![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
citation required
May. 17th, 2012 07:19 amThe trouble with speaking out loud is I spend ages and ages afterwards wondering if I said anything inaccurate.
Lots of days, at least.
I think the problem is that the way it wants to phrase in my head is: wondering if I was wrong.
There's a lot of things where you can say 'I am' and yet only mean it about a tiny tiny thing.
And yet somewhere in my head it just goes like a shadow on a far away wall, expanding to gigantic proportions.
The point of conversation is not always to inform or to convey true facts. Those things are nice and useful, but they're not always the point.
Sometimes the entire point of the conversation is "hello fellow human I am human you are human we are human still human here". Or "we are people, we are lots of people, people people people". Or possibly "we shall be a group now!"
The actual content is not the actual point.
Those are tricky conversations.
Also quite often conversation is to make amusement and as long as everyone LOL you are doing fine.
... sort of, because there's mean LOL possible and that's not fine neither.
And sometimes the conversation is about sharing theories that you aren't sure of in case someone will say a better version. Those ones are tricky, is pretty easy to be wrong, or feel wrong even if your theory is right.
I have pretty much got the hang of 'true enough for the pub' instead of just trying to say true things. You can't look up the references at the pub. Also mostly people have had a pint and don't care anyway.
And yet, it bothers me. Because there are things that are true and things that are false and the world is confusing enough without getting them muddled up.
Also I am left to wonder, are other people just less fussed about things being true enough to be going on with, or are they just always that sure that they're saying true things?
Or is it like that experiment with the different length lines and picking the long one and everyone tells a lie until the experiment subject joins in? Do people only worry if they're agreeing with the group?
... I seldom agree with the group. I mean, sometimes I do if it's like the AS group talking about which bits are confusing, but mostly if it's like the science fiction group I have strongly held opinions and can argue them with detailed reasons. But I can't, often, agree with pretty much anyone else in the group.
Which leads me to wonder sometimes how we are a group. I mean, we can't even agree on a definition of science fiction. Which is what we're there to talk about.
If people are comfortably in a group, do they worry less about truth content of statements?
Do they worry more, in case their error leads to out-of-group?
Or do they just not worry much most of the time anyways?
Sometimes I think I should have studied psychology and not literature. But then I think how not reassuring it is to have read as much as I already have. I mean, if people in books are worryingly weird, then that's just made up stuff, but if people in general are, that's going to the shops made ever so more fun.
Minds be crazy. Goodness knows what sane is even supposed to be. Functional enough to be going on with seems the only useful possible.
Hmmm, next I'll end up worrying how one can ever know if something is true, or indeed real, or where reality is at in a world mediated by the senses and language and discourses and generally by the truly weird lump of squish in the skull, and then things all go rabbit hole and head blanket.
Possibly I should just go to sleep then.
Lots of days, at least.
I think the problem is that the way it wants to phrase in my head is: wondering if I was wrong.
There's a lot of things where you can say 'I am' and yet only mean it about a tiny tiny thing.
And yet somewhere in my head it just goes like a shadow on a far away wall, expanding to gigantic proportions.
The point of conversation is not always to inform or to convey true facts. Those things are nice and useful, but they're not always the point.
Sometimes the entire point of the conversation is "hello fellow human I am human you are human we are human still human here". Or "we are people, we are lots of people, people people people". Or possibly "we shall be a group now!"
The actual content is not the actual point.
Those are tricky conversations.
Also quite often conversation is to make amusement and as long as everyone LOL you are doing fine.
... sort of, because there's mean LOL possible and that's not fine neither.
And sometimes the conversation is about sharing theories that you aren't sure of in case someone will say a better version. Those ones are tricky, is pretty easy to be wrong, or feel wrong even if your theory is right.
I have pretty much got the hang of 'true enough for the pub' instead of just trying to say true things. You can't look up the references at the pub. Also mostly people have had a pint and don't care anyway.
And yet, it bothers me. Because there are things that are true and things that are false and the world is confusing enough without getting them muddled up.
Also I am left to wonder, are other people just less fussed about things being true enough to be going on with, or are they just always that sure that they're saying true things?
Or is it like that experiment with the different length lines and picking the long one and everyone tells a lie until the experiment subject joins in? Do people only worry if they're agreeing with the group?
... I seldom agree with the group. I mean, sometimes I do if it's like the AS group talking about which bits are confusing, but mostly if it's like the science fiction group I have strongly held opinions and can argue them with detailed reasons. But I can't, often, agree with pretty much anyone else in the group.
Which leads me to wonder sometimes how we are a group. I mean, we can't even agree on a definition of science fiction. Which is what we're there to talk about.
If people are comfortably in a group, do they worry less about truth content of statements?
Do they worry more, in case their error leads to out-of-group?
Or do they just not worry much most of the time anyways?
Sometimes I think I should have studied psychology and not literature. But then I think how not reassuring it is to have read as much as I already have. I mean, if people in books are worryingly weird, then that's just made up stuff, but if people in general are, that's going to the shops made ever so more fun.
Minds be crazy. Goodness knows what sane is even supposed to be. Functional enough to be going on with seems the only useful possible.
Hmmm, next I'll end up worrying how one can ever know if something is true, or indeed real, or where reality is at in a world mediated by the senses and language and discourses and generally by the truly weird lump of squish in the skull, and then things all go rabbit hole and head blanket.
Possibly I should just go to sleep then.