or more intuitive meaning-making. I’m sure everyone knew what I meant by ad spelling-em arguments on the internet. And that’s not a ‘real word’.
But to bring even that back to the concept-over-dialect idea—don’t we all have an instinctive smirk when someone who disagrees with us uses the incorrect version of ‘your’? I know, in my mind, I experience the easiest emotion—contempt—first, and only analyze the opposite opinion if I have the energy and inclination. Some of you might be better at this than I am, but the internet is evidence that many are not.
In the end, maybe it wouldn’t matter at all. We could extrapolate, and become opinionated on, others’ supposed worldviews (level of consciousness) even if we were all communicating with the same lexicon. People who don’t think critically now likely won’t start in a new semantic setting.
A good chunk of the material on this site makes me realize why Robert Pirsig’s Pheadrus went insane. Every good answer only gives rise to more questions. It’s difficult (for me) to find a convergent conclusion to divergent thinking.
One thing that stuck out to me was the suggestion of a separate badge, determined by a standardized test of some sort, as a proxy for the intelligence signaling that would be unavailable to speakers of a language devoid of the synonyms we have (which as you pointed out, exist on a gradient of intellectual prestige).
I’m more interested in the implications of the opposite—a forum where pure concepts are in dialogue without the trappings or filters afforded by the diverse ways to express them. It could establish sort of an anonymous meritocracy, forcing people to navigate the logic of others’ perspectives objectively. It would likely ameliorate some of the prejudice associated with various dialects, or the lack of them.
It would depend on, and I am myself unsure of this, whether one thinks those trappings are misleading or convey important information. When we leave out the subtext provided by phrasing, diction, or even, (as has started many ad hominem/ad spelling-em arguments on the internet), grammar and spelling — are we purifying an idea to engage in more objective conversation, or missing out on valid portions of meaning?
I agree with the overarching premise that ideas exist independently of the words we use to describe them. But whether different semantics elucidate, inform, or obscure the ideas themselves is a rabbit hole that’s way above my paygrade.
I could phrase my second paragraph “If people could judge each other based on their ideas, and not the way they talk, we could avoid certain ideas being ignored for not important reasons. We could also avoid ideas being respected for not important reasons”.
It’s pretty much the same. It’s hard for me to pinpoint what’s gained or lost, or more importantly, whether what’s gained or lost is valuable.
As an aside, would it be possible that a reduced lexicon, out of which complex concepts had to be assembled like legos, would diversify our range of thought through invention, or make room for more creative associations? I could see such a language being a fertile place, and not a graveyard, for ‘poetry’, or more intuitive meaning-making. I’m sure everyone knew what I meant by ad spelling-em arguments on the internet. And that’s not a ‘real word’.
But to bring even that back to the concept-over-dialect idea—don’t we all have an instinctive smirk when someone who disagrees with us uses the incorrect version of ‘your’? I know, in my mind, I experience the easiest emotion—contempt—first, and only analyze the opposite opinion if I have the energy and inclination. Some of you might be better at this than I am, but the internet is evidence that many are not.
In the end, maybe it wouldn’t matter at all. We could extrapolate, and become opinionated on, others’ supposed worldviews (level of consciousness) even if we were all communicating with the same lexicon. People who don’t think critically now likely won’t start in a new semantic setting.
A good chunk of the material on this site makes me realize why Robert Pirsig’s Pheadrus went insane. Every good answer only gives rise to more questions. It’s difficult (for me) to find a convergent conclusion to divergent thinking.