Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote:
"That" definition would be based on whatever the common experience is.
|
I don't think we can say conclusively that there
is a common experience. How is there any way to know that five different people who say they are feeling
ki aren't feeling five different things?
Quote:
|
My point was that meaning is developed over time, based on experiences. I personally like "intent" for providing a functional definition, but (I think) that's beside the point. My being able to form a discrete definition desn't give me any real understanding, and it's that understanding which I think is most important when dealing with terms, not country of origin.
|
First of all, I question how complete an understanding can be that does not produce a definition. Second of all, what good is that understanding to a conversation like this if it cannot be conveyed to someone else?
Quote:
|
Only because of the familiarity/interaction with those composite terms. Furthermore, knowing the roots doesn't tell you anything other than it has to do with biology and mechanics. It doesn't tell you how to apply it in any meaingful way; it just gives you a ball-park idea. If you want to apply it meaningflly, you still have to do some kind of research.
|
I guess you're right, but it's still a far cry better defined at the outset than
ki.
Quote:
|
Until commonality can be established, just as with all terms. This is why I suggested the problem isn't with the term so much as with the research/study that informs it. The term means whatever peopl want it to mean but that's the way all terms work. The problem is that people are content to not question its meaning past the point of convenience; to assume they understand it sufficiently; or to assume the othr person automatically understands the sense in which it's being used.
|
You are more optimistic than I. I'm not convinced commonality
can be established.