Language - Revision history

Fractalguy: /* Fractal Geometry of Language */

2025-08-29T14:35:37Z

Fractal Geometry of Language

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, 29 August 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	These expressions of [[cultural]] personality can be thought of as a unique [[fractal]] patterns, with language forming the [[generating equations]]. The pattern is encoded in the vocabulary, making certain [[concepts]] easy to express, and others impossible. It is also encoded in your personal vocabulary, with new infinite branching spiral arms unlocked by each new word you learn.		These expressions of [[cultural]] personality can be thought of as a unique [[fractal]] patterns, with language forming the [[generating equations]]. The pattern is encoded in the vocabulary, making certain [[concepts]] easy to express, and others impossible. It is also encoded in your personal vocabulary, with new infinite branching spiral arms unlocked by each new word you learn.

			Check out [https://timsey.substack.com/p/does-language-shape-thought-from this excellent article on how language shapes our thoughts from Tim Seyrek] for a deeper exploration of this [[concept]].

	== No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed ==		== No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed ==

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-06-01T11:00:28Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 1 June 2025
Line 47:		Line 47:
	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

	Neologisms gain widespread use in the [[culture]] in a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these ~~new~~ words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.		Neologisms gain widespread use in the [[culture]] in a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these newly lexicalized words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.		Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-06-01T10:59:57Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 1 June 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you are a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you are a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.

	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

			Neologisms gain widespread use in the [[culture]] in a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.		Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].

	There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]--a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==		== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-05-31T13:24:50Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 31 May 2025
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].		Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].
	[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]		[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you ~~appear to be~~ a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you are a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.

	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

			Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].

	There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.		There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]--a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==		== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-03-29T12:01:09Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 29 March 2025
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].		Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].
	[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]		[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.

	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-02-08T13:11:28Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 8 February 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].

			There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==		== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==

Fractalguy at 22:07, 3 February 2025

2025-02-03T22:07:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 3 February 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[[wikipedia:Language\|Language]] is the form of [[wikipedia:Communication\|communication]] preferred by humans. [[wikipedia:Animal_communication\|Animals]] use a variety of sounds, gestures, and pheromones. [[wikipedia:Plant_communication\|Plants]] use [[wikipedia:Mycorrhizal_network\|mycorrhizal networks]]. [[wikipedia:Robot\|Robots]] prefer binary.		[[wikipedia:Language\|Language]] is the form of [[wikipedia:Communication\|communication]] preferred by humans. [[wikipedia:Animal_communication\|Animals]] use a variety of sounds, gestures, and pheromones. [[wikipedia:Plant_communication\|Plants]] use [[wikipedia:Mycorrhizal_network\|mycorrhizal networks]]. [[wikipedia:Robot\|Robots]] prefer binary.

	Language encodes [[information]] into symbols that can be transmitted between [[brains]].		Language encodes [[information]] into symbols that can be transmitted between [[brains]].<blockquote>''"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."'' -[[wikipedia:Ludwig_Wittgenstein\|Ludwig Wittgenstein]]</blockquote>Related pages: [[allegory]], [[literalism]], [[poetry]], [[canon]], [[scripture]], [[religion]].

	Related pages: [[allegory]], [[literalism]], [[poetry]], [[canon]], [[scripture]], [[religion]].

	== Symbolism, Metaphor, and Allegory ==		== Symbolism, Metaphor, and Allegory ==

Fractalguy: /* No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed */

2025-02-03T22:00:32Z

No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 3 February 2025
Line 44:		Line 44:
	== No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed ==		== No Narcissistic Neologisms Needed ==
	Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].		Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].
			[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying.

Fractalguy: /* Any Discussion of Language is Meta */

2025-01-16T03:50:40Z

Any Discussion of Language is Meta

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 16 January 2025
Line 98:		Line 98:
	You can't use talk about language without using language, so you won't be avoiding the [[concept]] of [[self-reference]] here.		You can't use talk about language without using language, so you won't be avoiding the [[concept]] of [[self-reference]] here.

