One common trick is the use of the verb "to be" in ways that conceal meaning. If you rephrase a statement that contains the word "is" not to use it, and the resulting statement turns out trivial or meaningless, you might be seeing an instance of the problem.
Don't you ever think associationally? This reminds me of that? Cluster thinking? That's how metaphor & rhetoric works. Doesn't follow syllogistic logic, does convey *some* info, and (importantly) is actually possible for the majority of situations where you do not have
-
-
the info necessary to form a logically true statement. About most situations I *cannot* make a complete sentence that I can promise will be even close to correct. Not enough data points. I'm still perceiving and classifying and associating though.
-
But how is this made better by using linguistically deceptive phrasings? Unless your goal is to make it seem like you already know more than you do? Again, often people will deny that unpackings of such phrases are true even if they claim the phrases are true. Red flag, that.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I use metaphor all the time. Ambiguous phrasings aren't metaphor or association. Again, if you try asking several parties what they mean by a deepity, you'll often find they have entirely conflicting views, and refuse to agree to an unpacking even if they agree on the original.
-
There is a difference between avoiding meaningless statements, internally contradictory statements, linguistic traps, etc., and reasoning by analogy or metaphor.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.