1939 Newsreel Shows US Pledge of Allegiance Was Once Godless

Post Reply New Topic

If I gave them that description, and then handed them a rock, they would ask why I hadn't given them the feather that I'd promised. An actual feather is a better explaination than my words, but words can explain feathers.

Words can explain philosophy, too. Zen monks may choose, possibly for good reason, not to use words clearly. But if they really understand it, they can also speak clearly if they want to.


Then I didn't misinterpret you. If you still think I did, then say why.


This is factually incorrect. What you are describing isn't language, it's more like the communication systems of animals. Most animals have some way of saying things like, "help me!", "look, food!", "I want to mate with you", or "oh, s**t, it's a tiger!". Animal communication systems are quite adept at the basics of here-and-now life. They fail beyond that. Human language does not. For instance, we are discussing the boundaries of effectiveness of language right now -- a rather abstract subject, and not one an antelope would understand.


People other than Zen monks have been discussing the finer points of philosophy and spirituality for millenia.

When you say, 're-write the code', what exactly do you mean by that? A more advanced grammar? Different words? Different philosophical assumptions?


Part of the communication is in the context, and part of it is in the response of the listener, but everything else really is in the words.

Are you kidding? The freaking constitution ITSELF you dumbass.

No, they can't. That's my point: You cannot describe a feather to one who has never felt one. You may be able to distinguish it from a rock, or from other things, but answer me this: What is God like?

The other thing to consider is this: Sight, hearing, and even touch (though on a much more basic level) are survival necessities. Our sense of smell can be used for survival, but not very well. Taste isn't of much use if you already know what's poisonous based on sight. As such, it gets progressively more difficult to describe things as you go down the list of importance. Buddhism adds another sense to this, and that is thought. Thought is the least important to communicate for survival beyond the absolute basics of thought (commands, prohibitions, etc).



I didn't say you misinterpreted me. I said that I asked the question as best as words could confine it. Another metaphor, then: Our senses (and, keep in mind that thought is a sense in Buddhism) are the ocean, words are a cup. Can a cup contain an ocean? That question goes even beyond most peoples' oceans.



It's not that an antelope couldn't understand it because of the limits of their language. It's that an antelope doesn't have the mental capacity for such a task. Ask one of the various primates that knows sign language what it thinks of the limit of words. Because our minds have expanded, however, we have come to realize not only the complexity of language, but its limitations as well.



No, I was using a programming analogy. Words and language have been programmed, essentially, in such a way that they are capable of going beyond the absolute basics, but not much farther. In order to go beyond, into the realm of the spiritual and the internal, we cannot use words or language, we must use something else.



I apologize if I was unclear: I was referring to the use of words in Zen Buddhism.

I'm fairly sure that you're not a Supreme Court Justice, which means that you don't have the power to interpret the Constitution. I think what Orwell is requesting is that you cite the Supreme Court decisions that declare these things you claim.

Fun activity: Find the part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.

Even funner activity: Find the part of the Constitution that says that you have a right to privacy.

And the only thing they won't know is the exact subjective feeling of it. Words suffice for everything else. How is that not describing it?


I already gave you the answer to the meaning of life, now you want me to tell you what God is like?

I will note that God can be described, and things can be known about God, even though knowing him completely is impossible.


I have no idea what you're talking about here.


I answered your original question in words. The question that you said could not be answered in words.


Given our state of knowledge about language and intelligence, those two things are likely equivalent.


None of the non-human primates have learned sign language. Some have learned vocabulary in sign language, but that is quite different. They haven't been able to teach an ape grammar, though they've tried very hard to do that.


I won't argue that language has some limitations, but you are vastly overestimating them.

Uh huh. Some of your claims are supported by the Constitution, others aren't. Go back to your earlier post and substantiate your claims with quotes from the Constitution.

And let's refrain from personal attacks.

I wasn't looking for court decisions, I was looking for him to substantiate his claims with quotes from the document itself. For instance, the assertion that a standing army is prohibited seemed suspicious. I've read the Constitution and I recall no such prohibition.


It is implicit via a combination of Amendments 1, 4, and 5, along with the 9th.

Well, the thing is that the court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Average citizens don't because of this fact. My point in mentioning the right to privacy was to emphasize this issue. The right to privacy wasn't considered a Constitutional right until the court decided that it actually did exist in the Constitution. You cannot simply read the Constitution and understand your rights: Court decisions are key to understanding your rights, not the Constitution.

Another thing to consider is this: The rights guaranteed in the Constitution do not necessarily apply to the states. In fact, at one point, they didn't at all. Now, most do, but some rights are still left up to the states.



