A=A for writers

[Cahoot]

Linguistically, in the spirit of the equation A=A, forms of the verb “to be” function as the equal sign.

Out of habit we write or say things like, “I am happy,” which in effect says I = happy.

Since in equation form,
I = I
happy = happy
and
I ≠ happy,

then in linquistic form, to think and write more clearly, consciously avoid, or use as sparingly as possible, the words: am, are, is, be, was, were, been.

Doing so requires an examination closer than that permitted by habit, and permits application of perpetual real-time thinking A=A.

At first the method of thinking may feel stilted, but it does become more natural, and it does have effects.

Yes?

[guest_of_logic]

Are you aware of E-Prime, which does exactly this (but for apparently different reasons)?

Also, I don't think that it is true that forms of the verb “to be” function as the equal sign, such that "I am happy" in effect says I = happy. Rather, "I am happy" is shorthand for "I am in a state of happiness".

Edit: just to clarify, the verb "to be" can function to indicate identity, as in the phrase "God is love", but it doesn't always function that way, as in the phrase above.

[Cahoot]

Thanks for responding. Yes to the aware.

I think the effect of E-Prime correlates to A=A. Eliminating "to be" actualizes A=A within the totality of existence.

You assume that “I am happy,” is saying “I am in a state of happiness.”
In fact, when someone else writes “I am happy,” they may actually want to communicate, “I am a happy person,” which speaks more as an introduction of identity.

And if speaking rather than writing Happy, so you can’t see capital letters, their last name might be Gilmore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXrRivLdueE

The point of eliminating “am?” To get beyond the habit of equating existence with an imprecise concept such as happiness and find a more accurate communication of state, or identity, or experience, which in effect more accurately communicates reality.

I think therefore I think.
I am therefore I am.

[guest_of_logic]

Eliminating "to be" actualizes A=A within the totality of existence.

Not to be unkind, but that reads to me as marketing speak, and I have no idea what you mean by it.

You assume that “I am happy,” is saying “I am in a state of happiness.”
In fact, when someone else writes “I am happy,” they may actually want to communicate, “I am a happy person,” which speaks more as an introduction of identity.

In the article on E-Prime, the different functions of "to be" are discussed. "I am happy" falls not under the identity function, but the predication function, in which "the predicate is said to modify the subject". In other words, this is a descriptive statement rather than one of identity. It is describing the speaker as happy, not identifying him or her with happiness.

And if speaking rather than writing Happy, so you can’t see capital letters, their last name might be Gilmore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXrRivLdueE

:-)

The point of eliminating “am?” To get beyond the habit of equating existence with an imprecise concept such as happiness and find a more accurate communication of state, or identity, or experience, which in effect more accurately communicates reality.

Well, as the section I linked to above described, "to be" is not always used for equivalence/identity. In any case, I don't see much advantage in restating "I am happy" as "I feel happy" (assuming that's a restating that you'd support), but perhaps in some other cases it might be worthwhile.

I can see how it might be useful in cases where the objective world world is being discussed from a subjective perspective, to emphasise that the perspective is truly subjective rather than obscure that fact with objective-sounding language. One example is, "It is cold in this room", which I can understand an E-Prime advocate wanting to rephrase as, "I feel cold in this room".

[Cahoot]

Cahoot wrote:
Eliminating "to be" actualizes A=A within the totality of existence.


Not to be unkind, but that reads to me as marketing speak, and I have no idea what you mean by it.

Rephrased: Eliminating forms of "to be" from writing, speaking, and eventually thought, provides a method of living A=A, rather than limiting A=A to a concept occasionally dusted off and studied.

Well, as the section I linked to above described, "to be" is not always used for equivalence/identity. In any case, I don't see much advantage in restating "I am happy" as "I feel happy" (assuming that's a restating that you'd support), but perhaps in some other cases it might be worthwhile.

To say I am happy, but I am not a happy person, sounds like rationality tugging at the leash.

When you say “I am happy,” you may not intend the words to mean your identity, but they in fact do make that assertion, and the mind interprets assertions literally. Same with any term of self-description which one may intend as describing a state but in fact describes identity. I am positive. I am negative. I am impoverished. I am cruel. I am strong. I am arrogant. And so on.

If you intend to say, “I am in a state of happiness,” then what in fact does comprise identity? Something other than the current state of experience? Memories of other states that have existed in the past, or hopes for future states? Accomplishments? Failures?

