RE: Why do we need definitions?

RE: Why do we need definitions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 10:52:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Labels are shortcuts and they have all the benfits and shortcomings of any shortcut. I am not sure I could put it any better than that, Archer. Labels are needed is to BDSM and D/s what Cliff Notes are to Shakespeare. One can read the Cliff Notes to write an essay for 10th grade English and get a C. (That would be an average grade written by somebody who used Cliff Notes to shortcut having to actually read Shakespeare) Or one can actually read Shakespeare, understand what he meant, and write an essay which earns an A (That would be an above average grade by somebody with a superior understanding of Shakespeare's writing) So when you apply that basic idea of shortcutting a complex subject to the need to label what we do, I suppose if one wants to remain average and not poke one's head above the herd, then get out your label maker and go to town. I would respectfully request that you keep your label maker away from either myself or my submissive. Thank you very much, Sinergy

missturbation -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 10:56:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Its human nature to want to make everything fit into a little labelled box. We do not in general like things which dont quite fit anywhere. Just my opinion. I disagree. My human nature doesnt want to make everything fit into a little labelled box. Additionally, I dont have any problem at all with things that dont quite fit anywhere. I would rather observe and attempt to arrive at my own understanding of what something is, as opposed to cutting and pasting a label on something and think I understood what it is. But this is just me... Sinergy I did say in general and its what ive found with most people. I never said all people fit into this little box i say exists.

Padriag -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 10:58:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, the purpose wasn't to get people to stop posting things I don't like; the purpose was to ask what we get out of all the definitions threads. If the answer is "nothing," then all right, I'll just avoid those threads. I thought MAYBE there was some value to them that I've been missing. What most people who genuinely ask what the definitions of or differences between different things are seeking is understanding. The reason we don't have clear definitions to give them is because this "community" is made up of rabid individualist who couldn't agree on what color the sky is... much less the definitions of basic terms like "master", "slave", "dominant", "submissive", etc. The result is the same questions keep being asked without any definitive answer, then predictable arguments ensue between individualists with opposing ideas regarding what the answer is (most based on highly personal concepts and not a single rational idea in sight), the "newbie" wanders off dazed and confused or sides with whomever impressed them most, and the rest of us either ignore it or occasionally try to step in only to be frustrated by the situation which in turn results in the occasional thread about how all these "threads about definitions" are stupid and pointless. And the fun just never ends, and won't end, until people agree on some definitions. Why do we need definitions? Because that's how you know what I mean when I say I'm a spelunker. If there was no definition of that word, the only way I could explain it would be to spend a paragraph or more of text, describing what that is everytime I told someone new that I'm a spelunker... which would quickly get tiresome (and it does, because often people have no idea what a spelunker is). Definitions aren't "evil" or "bad" and in fact can be quite useful. But there is a lot of frustration over them in this particular area precisely because we don't have them. The questions are never going to stop so long as there are new people trying to figure out WIITWD (we don't even have an agreed upon name for it, as if that itself weren't a billboard for how divided and disagreeable we've become). And so long as they keep asking, we'll keep seeing arguments over the answers... until one day, hopefully, people decide to let go of all their personal attachments to "labels" and accept some common definitions so that we can stop arguing, communicate more efficiently, and get back to whatever it is you do for fun. Speaking of which... I have some fun to get back to.

mnottertail -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:01:34 AM)
I would like to define the whale as undoubtably one of the largest animals alive today. Can we agree to that? Ron

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:03:00 AM)
As opposed to what other community of human beings? Instead of deploring the alleged rabid individualism of a community that you're not going to change anyway, why not just accept the fact that people are never going to accept the same definitions? I'm not saying that definitions are useless, and maybe my thread title was imprecise, in that I'm not asking why we need definitions per se; I'm asking why we need thread after thread that hinge on definitions. I don't find them illuminating because you don't learn anything new about reality; you just learn how different people define things. (And how aggressive some people can get when others refuse to accept their way of dividing up the world.) quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag The reason we don't have clear definitions to give them is because this "community" is made up of rabid individualist who couldn't agree on what color the sky is... much less the definitions of basic terms like "master", "slave", "dominant", "submissive", etc.