Your description is two things: 1. It is incomplete. I am not telling you to be more descriptive, I am telling you that, no matter how many words you use, you will never get a clear description of a feather. If you gave them a fake feather, or any other object that meets your description (and there are more than you think!), they would think it's a feather. 2. It is comparative. Every word you used is a comparative word. You described a feather as soft. Soft compared to what? Words are almost always comparative because they're meant to convey experiences to other members of the group that have had similar experiences as your own.



Very well, I will give you a fairer question: What is heaven like?



In Buddhism, there are six senses, including thought. The deepest level of thought (pertaining to things like heaven and the meaning of life) are useless in survival, and thus words, which were designed as a necessity for survival, are inadequate to answer these questions, or sometimes even ask them.



Except that I quite clearly stated that you didn't, because that question goes beyond mere words, as does the answer. You must first understand the question to understand this, and you quite clearly don't understand the question. You didn't misinterpret it, you just didn't understand it.



I once met a guy who thought that the humanoid form was necessary for sentience. He couldn't fathom how a dolphin, elephant, or parrot (yes, there is a breed of parrot that is considered remarkably intelligent, but not for its ability to mimic words) could possibly be considered intelligent or anywhere approaching sentient. Bees are exceptional at communicating direction, distance, and various other things necessary for survival. Tigers are not. Is a bee more intelligent than a tiger? The ability to communicate is not necessarily an issue of intelligence, but of how social a creature is. Humans are some of the most social beings on Earth, and have naturally developed a considerable vocabulary. Yes, we are also more intelligent. Those two factors combined affect our communication. Without our social nature, however, we would not require much in the way of language.

Agreed. However, the type of person who rants about "the Constitution" often does not understand this fact or denies the validity of Supreme Court interpretations that are at odds with their own. So I asked him to point to where in the primary document he draws his views from.


Indeed. These laws only refer to things the federal government can't do, or at least they did initially. Most have since been incorporated into the state level, blurring the lines of our federalist system.

I actually think of our form of government as unitarian federalism. Due to the supremacy clause, this is actually the way it's set up to act (federalism that leans slightly towards unitarianism); due to the elastic clause, it leans very far into the unitarian system. It's true that states still have considerable power (in comparison to unitarian governments), but the national government clearly has more power than the states, especially with federal mandates.

Perhaps, but a cursory glance at the Tenth Amendment implies a very strict federalism, and Amendment 10 certainly seems considerably stronger than the "elastic clause," at least if we are just going by a plain reading of the document and not bothering with court precedent and historical context.

LOL That's a way of putting it!

I found the idea of Tao that words can't really convey the great spirituals trues quite interessing, even tough I still don't know what to think about that...
The words certainly have their limits, as the one who listen will always interpret them diferently (depending on beliefs, philosophy and experiences) from the message that was intended to be said. It is their greatest weakness, but also their greatest strength.
For example, if I put in words the way I see the meaning In life, I say "living". Its when the ambiguity of words are strong as the way to intepret it will be different for each individuals, which lead each of them to the way that sastifate them the most.

Well that about it now for contribution of the tread on the...."Us pledge"

Since you find words so useless I wonder why you keep using them to declaim their lack of utility.

Do you read Sluggy Freelance? If so, I would highly recommend that you go and read through "The Sluggite Koan," by T. Campbell. It's in Chapter 46 of the story. Or I could provide to you a link to the beginning, I guess. If you don't read SF, you can still read "The Sluggite Koan," but I'd recommend skipping over anything that doesn't have Georg (the guy on the couch) in it.

(Edit: To explain this: The way he discovered the answer was his experiences, and his experiences were the answer.)



Not useless, merely unable to convey things beyond a certain level.

The only other thing I can think of that in any way resembles my description is a leaf. It would not be hard to extend my description to exclude leaves.


I fail to see how this is a drawback.

In any case, not all words are comparative, or can even be used as a comparative. Adjectives can be used comparatively, but are more often used descriptively. Like the word 'soft' in my description. My description doesn't include comparative softness. It could have, but it didn't.


It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You'll just declare that I've misunderstood the question.


What makes you say that?


Why should I pay attention to statements of yours that contradict reality? You asked. I answered.

That you stated that I didn't answer afterwards doesn't change the fact that I did.


No it doesn't, as evidenced by your putting the question into words, and my putting my answer into words.


In other words, I don't understand what you're talking about, but that's somehow my fault, not yours for not saying what you mean.

Why did you say what you said if that's not what you meant?

In any case, what's to stop me from arbitrarily declaring that I did understand the question, but you didn't understand my answer?


They aren't sentient. Maybe intelligent, but not sentient. When is the last time you had a deep, philosophical conversation with a parrot? Or even a shallow, non-philosophical one?


We might not have gained language in the first place without social interactions, but social interactions are not the limit of language. Language has numerous uses even for a hermit.

Language allows thoughts to be crystallized and communicated, recalled, written down, etc.