We don’t need fancy terms like “salience landscape”. If we understand simple words like “seeing” properly. We are searching for what we have in new places, and we are just cluttering the language.
-
-
Replying to @DGozli
but how will we make a new ingroup if we don't have jargon?
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @RichDecibels @DGozli
I recommend the bait-and-switch: bring the boys and girls to the yard with fancy jargon, then we sacrifice it together around the bonfire.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
If you think a word like "seeing" is simple . . .
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes :-) physically simple (3 letters in “see”) not in meaning. In fact, it is because the “simple” words are so rich (so non-simple) in meaning that I prefer to use them instead of physically complex terms and phrases.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
To foster a conversation: it looks (:D) to me like Vervaeke is using a phrase like "salience landscape" to help unpack a proverb like "he who has ears to hear, let him hear," (salience soundscape amirite) precisely because the "simple" words are so rich, and our modern ears /
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
That makes sense. Again, I am not against doing things with words. I am more concerned another tendency, which is a combination of (a) hoarding technical terms and (b) letting those terms shield us from concrete reality (e.g., "that's just 'salience landscape'. I get it.")
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm with you. I think the bridge for those stuck in LH mode to get to RH mode is built with technical, colorless bricks. Sometimes a violent splash of real color intrudes into a fortress made of those colorless bricks, but we need the bridge for the culture.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Indeed!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.