Objective Language

Don Diego

Jedi Master
Right, agree with most of this...unfortunately! Thanks for the article

Ailén said:
We could be analyzing any other language, but whenever there is a slight focus on French, take it as a gift! I wish we would do this exercise with every language spoken here by forum members, actually, because a lot of clues are hidden in our own respective languages

Yes for sure it would be a great thread!

Also should we consider Gurdjieff's takes on english language in the last chapter of "meetings..." where, if i remember well, he points some remarks mainly concerning the lack of nuances and precision comparing to Russian, his writing language, to Greek, Armenian and Turkish, his native speaking tongues and to Persian, his thinking language. But cannot find yet the real quotes in english :P
 

Esote

Jedi Council Member
Prodigal Son said:
Ailen said:
I seem to be unable to define myself as a researcher in France because, according to French rules, I'm not and I find that insulting and offensive because I wouldn't be doing what I do if the "professionals" were doing a good job.

Yeah, I learned that the hard way during the EE classes. When I told students that we were "chercheurs" working on a news site and a publishing company, and on breathing and meditation techniques, or whatever, there was always someone who asked "What degree do you have?", "Which university do you do research at?", etc. I had to ask Belibaste to clarify.
It's the same in the UK, as I'm retired and when people asked me what I do, and I tell them that I research Social Psychology and Optimal Health; the first question is 'where are you studying that?', and I reply 'by myself', all of a sudden, their interest is lost. It's as if it doesn't count - without being attached to a university programme - their seems, for them, no credibility in DOing the work yourself, devoid of getting a qualification.

These people's reactions seem to come from an "authoritarian follower" mindset.
Isn't it somehow the same with Reiki or shamanism, for instance, where one is supposed to follow a teaching with the right master, in order to be recognized as a potentially good practitioner or shaman ?
Either from a State school or from an official master, what's the real difference ? Isn't it about the same kind of mindset ?
 

Maat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
eoste said:
Prodigal Son said:
Ailen said:
I seem to be unable to define myself as a researcher in France because, according to French rules, I'm not and I find that insulting and offensive because I wouldn't be doing what I do if the "professionals" were doing a good job.

Yeah, I learned that the hard way during the EE classes. When I told students that we were "chercheurs" working on a news site and a publishing company, and on breathing and meditation techniques, or whatever, there was always someone who asked "What degree do you have?", "Which university do you do research at?", etc. I had to ask Belibaste to clarify.
It's the same in the UK, as I'm retired and when people asked me what I do, and I tell them that I research Social Psychology and Optimal Health; the first question is 'where are you studying that?', and I reply 'by myself', all of a sudden, their interest is lost. It's as if it doesn't count - without being attached to a university programme - their seems, for them, no credibility in DOing the work yourself, devoid of getting a qualification.

These people's reactions seem to come from an "authoritarian follower" mindset.
Isn't it somehow the same with Reiki or shamanism, for instance, where one is supposed to follow a teaching with the right master, in order to be recognized as a potentially good practitioner or shaman ?
Either from a State school or from an official master, what's the real difference ? Isn't it about the same kind of mindset ?

I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)
 

Esote

Jedi Council Member
Maat said:
eoste said:
These people's reactions seem to come from an "authoritarian follower" mindset.
Isn't it somehow the same with Reiki or shamanism, for instance, where one is supposed to follow a teaching with the right master, in order to be recognized as a potentially good practitioner or shaman ?
Either from a State school or from an official master, what's the real difference ? Isn't it about the same kind of mindset ?

I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Imo, it's more universally human than locally cultural.
As Prodigal Son wrote "It's the same in the UK..."
France is not worst nor better than any other culture.
It all depends on your focus and the filters you apply to your observations.
That makes an objective point of view quite difficult to reach.
Unless one knows it's all relative and in a constant evolution.
Which brings us back to the purpose of an objective language...
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
eoste said:
Imo, it's more universally human than locally cultural.
As Prodigal Son wrote "It's the same in the UK..."
France is not worst nor better than any other culture.
It all depends on your focus and the filters you apply to your observations.
That makes an objective point of view quite difficult to reach.
Unless one knows it's all relative and in a constant evolution.
Which brings us back to the purpose of an objective language...

Well, the U.S. is no shining example of anything but, in point of fact, self-made people do about anything they want there. If they have the skills, they get the jobs. Of course, that openness to skills without the necessity of the diplomas makes it possible for cheaters and psychopaths to get in too. But that's mainly because people aren't aware and on the look-out. More often than not, in the U.S., getting a degree means very little. You are lucky if you get a position in a university or doing research somewhere. More often than not, people with doctorates are flipping hamburgers or digging ditches because either the psychopaths have gotten rid of potential jobs, or people without the degrees do them better for less money.

