29.11.2023
the siren call of semantics: on context and agenda (this was revealed to me in a dream. literally)
it is largely agreed upon in theory of language that meaning of words is contextual. what does that mean? roughly - defined by situation, participants, and wider sociopolitical and historic factors, which would determine both the choice of words and the intended definition, implications, associations they invoke.
what is "red" is determined by whether you're in digital graphics operating on a specific range of hues, or whether you're choosing a party dress; it depends on the paint commonly used in your culture, it depends on symbolics, and a bunch of other criteria imposed onto a spectrum of visible light; in some contexts one may find it useless and instead use hex codes. "human" in anthropology, in evolutionary biology, in religion, in genetics or in philosophy encompasses different associations and is contained within different cutoffs; these are cutoffs of biological traits of what is defined as a species within the genus homo, and then homo sapiens sapiens specifically; "human DNA" has particular biochemical structure and properties, whether or not it was directly extracted from a human specimen or artificially created; anthropological understanding of humanity may encompass culture as a defining trait, and religious or philosophical understandings may resort to morality, consciousness, abstract intelligence or even imprecise terms such as "dignity"; arguably, the word itself carries other historic baggages of associations, and that's just in the west. there's multiple contextual meanings of such a word.*
they exist on the levels of explicit definition and implicit association - hence why disagreement over the meaning of the word "woman", among other things (that is, due to the implicit baggage it carries) - usually, in attempts of definining one would look for shared traits of all objects or situations which it is applied to by the specific participants - participants are perhaps the most important element of the context, as meanings can be directly compared betweeen circumstances only within the same population; and any word in its definition contains other words which these involved use in similar ways. any word, possessing of a context, is also a part of contexts, including some that define its own; hence why they can never be separated from their social, societal, historic, cultural etc backgrounds. thus for humanity, social animals thinking in words, they shape their understanding of reality - the word one knows limit the range of contexts and discourses they can think in, which in turn limit the way they use a word. these concepts are rather widely accepted in modern linguistics and philosophy of language.
a lot of the time, however, misunderstanding the fundamental purpose of verbal interaction (as opposed to "communication", which i here will use as expression of information, including concerning emotional states, with the intention of having the information read "correctly" - expression with the intention of being understood) limits complete perception of context; for it is often assumed that "communication" - voicing thoughts and having them understood - is the purpose most usage of it occurs for. in fact, communication as a purpose is secondary; the primary goal is achieving one's agenda, hence why not all interaction can be described as "communication" [as understood here]. expression with sound, in general, evolved for purposes such as releasing emotional tension, soothing oneself, intimidating prey, scaring off predators and, in social species, eventually passing information concerning threats, one's physical and emotional state, intentions, friendly or hostile approaches - communication; for a living entity, communication itself is a way to get what it wants, one to resort to if other living entities are required to satisfy needs - one of multiple possible usages of verbal expression in general to impact other specimens of the same species.
the main principle beyond verbal interaction altogether is not communication for itself, but securing a goal; even what can be very well included within the term "communication" here necessarily acts as tool of impact. it is expressing a feeling in order to either get a response or bring oneself a kind of mental relief, it's asking for help or tending to a responsibility to avoid consequences, it's establishing a relation, it benefits the individual one way or another, if even just by fulfilling an obligation and being left alone. benefit here is understood in terms of completing one's agenda, regardless of how "good for" the individual the agenda is - as humans, the only known species to invent language, are complex enough in their behaviour that they can also may have a "will", which can be understood as goals not equivalent with either benefit for their objectively measured wellbeing or with emotional desire, although often overlapping with these and necessarily rooted in a scheme calculated to avoid unpleasant internal states. in fact, words are not always choosen for clarity of communication; individuals will often on purpose choose unclear phrasing and sabotage communication as a process, because they're not speaking to communicate, they're speaking to get what they want; perhaps for their own health. they will use whatever works best to achieve their goal, not whatever expresses the information most understandably to another specimen; unless in the situation in question their benefit is in being understood.
contextual usage of the words "red", "human", "female", or really any, is ultimately - before anything else - down to what one needs it for. indeed, agenda is limited by cultural metacontexts, determinating both one's understanding of achievable goals and the spectrum of linguistic tools to achieve them, but the primary purpose is not solely to inform of one's internal processes or external data, or to reach an understanding - it is to inflict an impact, put a chain of events into motion that would ultimately lead to subjectively understood goal or benefit. expression or being understood is only one of multiple possible usages of language to act out an agenda; lies are a good example, however condemned, but the agenda doesn't even have to directly involve another - as proven by the author of this text writing it for own satisfaction. it is another usage of language humans have mastered - as a tool to process internal processes and provide frameworks that aid said processing, allowing to save energy.
