"The moment a word or phrase begins to rise in public value, a variety of interest groups seek either to destroy its reputation or, more often, to co-opt it. In this latter case, they don't necessarily adopt the meaning of the word or phrase. They simp-ly want control of it in order to apply a different meaning that suits their own purposes." [John Ralston Saul]
Have you come across this?
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 36205
16 Jul 21
@fmf saidHi, I knew it wouldn’t take you long😉. Can you help me by telling me how long you’ve felt part of these types of movements.
"The moment a word or phrase begins to rise in public value, a variety of interest groups seek either to destroy its reputation or, more often, to co-opt it. In this latter case, they don't necessarily adopt the meaning of the word or phrase. They simp-ly want control of it in order to apply a different meaning that suits their own purposes." [John Ralston Saul]
Have you come across this?
@fmf saidHave you come across this?
"The moment a word or phrase begins to rise in public value, a variety of interest groups seek either to destroy its reputation or, more often, to co-opt it. In this latter case, they don't necessarily adopt the meaning of the word or phrase. They simp-ly want control of it in order to apply a different meaning that suits their own purposes." [John Ralston Saul]
Have you come across this?
Yes - sometimes this happens over years, or even generations. Old baby boomers such as myself no doubt remember the term "psychobabble" a term first made popular in the early 70's, going in and out of style every decade or so. It's not very important in the scheme of things, but is sometimes amusing to hear millennials throwing around the same verbal stuff my generation invented all those years ago.
16 Jul 21
@very-rusty saidI prefer to be candid and genuine.
Maybe being a little nicer to members posting would help in the responses?
The same goes for you: a response to the OP question would be more interesting.
16 Jul 21
@fmf saidYou are either missing the point I'm making or just avoiding it.
I prefer to be candid and genuine.
The same goes for you: a response to the OP question would be more interesting.
The reason you are not getting the responses you are looking for is because you are not very nice to people in general. That should be blunt enough for you.
-VR
16 Jul 21
@fmf saidI have been trying to co-opt and distort the conventional meaning of the word "spirituality" [on the Spirituality Forum] for years in seeking to better understand how the same human-spirit-defining capacities result in BOTH theism and atheism.
Have you come across this?
Not exactly an example of "dictatorship of vocabulary" but an example of pushing back at how a monopoly over a word allows those controlling it to point to the terminology as if it were an example of the substance of what they believe.
16 Jul 21
@very-rusty saidI don't give two hoots if the likes of you and mike69 are interested enough in the topic to respond or not. If you aren't interested in the idea that John Ralston Saul expounded upon, so be it.
The reason you are not getting the responses you are looking for is because you are not very nice to people in general.
@very-rusty saidYawn.
You are either missing the point I'm making or just avoiding it.
Any thoughts on the "dictatorship of vocabulary"?
16 Jul 21
@fmf saidFrom the amount of responses you are getting it appears more than myself and mike69 are not interested in commenting on your subject matter.
I don't give two hoots if the likes of you and mike69 are interested enough in the topic to respond or not. If you aren't interested in the idea that John Ralston Saul expounded upon, so be it.
Have A Great Day!
-VR