Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00322)

Jan 13 2005

Jerry:

Those were ideas -- tips of the icebergs, so to say. Mental short hand ?

Not meant for any argument or extended work -- for which I have little time,
unfortunately -- but just concepts to be considered and based on the
example you /John were discussing and offered.

Not intended to confuse, believe me. I was referring to our example of the
woman in Mensa depicted.

I am not trying to keep a strict orthographic writing, but jumping from one
query (or observation) to the next as, and if they appear connected (in my
mind).


Best wishes,

Dallas
 
========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins [mailto:jjhe@charter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:28 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: A Question for the New Year


Hello Dallas,

Thanks for your input. It seems to me that your fifteen or so 
disconnected sentences and sentence fragments below are an excellent 
example of what I meant when I said that while one may be very clear 
about the meaning of what he/she writes, that apparent clarity in the 
mind of the writer is no guarantee that the reader will perceive the 
same meaning intended by the writer, or even understand the discourse at 
all.   


In this case, your repeated use of indefinite pronouns such as 
"it" and "that" without any obvious references to nouns, makes your 
discourse below almost unintelligible to me. Thus, I am unable to 
respond to all but one of your questions. 


Perhaps you will rewrite your thoughts and questions in a way where your
sentences will be so 
constructed as to have a clearer connection between the present or 
implied nouns and pronouns within them. I believe that such a rewrite 
will help me to better understand your meaning. The one question you 
asked below which I may be able to decipher is: "How did you arrive at 
the title of your organization?"  


If your question is a reference to Alexandria West, then the answer to your
question is a the "title" was proposed by the late Victor Endersby, who was
very active in the initial stages of the organization's formation. As to
your other questions, I am looking forward to your rephrasing them so that I
can 
better understand your meaning and respond to them.   

Thanks
--j



W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>Jan 12 2005
>
>Dear J:
>
>It seems it does not give much room for minds to grow?  
>
>Kind of like a universe of one [then a barrier] and the rest are debarred
>from it.
>
>Is that by any chance what one calls a "closed mind?" 
>
>What happens should such an individual be wrong? 
>
>I think our Universe has the utmost variety, and ought to invite
>exploration. Of course, some are overwhelmed by that, and demand for
>themselves seclusion and rest. Or some intermediate freedom.  
>
>Isn't this one of the proofs of the "freedom of the individual mind?" 
>
>Is that by any chance what one calls a "closed mind?" 
>
>Seems to me, from my experience, it is more interesting to contact variety.
>On the other hand, such a one-focussed mind is a contradiction (or a
paradox
>in itself).  
>
>I mean, it knows of its existence, is convinced of its acuity, perception
>and uniqueness, yet has a desire to contact others of similar capacities
>(strength unknown) in an effort to dominate or denigrate. 
>
>So what is achieved?
>
>How did you arrive at the title of your organization?  
>
>No question but "always" is a trigger word to exclusiveness. Yet we
>frequently use it without thinking out its limitations. A kind of a "put
>down." 
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dallas
>
>======================================
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: john,
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:45 AM
>To: 
>Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year
>
>
>
><< Even when the writer is satisfied that the sentence or paragraph 
>carries its intended meaning, that is no guarantee that the sentence 
>will not have a very different meaning to the reader. >>
>
>
>This statement reminds me of why I dropped out of participation in a 
>particular Mensa discussion list years ago. (Yes, I used to be a member, 
>am no longer, no activities in rural Arkansas.)
>
>In this particular group was a lady who insisted an telling us exactly 
>what we meant by our words. It did us NO GOOD to tell her what we meant 
>by those words. She knew, 100%, what we meant, even when we didn't mean 
>it (and even if everyone else in that group understood our meaning).
>
>It just got so frustrating to get into arguments based on her knowing 
>she was 100% right. She was the type of person who even KNEW that it was 
>wrong to shout, even one word. She had learned, years ago, that if you 
>wanted to emphasize one word, that you were to do it with extra 
>characters. She would *emphasize* a word like that, and insisted that 
>was the *only* way to do it. But as you can see with my prior sentences, 
>paragraphs, I prefer to EMPHASIZE a word by capitalizing it. She called 
>that shouting. It did us no good to point out that "Netiquette" 
>tutorials defined shouting as capitalizing entire sentences or entire 
>messages. She knew she was right.
>
>Anyway, mhy point is that there will ALWAYS be people who will interpret 
>someone's words the wrong way, and KNOW that they are right, even if 
>everyone else has a different point of view.