convenience for the goal one aims to achieve is what determines, in the first place, what spectrum of visible light one includes under a catch-all, a word, symbol - it's the spectrum the most useful for the speaker's purposes; one that would minimise the effort put into interaction necessary for the intended benefit. all interaction with surroundings, be it via sound, physical touch and impact, or otherwise action understood in terms of physics, serves satisfying an organism's broadly understood needs and desires, on the way of goals and tasks - desired, positive impacts onto the environment. for social species, other organisms of the same kind are the most important part of physical surroundings - the social phenomenon of language being a specific way to inflict such impact on them and the organism itself; an impact turned inward. agenda behind usage of language - again, as proven by linguistic art, such as poetry - doesn't have to do with information; it can be emotive, and indeed that leads to where the basic error lies approaching semantic debates: the idea that the purpose is figuring out a shared definition for communication purposes (clarity). the amount of sheer energy humans put into arguments over words that have to do with values is not coincidental; the word they want to use is one that works the best for their agenda, and not for clarity of communication; even if they may claim otherwise - they will seek the best symbol in terms of inflicting desired mental impact onto another. in arguments about abortion, emotionally charged words such as "human" or "murder" serve not any conceptual clarity - if anything they blur the discourse - but invoking associations. it is something most are subconsciously aware of, hence the emotional stake they put into these arguments; but not consciously aware of enough to avoid unnecessary engagement.
returning to the example of abortion debate: these associations are meant to disarm the opponents - provoke the impulse of empathy, and chase them into further, detailed analysis of language that allows to escape the context, and move the argument onto questions in fact irrelevant to it but more complex or more controversial - broader philosophical questions of ethics. anti-abortion circles insist on usage of certain charged words, because it would force their opponents to talk about "killing" "humans" as justified and positive - provoking both habitual doubt in themselves, and impulsive, asociation-based contempt in the public. such an expression would require going against their own internal barriers and mechanisms of suppression and guilt, installed societally in upbringing - it would result in internal sabotage, and had they attempted to use these codes around the public, the same mechanisms would lead said public to view them unfavourably. this is why, precisely, the argument over the definition is so relevant - it's the matter of manipulating emotions of another by moderating the amount of their internal distance, as well as inflicting the same effect on third parties; this distance, lesser or greater, will then impact their approach and focus towards the procedure itself - words that provoke more emotional distance and involvement of logical thinking will cause lack of empathetic responses towards the fetus and thus moving the focus on emotional involvement onto the carrier and enforce identification with her instead; words that, by the power of association, invoke an empathetic response, will cause identification with the fetus and therefore a feeling of deep moral opposition towards the idea of terminating pregnancy. there is never truly arguments over definitions; only arguments between agendas, depending on personal values, and conscious or subconscious goals of engineering the desired biochemical responses in others. all language serves, and consists of, "manipulation" - for all is meant to invoke a desire outcome on the mind of another. perhaps it is in the more overt "manipulative" usages, such as propaganda, that language comes to its peak - the more sophisticated it is, the more advanced the function of language. the category of "manipulation" contains all usages overt enough for the target to register them as such and be able to explain it. yet there is a wide gap between the simplest, clearest methods of "communication", and what is registered as immoral in most cultures; between that, there's the more sophisticated and subliminal means of impact, including contextualisation - positioning the symbol around information meant to invoke associations that will then impact the interpretation process and the mental response beyond it - and the available variety of phrasing, up until where the purpose becomes too obvious and gets registered. interestingly, the same processes are always registered as manipulative if used consciously - even the "mild" forms, as if morality of speech hinges on being earnestly convinced that it is simple communication, without an overarching agenda and purpose.
why do they want you agree on a meaning - or ever, why do they want you to use a word? the answer is: to plant their agenda inside your head; to inflict their desired impact on your conscious and subconscious reasoning, to leave you unable to pursue your own desired impact by causing negative emotional responses to your own thoughts. using the before-existing contexts and associations, the other party uses your socialisation to change your own agenda; or leave you without an ability to inflict similar impact back on them. while the moral or political argument itself boils down to semantics, which is often the case, the semantic layer boils down to pre-existing agenda of involved parties; to let yourself be distracted by and pulled into it is to expose yourself to influence; and whatever measurable data is interpreted according only to the available language - whatever raw data is always contextualised, and cannot be interpreted without a contextualisation. the moment one agrees on a definition, they're already partly convinced to the agenda of whoever offered it, as they're accepting the framework in which the other party wants them to respond to invoked concepts. therefore, within a political system reasoning beyond the language it created is always an uphill battle - whatever aligns with its pre-existing reality will always be perceived as closer to "truth" - because the words and concepts used, even with the intention of invoking the opposite responses, will provoke associations defined before based on other concepts meant to describe the same sociopolitical reality.
(the internal frames of the human brain - such as causative reaasoning - are imposed onto input, meaningless in itself, such as light and its reflection on surfaces, forming the input into what can be understood by said brain, and that can be described as "data" - then the frameworks imposed by language contextualise the "data" and determine its understanding; in that all reality perceived by a human being is really created by agenda, which is the purpose causation and other frameworks exist for - to interact with the outside world, and interaction serves to achieve goals, achieving goals serves satisfying needs. few things beyond the agenda are "real". for a human being with a human brain, the only fundamentally "real" thing is their own agenda and that of other beings they interact with. the rest of perception fundamentally serves ability to achieve what one wants)* - the overlap of contextual meaning of the word is what a human perceives as "idea" behind it - platonic idealism refers actually to these overlaps; feels instinctual before there's no way to phrase an overlap between contextual meanings of a word.