But, like I said, there is a huge flaw there too: that psychopaths slip in so easily and that is really what took the U.S. down. The social mobility, the freedom to do or be whatever your capacity allows, is/was a great idea and worked pretty well in practice for a long time. I started one job as a secretary in my early 20s and was promoted to office manager within about three months. After that, I worked for a doctor who decided I was very competent and never made mistakes and had good instincts, so he trained me to assist him in surgery. These are still fairly lower level jobs, but I'm just trying to make the point of what people in the U.S. are accustomed to and why it seems so strange to have such a stratified, inflexible, degree-dependent social system.
 

Adaryn

The Living Force
Maat said:
I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Yes, that's the reality in France in nearly all professional fields. Even if you're resourceful, creative, have the skills and competence, you won't get the job if you don't have the diploma (doesn't matter if the guy with the diploma is incompetent, the employer will always choose the one with the diploma over the self-educated person, even if that person has a lot of experience).
 

Esote

Jedi Council Member
Laura said:
eoste said:
Imo, it's more universally human than locally cultural.
As Prodigal Son wrote "It's the same in the UK..."
France is not worst nor better than any other culture.
It all depends on your focus and the filters you apply to your observations.
That makes an objective point of view quite difficult to reach.
Unless one knows it's all relative and in a constant evolution.
Which brings us back to the purpose of an objective language...

Well, the U.S. is no shining example of anything but, in point of fact, self-made people do about anything they want there. If they have the skills, they get the jobs. Of course, that openness to skills without the necessity of the diplomas makes it possible for cheaters and psychopaths to get in too. But that's mainly because people aren't aware and on the look-out. More often than not, in the U.S., getting a degree means very little. You are lucky if you get a position in a university or doing research somewhere. More often than not, people with doctorates are flipping hamburgers or digging ditches because either the psychopaths have gotten rid of potential jobs, or people without the degrees do them better for less money.

But, like I said, there is a huge flaw there too: that psychopaths slip in so easily and that is really what took the U.S. down. The social mobility, the freedom to do or be whatever your capacity allows, is/was a great idea and worked pretty well in practice for a long time. I started one job as a secretary in my early 20s and was promoted to office manager within about three months. After that, I worked for a doctor who decided I was very competent and never made mistakes and had good instincts, so he trained me to assist him in surgery. These are still fairly lower level jobs, but I'm just trying to make the point of what people in the U.S. are accustomed to and why it seems so strange to have such a stratified, inflexible, degree-dependent social system.

Adaryn said:
Maat said:
I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Yes, that's the reality in France in nearly all professional fields. Even if you're resourceful, creative, have the skills and competence, you won't get the job if you don't have the diploma (doesn't matter if the guy with the diploma is incompetent, the employer will always choose the one with the diploma over the self-educated person, even if that person has a lot of experience).

Yes, there are lots of flaws, everywhere. That's why we got to really Work in order to get beyond these conditionings...

Now, I still have a question : With Reiki or shamanism, for instance, one is supposed to follow a teaching with the right master, in order to be recognized as a potentially good practitioner or shaman.
What's the main difference, between an "authoritarian follower" acknowledging a State school diploma or somebody acknowledging a so-called official master ?
Objectivity (in the best case) ? Not that easy to tell (at least in my present state of mind)
 

Mrs.Tigersoap

The Living Force
Adaryn said:
Yes, that's the reality in France in nearly all professional fields. Even if you're resourceful, creative, have the skills and competence, you won't get the job if you don't have the diploma (doesn't matter if the guy with the diploma is incompetent, the employer will always choose the one with the diploma over the self-educated person, even if that person has a lot of experience).

Same here in Belgium. And in many areas of work (the arts, politics, media, etc.) you must also be 'connected'. Without the knowledge of the right people, even with the diploma, you're not going anywhere. Many people and companies employ certain people only because they know them even if these people are not exactly good at their job. It's a form of 'U owe Me, U owe me your job' that comes in very handy and it's used and abused here.

According to French culture, that would be seen as a weakness. Only if the Frenchman is convinced that the only way to gain favour for himself is to apologise may he do it. In cases where a company was wrong, they won't apologise either, nor will they admit having breached the contract. If you write a formal complaint and they can't find any possible excuses that they can twist into their defence, chances are that in many cases, they will just stick their heads in the sand and not reply. The many ombudsmen in France are thus busy sorting out what companies themselves should have sorted out in the first place. If they compensate or refund what they are supposed to do according to the contract or the law, they will call it a "commercial gesture", as if they were acting generously to do more than they were obliged to, whereas in fact they are simply fulfilling their obligations.

Again, same here. Refunds, admitting that the company was wrong, etc. is very rare and takes ages.
This is taken to new heights (or lows, rather) in Belgium, when, on top of this very same mentality, there is the language barrier between the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking people. This war even takes place amongst colleagues from a department and you will be very lucky if your complaint is treated at all. We once had an insurance problem which took about a year to sort out because, according to the ombudsman that finally handled the case, the Dutch-speaking department of the insurance company refused to talk to the French-speaking department and our file was stuck in the middle!!