To set a current self-identified state apart from identity, or something less than identity, says that identity exists as something else, as a mental concept, as a sum total of memories and hopes, and says that transitory states such as happiness do not completely define that identity. To do this sets up a duality of separation between conceptual identity and existence.

Does a dossier of facts, apart from a current self-defined state, define who you are? House, two cars, wife, kids, friends, dog, cat, various body parts, a name, etc.?

Or, can one in fact say with greater accuracy, I am what I am, right now.

“To be, or not to be.”

[guest_of_logic]

To say I am happy, but I am not a happy person, sounds like rationality tugging at the leash.

Well, yes, except that describing yourself as a happy person can imply more than one's momentary state - it could imply an average state over time. You can be happy in the moment but on average, over time, an unhappy person.

When you say “I am happy,” you may not intend the words to mean your identity, but they in fact do make that assertion, and the mind interprets assertions literally.

I made the distinction between identity and description because in your original post you wrote an equation of "I" not equal to "happy", which to me implied that you saw the "am" in that sentence as meaning "am identical with" and which you took issue with, whereas I don't think that it is that at all - it describes at most an aspect of one's identity (and not the entirety): the aspect of one's identity that is one's current mood.

So yes, the statement has implications for one's identity, but only a part of that identity and not the whole thing as you originally seemed to imply. "I am happy" does not mean "I am identical with happy".

[Cahoot]

That’s right.

One may intend the distinction, however “to be,” because of its role of linguistic equivalency, limits that distinction to intent, and falls short of truth.

In other words, even using “to be” to make a statement of identity leads meaning astray from identity.

[guest_of_logic]

Hmm. Again some of your meaning escapes me, and I'm not sure we agree significantly, but I don't feel comfortable playing the role of Mr. Contradictor any more than I've already done - and especially not with you, since I generally appreciate your contributions here, not least of all your musical selections. I'm going to identify myself with a peaceable difference of opinion...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

C'mon Laird, did you forget to take your hormone meds? :-)

Another notation:

I = Good (the sense of I equals the act of a continuous positive affirmation)
Happiness is indication of goodness increasing: good++
Happiness is indication of self expansion: I++
I am happy = I++

Certainly this is more clearly and more psychologically correct than saying "I am happy"! If one doesn't mind the newspeak dialect.

[Cahoot]

Better, I think, to skip conceptual words such as happiness, love, pain, and so on, without attempting to equate them to reality with the linguistic equation “to be.” Instead, describe that which leads to the conceptual summary.

In other words, Charlie Manson’s description of events that leads to what he calls “happiness,” will most likely differ from what you call “happiness,” even though both you and he rely on equating a concept that summarizes, with memories of actual experiences, by means of “to be.”

If nothing else, the discipline of skipping conceptual summaries that erroneously equate to identity serves to address laziness of thought. Leave the thought shorthand to those who must use it, such as the acronymic “lol” contingency.

New song posted. :)

[guest_of_logic]

C'mon Laird, did you forget to take your hormone meds? :-)

It's just that the message life is giving me right now is: criticism poisons relationships, particularly friendships and alliances. I'm trying to cut back on it. If it's solicited, then fine, but otherwise, I'm more wary of offering it.

[Matt Gregory]

Linguistically, in the spirit of the equation A=A, forms of the verb “to be” function as the equal sign.

Out of habit we write or say things like, “I am happy,” which in effect says I = happy.

Since in equation form,
I = I
happy = happy
and
I ≠ happy,

then in linquistic form, to think and write more clearly, consciously avoid, or use as sparingly as possible, the words: am, are, is, be, was, were, been.

Doing so requires an examination closer than that permitted by habit, and permits application of perpetual real-time thinking A=A.

At first the method of thinking may feel stilted, but it does become more natural, and it does have effects.

Yes?

Any kind of conscious changing of your thought process is going to have effects. I think any kind of self-watchfulness is good exercise for the mind. It certainly couldn't hurt to give it a whirl and see what happens. Just don't forget about Truth. I don't think the usage of "I am happy" has much philosophical significance. It's just shorthand.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In other words, Charlie Manson’s description of events that leads to what he calls “happiness,” will most likely differ from what you call “happiness,” even though both you and he rely on equating a concept that summarizes, with memories of actual experiences, by means of “to be.”

But if for a moment one would consider we also probably differ on what is "I", this issue disappears. The verb "be" just notes activity, a becoming, or a "came to be". His happyness indicates expansion or "feeding" in the broadest sense. I'm not falling for the illusion I differ on happiness with him in any fundamental sense.