Noah -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:05:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, the purpose wasn't to get people to stop posting things I don't like; the purpose was to ask what we get out of all the definitions threads. If the answer is "nothing," then all right, I'll just avoid those threads. I thought MAYBE there was some value to them that I've been missing. I think there is a distinction to be seen but which is usually passed over in those discussions. In my view it is a very different sort of a project to attempt a definition of a word like "hero", say, than a word like "fireman". Yeah there are tons of differences between those two concepts but the one which I find helpful to focus on in this context is that in calling someone a fireman one is usually more or less offering a fact, whereas in calling someone a hero one is offering an evaluation. I think that the matter of whether someone is a professional dom, for instance, is pretty factual--though as in most things there are gray areas at the edges. The effort to "define" a person (or an action) as dominant or submissive, on the other hand, (just for a couple of examples,) strikes me as more like offering evaluations. The effort to define the word dominant or submissive--much more useful than defining people, as has been pointed out in some of those threads--should therefore take into account the different way that evaluation words operate in language and in life when compared to what we might call fact-oriented words. And these fact vs. value words vary along a continuum, I think. They aren't two blackandwhite categories. The word "define" seems much more comfortable and serviceable in regard to matters of fact. Why? Well because facts themselves seem better "defined" than evaluations in one important sense. When we use "define" in regard to matters of evaluation--which is still fine to do--I think that even though it is still the same word, the activity of applying it is different enough to warrant careful notice. Heroic is a word that is tough to pin down. Show me a dictionary definition and I can probably show you another reasonable one which differs in some significant way. Furthermore either of us could probably find a behavior somewhere which we would agree is heroic but which slips through a cracks in both of those particular definitions. And of course one man's hero is often another man's villian in virtue of the very same behaviors. The word heroic can be reasonably applied to a wide range of cases in a wide range of ways. They may not all even have any one thing in common. Even fairly factual words like "tool" and "game" turn out to work like this. But rather than have one thing in common, like "tool" and "game" all cases of "heroic" can be seen to partake of some degree of family resemblance. We can (most of us) "get" this necessary and perfectly fine ambiguity which arises from "heroic"'s uses in language and life. We can disagree about what or who is heroic and effectively use the word "heroic" in our dispute despite the fact that we maybe can't define it to the nth degree. When two people disagree about whether Joe is a fireman they seem to be disputing a matter of fact. The presence or absence of Joe's name on the roster down at the firehall might be accepted as settling the matter. This shows that the subject (or maybe, the "truth maker") of the word fireman is something that is or isn't the case, out in the world. If two people dispute over whether Joe's behavior last night was heroic, then even though they are talking about his behavior (a "thing" out in the world) the fundamental subject matter of their dispute seems to me to be the juxtaposition of two notions of the idea of heroism. The disputants' evaluations differ and it is their evaluations of the behavior that are at issue moreso than the behavior itself (which they may have both witnessed and describe in exactly the same terms, except one adds "heroic" to the description and the other doesn't. To some people the noun "dominant" may seem to work like the noun "fireman." I think it it more productive to see it as an evaluation than as a statement of fact. To see that it works more like "hero" (or "schmuck") than it does like "fireman" or "coffee pot." Now mostloyalsubofall may post and say: "Bullshit. My Dom is a Dom and that's a FACT." We could all agree on what a charming post that was and still notice that she had judged him to be dominant according to a set of personal, idiosyncratic critiria rather than based on some objective standard. That is to say that--without questioning his domliness whatsoever--we can notice that even this claim of fact is at heart an evaluation. As opposed to her claim that he has five fingers on each hand, the truth of which is established by objective factors. I wonder if anyone finds value in these observations.

Squeakers -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:08:34 AM)
This question can be put to all areas of life---"What is the definition of a good parent?", "What is a good income?", "What is the definition of a good education?", "What is good sex?", "What is against the law?", "What is socially acceptable?" The answers are going to vary from person to person, state to state, country to country. The beauty of life is the diversity. If life were all black and white there would be no beauty in it at all, I think it would be pretty dull. Imagine for a moment the world completely in black and white literally, no colors except the two; No changing of leaves in the fall, no more spectacular sunsets, no more crayon boxes with 164 colors just two. Now imagine a world where everyone thought alike, a everyone acted exactly the same, looked exactly alike, dressed exactly alike, enjoyed the same activities...what a dull place it would be. Definately there would be no message boards such as this, what would be the point. I like to ponder other's idea's and but to define a term such as slave as black or white would take the diversity from it and I definately would not want to be limited by someone else's definition.

Level -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:09:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Its human nature to want to make everything fit into a little labelled box. We do not in general like things which dont quite fit anywhere. Just my opinion. I disagree. My human nature doesnt want to make everything fit into a little labelled box. Additionally, I dont have any problem at all with things that dont quite fit anywhere. I would rather observe and attempt to arrive at my own understanding of what something is, as opposed to cutting and pasting a label on something and think I understood what it is. But this is just me... Sinergy That would make you a member of the minority then, Sinergy. Most people, to a degree, want things easy. It's one of the reasons the world is how it is.

Kalira -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:11:14 AM)
Very nicely stated Noah. I will admit that even I stopped to think for a minute after reading that. [&:]

Level -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:11:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I would like to define the whale as undoubtably one of the largest animals alive today. Can we agree to that? Ron Are you trying to work this around to a fat thread, Ron? [:D]

gooddogbenji -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:13:06 AM)
Level, Why do you always bring up fat subs vs. fat slaves? What's the difference, anyway? Yours, benji

Level -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:15:14 AM)
LOL benji, is there twuely an answer?

