View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2013 12:45 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
No I do not agree with the reasoning of removing the words that intend to accurately measure intent. It is not for personal reasons, since I can be left out of the discussion entirely.

It (reasoning) exists this way, with our without me, so that is why I prefer to leave the words in.

I do agree that testing is better than abstract exchanges, or transfers, of powerful, or powerless, ideas.

Before moving onto tests, I have an idea concerning why the concept of accurately measuring intent surfaces in my working perception, and this idea has to do with entertainment. As you have already pointed out, a distortion of fact can be beneficial to the liar and the target audience of the lie is paid well too, at the same time, and for this reason you add the wording about giving notice.

Edit: (The example in my mind of entertainment/notice/mutually beneficial is the "It is a Club" routine by George Carlin - it s not a club, it is legal crime, calling it a club is a lie in my opinion)

Stand up comedians give notice. How often are you confronted with someone you think is serious, yet it is discovered that they were "only kidding" or they were speaking "tongue in cheek", later on?

Miscommunication is not lying, neither is telling jokes where information is not factual, giving notice is the fine print, limited liability, get out of jail free, heads up, honest, open, moral, generosity, to say hey, look out, this stuff is dangerous.

My perspective may be superfluous to you, adding extra, non essential,  overdone, words.  I think not, still, but I am up to the challenge of pointing out if, or if not, those additions are essential to reach the goal.

I can offer the goal, as I see it, and again I, me personally, can be left out, and the goal can be self evident, as survival, and knowing better how to survive better,  not simply as an individual, but anything at all, from the least complex the the highest complexity, the goal is to survive well.

Hydrogen survives well enough, we humans are struggling.

Surviving well.

That is the goal, as I see it. That is the goal even if I don't see it.

Onto the work:

Falsehood (or lies, but why have two words for one human action?) is my word choice (with the possibly superfluous additions).

Falsehood: a deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification so as to effect a transfer of power from the target to the employer of the device.

Sentence:

The criminal with a badge spoke about the war on terror to the audience of assembled tax payers, and one of the observers understood that the process was deception, as the criminal lied, and spread falsehood disguised behind false fronts of such variety of wording as to render the goal of living better impossible to achieve since the targets, and even those doing the targeting, remove their capacity to communicate with the invention, production, and distribution of lies, instead of working together to know better as to how to survive well.

Edit: (I may have singular and plural mixed up?)

The goal is to gain at the expense of the targeted victims while actual progress, overall, is toward the end of all life, as the means to the end actually moves the opposite direction in time.

But I run on, and on, with the same line of thinking, too much, so I need to get back to the sentence, or make the sentence short and workable.

The liar lied.

The criminal fraud perpetrated the crime of fraud.

The person invented, produced, and employed the lie to reach the goal in mind.

The person used falsehood to get something.

The person used a lie.

The person used falsehood.

The person used entertainment.

The person used advertizements.

The person used magic.

The person used legalese.

The person used behavioral modification.

The person used response conditioning.

The person used double speak.

The person used newspeak.

The person used brainwashing.

The person used enhanced interrogation techniques.

The person used extraordinary rendition.

The person spread democracy.

The person used inflation.

The person used quantitative easing.

The person used one lie.

I went on a rant?

I need to refresh my working memory with the step offered by you, to reach the goal that I stated, and the goal that I think that we share.


Here is what I suggest: create another word. Lie: a deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification Now, create a new word and new definition, for example: new word : using lies to effect a power transfer
Falsehood works as far as I can tell. I can add: Language baffles me, it makes little sense to me.  I've tried reading, for example, a book titled On Language by Noam Chomsky, and I can't understand 1 out of 100 sentences in that book.

We should keep in mind, by the way, that maybe a word already exists in our or another language which conveys this meaning, but we are unaware of it. There are many words I do not know.
Yes, I have just a few days ago had a Russian discussing ideas along those lines through e-mail, but it has been some time since his last e-mail. I asked if I can publish our conversations, and he said yes. I can cut and paste his words in agreement with your words just now quoted above if requested.

I look forward to your word invention. Don't forget to use it in a sentence. I am also anxious to know whether you agree with the idea of separate definitions.
Falsehood: a deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification so as to effect a transfer of power from the target to the employer of the device.

Sentence:

The liar spread falsehood for some reason, and I can't tell if he even knew the reason.

A lie is a deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification.

The liar invented the lie, and I can't tell if he even knew the reason.

The liar parroted the lie, and I can't tell if he even knew the reason.

The liar invented the deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification, and I can't tell if he even knew the reason, but I can ask.

The liar invented the deliberate choice to mislead a target without notification so as to effect a transfer of power from the target to the employer of the device, but I know the lie is a lie so now the liar is vulnerable if I can invent a lie to mislead that person who just lied, without notification, so as to effect a transfer of power from the target to me.

This is going somewhere...eventually, I promise.
I know that is true.