[Cahoot]

Yes indeed, Diebert. Gets right to the matter of identity. Who am “I?”

Matt, I’ve played with it for years now, and in fact, also in this thread. Though eliminating “to be” may seem of minor significance, that evaluation relies upon what one currently knows via memory and inference. What one knows via memory and inference exists as thought. Language dependent upon “to be,” intertwines with thought. Dropping that particular dependence affects thinking, which affects the knowing of memory and inference. Once this knowing has been affected by eliminating “to be,” then a more accurate determination of the practice’s worth becomes possible.

From the wikki article that Laird referenced:

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in 1878:

The history of those feelings, by virtue of which we consider a person responsible, the so-called moral feelings, is divided into the following main phases. At first we call particular acts good or evil without any consideration of their motives, but simply on the basis of their beneficial or harmful consequences. Soon, however, we forget the origin of these terms and imagine that the quality 'good' or 'evil' is inherent in the actions themselves, without consideration of their consequences; this is the same error language makes when calling the stone itself hard, the tree itself green—that is, we take the effect to be the cause.[10]

The knee-jerk Pavlovian reactions many people display upon hearing certain words may stem from muddled thinking, or illogically inferring, that relies too heavily on “to be.” Words like capitalism, communism, Nixon, Johnson, Bush, Obama, Viet Nam, and so on. Just say one of the words, then add an “is,” or a “was,” and people can often fill volumes in completing the equation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's just that the message life is giving me right now is: criticism poisons relationships, particularly friendships and alliances. I'm trying to cut back on it. If it's solicited, then fine, but otherwise, I'm more wary of offering it.

In my life friendships are forged by criticism from the start. Being comfortable with another person because there's freedom to be outspoken, because being candid and honest about what we see in each other. My closest friendships are based on mutual lethal crossfire and they seem to last forever, stretching decades as to prove a point.

How different are romantic relationships, those where there's more at play than lust. Here a forced blindness is applied to forgive and forget, even forgetting that you're forgiving. You just don't want to see, to a certain degree and this way some romance remains intact, sometimes can develop to the degree of friendship. Relationships with children work in a similar way, and are probably the blueprint for romance anyway, turning every romance into some form of socially acceptable pedophilia.

Then the question might arise, Laird, how much romance or at least idealism played a part in those friendships suffering from criticism? Cutting back on criticism only cuts back on testing and deepening friendship. It seems like the wrong track. If people cannot stand the criticism, or you cannot stand theirs: perhaps the friendship was more illusive than you want to admit. Or more romantic and idealistic than they need to be.

[guest_of_logic]

Then the question might arise, Laird, how much romance or at least idealism played a part in those friendships suffering from criticism? Cutting back on criticism only cuts back on testing and deepening friendship. It seems like the wrong track. If people cannot stand the criticism, or you cannot stand theirs: perhaps the friendship was more illusive than you want to admit. Or more romantic and idealistic than they need to be.

What's the problem with idealism!? GF is predicated on it! Dare I suggest, Mr. van Rhijn, that you have your own ideal: friendships in which the participants engage in heavy criticism without damage to the friendship? Another ideal for friendship, and one that feels more compatible with who I want to be, is substantive and consistent support. Criticism can erode faith that support genuinely exists, or at least that's been my recent experience. I find that people often know their own flaws already anyway, in which case the criticism serves little or no beneficial purpose, instead leaving a sour taste in the mouth. In the case that they don't know their own flaws, it's sometimes better for them to realise them for themselves, because they're often not ready to see or acknowledge the validity of the criticism at the time that it's given: instead they feel attacked by one who's supposed to be on their team. Affirmation of the positive qualities of friends seems like a much better focus than criticism of their flaws - at this point it just feels a lot more... supportive. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What's the problem with idealism!? GF is predicated on it!

The ideal is supposed to be projected on the heavens and not on people, being it lovers or friends.

Dare I suggest, Mr. van Rhijn, that you have your own ideal: friendships in which the participants engage in heavy criticism without damage to the friendship?

Not at all, what I suggested was that worthy friendships are actually born out of that criticism, banter and below the belt aiming. After that, how can criticism ever damage it?

Another ideal for friendship, and one that feels more compatible with who I want to be, is substantive and consistent support.