	The Language of Mind channel has some great videos on the [[science]] of linguistics.		The [https://www.youtube.com/@LanguageofMind Language of Mind channel] has some great videos on the [[science]] of linguistics.
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxzndPCOSV8\|\|center\|The deep evolutionary roots of language\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxzndPCOSV8\|\|center\|The deep evolutionary roots of language\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>

Fractalguy: /* Music is the Language of Our Souls */

2025-01-13T02:50:13Z

Music is the Language of Our Souls

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:50, 13 January 2025
Line 107:		Line 107:
	Dylan's use of language and symbolism in Desolation Row is one of the best examples in all of [[music]] [[history]].		Dylan's use of language and symbolism in Desolation Row is one of the best examples in all of [[music]] [[history]].
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frwzLFZKCMY\|\|center\|Bob Dylan - Desolation Row\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frwzLFZKCMY\|\|center\|Bob Dylan - Desolation Row\|frame}}
			<br>
			Weird Al's analysis of the rules of grammar in Word Crimes is one of the best examples in all of [[music]] [[history]].
			{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc\|\|center\|"Weird Al" Yankovic - Word Crimes\|frame}}
	<br>		<br>
	Tool wrote this song about the "[[wikipedia:Rosetta_Stone\|Rosetta Stone]]"		Tool wrote this song about the "[[wikipedia:Rosetta_Stone\|Rosetta Stone]]"
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnlhVVwBfew\|\|center\|Tool - Rosetta Stoned\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnlhVVwBfew\|\|center\|Tool - Rosetta Stoned\|frame}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 1 June 2025
Line 47:		Line 47:
	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

	Neologisms gain widespread use in the [[culture]] in a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these ~~new~~ words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.		Neologisms gain widespread use in the [[culture]] in a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these newly lexicalized words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.		Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 31 May 2025
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].		Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].
	[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]		[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you ~~appear to be~~ a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you are a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.

	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

			Neologisms are a common tactic used by cults and [[religious]] sectarians to indoctrinate their followers. When you have to learn a bunch of new words in order to understand and fit in with a [[community]], it reinforces both your status as a member of that [[in-group]], and separates you from the rest of the world who doesn't understand that terminology. [[wikipedia:Slang\|Slang]] works much the same way to indicate membership in a subculture.

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].

	There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.		There are also neologisms that are gaining widespread use in the [[culture]], and are shaping the discourse around those [[ideas]]--a process called [[wikipedia:Lexicalization\|lexicalization]]. The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also makes a point to bring these new words and their definitions to light, allowing those who aren't [[addicted]] to [[social media]], or don't follow all of these subcultures, to catch up on important new trends and terms. It should rarely attempt to add new words to the lexicon.

	== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==		== Language Unites Us and Divides Us ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 29 March 2025
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].		Many who attempt to create new theories in [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[spirituality]], often rely heavily on [[wikipedia:Neologism\|neologisms]], or made-up words that they think convey some unique new [[Ideas\|idea]] that has never been thought of before. This is a narcissistic tendency that ignores the self-evident idiom from Ecclesiastes ''there is nothing new under the sun''. This is especially true in the realm of [[psychology]], since people have been doing [[wikipedia:Metacognition\|metacognition]] since the emergence of [[consciousness]].
	[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]		[[File:Neologisms-coined-the-term.jpeg\|thumb\|More [[Meta]] [[Humor]]]]
	[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying.		[[Pseudoscience]] and pseudointellectualism tend to use a lot of neologisms, so this is something to be wary of if you are trying to tell if someone is a genius or a crank. Sorry, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10khbqp/is_john_vervaeke_legit_or_is_he_a_crank_like/ John Vervaeke] you appear to be a kindred spirit, but you were also the inspiration for this section. He starts out by saying all the right things about the need to create [[rational]], [[secular]] frameworks for providing [[meaning]] in a modern world, but then uses so many CogSci buzzwords and neologisms that it's impossible to derive anything [[meaningful]] from what he's saying. This would be fine at a CogSci conference, but if the goal is to promote a [[meaningful]] [[worldview]] that is within the grasp of normal people, the use of expert jargon from a narrow field should be avoided.

	That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.		That isn't to say that new words are never needed or useful, but these should come about organically from the [[culture]] or by naming a new discovery or [[technology]], not just creating your own personal [[wikipedia:Newspeak\|newspeak]]. Changing the definition or usage of existing words can often be more effective at changing the way people think about things. This is covered in more detail in the following sections.

	The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].		The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]]'s integration with Wikipedia discourages the creation of neologisms, since made up words won't have a page on Wikipedia to reference. It uses an expansive vocabulary to tackle a variety of [[Complexity\|complex]] subjects, but links to definitions are always provided to avoid [[wikipedia:Obfuscation\|obfuscation]]. If someone intentionally uses a lot of neologisms and complex jargon without defining it, especially when simpler, commonly known terms would be just as accurate, this is a red flag for [[pseudoscience]] and [[grift]].