Archer -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:19:59 AM)
The argument reall hinges on the depth of defining people want to have. One group wants hard and fast definitions with little variance, while another wants to allow a little more variance but still usefull distinctions between labels, and still others seem to want to be able to call blue yellow and nothing be said. The cruxt of the matter seems to be at what point are the labels more usefull or less usefull than not having them. Are the labels Man and Woman sufficient to discuss D/s, certainly not since the labels leave out nformation that is seriously usefull. Are the labels Master slave sufficient to discuss it? again no because they leave so much area out. I would contend that we need reasonable definitions for labels with reasonable varation within the labels to allow for individual interpritations. The anarchy of no labels makes communication impossible the dicatorship of a small number of strictly defined labels makes discussing reality impossible.

raiken -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:21:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster "If a girl is unowned, is she still a slave?" is not a real question. Ah...Lam, To that question, my general answer is, that if you believe you are a slave, or a master, or the Grand Pubah of Bedrock, or whatever title suits your fancy, then i believe, that you believe, you are what you say you are. Just thinking...Is any question ever really NOT a "real" question? LOL! The question mark at the end, generally denotes it as being a real question asked by someone. *grin hehehe...just couldn't resist...

Noah -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:23:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I would like to define the whale as undoubtably one of the largest animals alive today. Can we agree to that? Ron Whale it is a versatile definition, he drawled, since it could apply to elephants and rhinoceri just about as well. We could agree to it just to make nice, Ron. But isn't it kind of like defining chocolate as "undoubtably tastes sort of good to most people"? Hey we could be on to a wonderful new kind of dictionary here. But really I'd like our definition of whale to clearly rule out elephants, for instance. No offense, LAM. The point being: I'd rather sharpen our understanding of the word and the thing it points to, in cooperative practice, and let the lexicographers come along later and record our accomplishment. Lexicography is an archival process, after all, isn't it?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:25:01 AM)
Noah, if people really were talking about what, in their mind, makes someone dominant or submissive, I wouldn't object to it at all and wouldn't denigrate it as another let's-post-yet-another-thread-about-definitions thread. That would be about reality because it would give people a chance to explain how they view themselves, what they consider essential, what they don't, and so on. But that's not what's going on in the threads I'm talking about. In the threads I'm talking about, people are confusing words that we use to describe reality with reality itself. There's no timeless, cosmic category called "husband" or "wife"; "husband" and "wife" are merely words that we have invented to refer to two members of a married couple. If "husband" and "wife" are no longer adequate to the task, we just invent new words. And that's exactly what seems to scare the people who insist on rigid and exceptionless definitions: the idea that human beings invented words in the past and can continue to invent words in the future. Some people want to think that all these things were foreordained and that meddlesome human beings shouldn't tinker with them.

cloudboy -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:26:06 AM)
Meaningless banter and bickering is the engine of human relations. Haven't you ever ever seen a Checkhov play? There's a kind of annoying charm to it all. The Chekhov cherry-on-top is the utter lack of listening between people. On a more serious note, I have been trying to finish a book entitled SIX GREAT IDEAS, by Mortimer J. Adler. He makes a dichotomy in his book. In one realm there is the "sphere of truth." In this realm argument is "productive" for it can lead to a clear resolution after which there can be no argument. "That elephant weight 1,000 lbs." "No it doesn't." "Yes it does...." In the end this argument can be settled by weighing the elephant on a scale. This realm contrasts with the sphere of taste. In the sphere of taste, there is no final ending point of truth, and hence debate is an exchange subjective viewpoints with no hope of final resolution. ------- In the arguments of CM definitions, I think the main goal of the posters is the validation of one's own views. It is a kind of jockeying for superiority. It also allows people to draw sides, or build a consensus, or put their own subjective ideas up to outside scrutinty. Arguing definitions does not direct us at underlying BDSM truths, but such arguments do say a great deal about our own human natures.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:27:03 AM)
I was really hoping someone else would have this perspective, but alas I must be the only one seeing irony in the fact that someone labeling themselves "Lord and Master" represented by two elephants copulating complaining about labeling definition threads. Sorry L&M, it's not personal and you are by no means unique, but it was the only thing I could think about from the OP.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:32:26 AM)
Some people want the world to be prescriptive and some want it to be descriptive. This is an endless process that swings back and forth between the two. I find the PROCESS of forming definitions to be well worth the effort. The problem comes, as it always does, when one decides that the process is over, and attempts to prescribe and apply their definition as if it were permanent and objective.

Level -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 11:32:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Noah, if people really were talking about what, in their mind, makes someone dominant or submissive, I wouldn't object to it at all and wouldn't denigrate it as another let's-post-yet-another-thread-about-definitions thread. That would be about reality because it would give people a chance to explain how they view themselves, what they consider essential, what they don't, and so on. emphasis mine Okay. I'm a man that likes things done the way I want them, and I intend to have a woman that has an overpowering urge to see that I am not disappointed. What anyone calls me or the future her doesn't matter much. The definitions do not make my life better or happier or more fulfilling. This doesn't mean words don't matter, or that definitions don't matter, it just means they don't put a jump in my step, or a smile on my face.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125