That's not friendship, you're talking about relationship revolving around neediness and codependency. No wonder it's vulnerable to criticism or any other "withholding" of support.

I find that people often know their own flaws already anyway, in which case the criticism serves little or no beneficial purpose, instead leaving a sour taste in the mouth.

If they really know, why not all laugh about it, like: "that's me!". You must be aware the flaw, although admitted, is not actually accepted or understood in any deeper sense yet.

In the case that they don't know their own flaws, it's sometimes better for them to realize them for themselves, because they're often not ready to see or acknowledge the validity of the criticism at the time that it's given: instead they feel attacked by one who's supposed to be on their team.

The question could be asked if there's enough base for friendship with people who are not aware of their own flaws like that. This difference in consciousness can become the real gap, one that is hard to acknowledge, that I understand.

Affirmation of the positive qualities of friends seems like a much better focus than criticism of their flaws - at this point it just feels a lot more... supportive. :-)

It sounds more like holding on to them with some pretense. It doesn't seem very supportive toward yourself.

[Blair]

I happy = Laird being decapitated in a freak accident

:)

[guest_of_logic]

Diebert,

Nobody's perfect, and no friendship is perfect - all of us can be criticised; the question is whether that criticism is effective or not. My recent experience is that often it isn't, and that it's more effective to emphasise the positive attributes of my friends than to criticise their flaws. I don't see that as "neediness and codependency", I see it as recognition of the human condition. We're all vulnerable, but if we're responsible, we don't take advantage of another's vulnerability.

Anyway, that's my experience; if your friendships based on criticism work, then good luck with them. Perhaps some day I'll have that experience too, but it doesn't seem right for any of my current friendships.

[Blair]

Get decapitated shitweasel.

Don't you know how revolting you are..?

[cousinbasil]

Get decapitated shitweasel.

Don't you know how revolting you are..?

Guest_of_logic is not in the least revolting. I read many of his threads and find them consistent, often uplifting, and rather complete as in I do not feel obliged to comment.

Not at all, what I suggested was that worthy friendships are actually born out of that criticism, banter and below the belt aiming. After that, how can criticism ever damage it?

To aim below the belt is by definition against the rules and denotes abusiveness. If one relies on such a method for obtaining and keeping friends, one might expect a circle of people who abuse each other.

BTW, I have finally gotten around to adding shitweasel to my ieSpell dictionary.

[paco]

Linguistically, in the spirit of the equation A=A, forms of the verb “to be” function as the equal sign.

Out of habit we write or say things like, “I am happy,” which in effect says I = happy.

Since in equation form,
I = I
happy = happy
and
I ≠ happy,

then in linquistic form, to think and write more clearly, consciously avoid, or use as sparingly as possible, the words: am, are, is, be, was, were, been.

Doing so requires an examination closer than that permitted by habit, and permits application of perpetual real-time thinking A=A.

At first the method of thinking may feel stilted, but it does become more natural, and it does have effects.

Yes?

Formalities, not equations.
=)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Guest_of_logic is not in the least revolting. I read many of his threads and find them consistent, often uplifting, and rather complete as in I do not feel obliged to comment.

Of course he looks like that to you! Like yourself he is not capable of thinking anything really through without shooting himself in the foot. Which is not a problem at all, apart from the fact that, just like him, you're hanging around philosophy like a broke drunk around a bar supporting his lantern friends.

To aim below the belt is by definition against the rules and denotes abusiveness. If one relies on such a method for obtaining and keeping friends, one might expect a circle of people who abuse each other.

If you were capable of actually reading and comprehension of context you wouldn't make that point. And what do you know about obtaining and keeping friends anyway? You're lonely and aimless enough to hang around here, supporting Laird, and Quinn and whomever you feel like kissing their ass.

[cousinbasil]

If you were capable of actually reading and comprehension of context you wouldn't make that point. And what do you know about obtaining and keeping friends anyway? You're lonely and aimless enough to hang around here, supporting Laird, and Quinn and whomever you feel like kissing their ass.

I think it is obvous that the distinction between an online forum and life in the real world has become blurred for you. But this is your problem, not mine. I just enjoy pointing out your frequent lapses in consistency and the way you project your own palpable inadequacies onto others here at GF. Sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel, though.

[cousinbasil]

...supporting Laird, and Quinn and whomever you feel like kissing their ass.

That should read "...kissing their asses (plural)," or better: "...whomever whose ass you feel like kissing." But don't fret, you'll get the hang of it.