|
Padriag -> RE: Why do we need definitions? (10/23/2006 12:19:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
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.
I very much agree. Something I've observed that I think contributes to the confusion and arguments has very much to do with evaluations as Noah has explained it.
For many, terms like "master", "slave", "dominant", "submissive", etc. are not just evaluations... they are personal evaluations. Individuals have defined these terms for themselves in a very personal way, ascribing personal meaning to them. Thus, for them, a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
What I suspect happens is something along the lines of this. Individuals come to this "lifestyle" and find that there are no clear definitions as to what many things are. Instead, they are frequently told that "its whatever you want it to be." But that does not end their quest for definition which is really a quest for understanding. More specifically, and this is key I think, a quest for personal understanding.
I think that many who ask these questions aren't just trying to understand the terms... they're also trying to understand themselves. So working out what definitions of "master", "slave", "submissive", "dominant", etc. are becomes an exercise in personal identification.
This explains the example Noah gaves us, which is so often seen.
quote:
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.
People get very defensive about that sort of thing because it is a deeply personal issue. At stake is not just whether or not their definition agrees with someone elses... what is also at stake is their sense of personal identity, who they are, who people important to them are... and whether any of that is still valid. So when the ubiquitous "mostloyalsubofall" staunchly defends their definition of their dominant as being a Dom and that they are indeed a "sub", what they are actually defending is their own identity, their sense of where they fit in the universe. And that's something important to any of us. The idea of it being torn away is terrifying to most... hence the aggressive way people defend their ideas.
My observation has been that these personal definitions develop because there are no common definitions. That leaves a void, an unanswered question, that people seek to fill. With the absence of a common definition, even a very vague one, from the "community" individuals are left with nothing but their own personal ideas. They have been, are, and will continue to do exactly what was suggested... they made up whatever worked for them. And predictably, the definitions they made up were personal and based on whatever concepts, ideals, etc. each individual brought with them... regardless of whether they are conscious of it, or even if it has any valid relation to the lifestyle. Just as predictably, these personal definitions often have more to do with self definition... a person defining what they are or are not for themselves... rather than trying to figure out how that relates to others. That is, when most define what a slave is, or what a master is, or what a daddy dom is or a baby girl, etc... they aren't trying to make any objective or factual observation, their fundamental questions are "am I or am I not this?" and "is this or is this not what I am looking for?" They decide that based on whatever perceptions they have, which might be skewed, colored by personal traumas or other experiences, influenced by ideas they have mistakenly connected but which actually aren't, etc. The end result are endless personal definitions (and by extension personal identities) which rarely match and more often disagree with other's personal definitions. The resultant arguments should come as no surprise at all.
quote:
I wonder if anyone finds value in these observations.
I thought it was pretty good myself.
|
|
|
|