I work at a school for expats' kids and my colleagues deal with administrations from about 10 different countries every day. Last year, 3 teachers (one Swede, one French and one Belgian) wanted to have their contract renewed (normally, a mere formality). My colleague got an answer from the Swedish administration within 24 hours. For the French administration, it took 3-4 weeks. And for the Belgian teacher (i.e. the only one who was not an expat but working in their own country!), the Belgian administration took more than 3 months to get the contract renewed and only after 8 emails and letters asking for more information and forms to fill in!!!

Maat said:
I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Exactly. And if you want to switch careers,you can't because the only way to do that is to stop working and go back studying full-time.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
eoste said:
Yes, there are lots of flaws, everywhere. That's why we got to really Work in order to get beyond these conditionings...

You can say that again. I've thought about it a lot: how to devise a system that is fair all the way around and doesn't end up under the control of psychopaths.

eoste said:
Now, I still have a question : With Reiki or shamanism, for instance, one is supposed to follow a teaching with the right master, in order to be recognized as a potentially good practitioner or shaman.
What's the main difference, between an "authoritarian follower" acknowledging a State school diploma or somebody acknowledging a so-called official master ?
Objectivity (in the best case) ? Not that easy to tell (at least in my present state of mind)

Good question.

As far as I understand it, Shamans are born, not made. It's a genetic thing. The evidence that an individual is a "correct" shaman would be evidence based. I would say that it is similar with Reiki: evidence based. Anybody can make the claim, but what is the evidence? Anybody can have the paper saying this or that, but what is the evidence?
 

Psalehesost

The Living Force
Laura said:
I've thought about it a lot: how to devise a system that is fair all the way around and doesn't end up under the control of psychopaths.

I think it would require:

1. Gathering and holding on to the knowledge eventually to be needed.
2. Starting entirely from scratch - the foundations of all present cultures of the global civilization are rotten to the core.
3. Learning as you go, holding on to, applying, and refining the knowledge step by step.

The problem likely cannot be solved in advance. We are relatively soon, collectively speaking, to arrive at step 2.

The known hunter-gatherer models where psychopaths are quickly identified and got rid of would likely be a good initial template, with the addition of knowledge preserved.

Tentative conclusion: Some who know a great deal would be needed in the 3D future, post-comets. Unless a world with psychos and unfair systems is actually a better learning environment, in which case it would be best, on the large scale, to not interfere with the "new" world to come.
 

Esote

Jedi Council Member
Laura said:
As far as I understand it, Shamans are born, not made. It's a genetic thing. The evidence that an individual is a "correct" shaman would be evidence based. I would say that it is similar with Reiki: evidence based. Anybody can make the claim, but what is the evidence? Anybody can have the paper saying this or that, but what is the evidence?

It's an evidence, forgive me to write it, although not that evident, because it can be very subjective and illusory, depending on the individual.

Same with claiming to do anything, it's from doing it and manifesting the results that it is more than a claim.

As about the Work, we might believe that someone is engaged in it from her/his objective language, yet we may really acknowledge it from the ways she/he is acting and through a deep interaction...

So, together with an objective language, we need an objective behavior. Still an evidence !
 

StrangeCaptain

Jedi Council Member
Laura said:
As far as I understand it, Shamans are born, not made. It's a genetic thing. The evidence that an individual is a "correct" shaman would be evidence based. I would say that it is similar with Reiki: evidence based. Anybody can make the claim, but what is the evidence? Anybody can have the paper saying this or that, but what is the evidence?

Well... That brings an odd example to mind. There is a specific type of "shaman" or "holy person" in the Lakota tradition. The Lakota are a tribe in South Dakota. This type is called a heyoka. It is difficult to define what their role is. One thing that they do is they show up on the third day of the sun dance (a 4-day annual dance) in their full regalia. They are masked and usually wear black and white. They mock the by-standers, the dancers, and even the holy man running the dance. Children are chasing them around and laughing. They also have some other ceremonial rites that only they do on this third day.

They are associated with lightning and are even said to to be be able to bring thunderstorms to the dance.

Considering our working hypothesis that these types of traditions are a degradation of some type of "golden culture" far in the past and the idea that thunderstorms could be manifestations of 4th density struggles, I wonder if they were the people charged with remembering this struggle between STS and STO; that many people are essentially involved in their family lives but these heyoka are aware of this larger picture of reality and remind the people of it on a yearly basis. It is then not so much that they control lightning but are more keyed in to higher cosmic ebbs and flows.

That however is just context. I thought of these people when we Laura wrote of a sort of objective testing.

The heyoka are considered a secret society. In practice, I think everybody knows who they are, but when they are masked and acting their roles, it is like they are someone else. In other words, you would not walk up to somebody you were quite sure had this role at the grocery store and ask, "Hey... How's it going being a heyoka?" They would not acknowledge what you were saying.

It is said that someone who thinks they are heyoka must have certain abilities conferred on them and certain knowledge revealed to them. Then they must reveal this knowledge to the other heyoka. If it is in line with what the heyoka know, then they are excepted into that society as the real thing. I do not think it is known exactly what these criteria are, but certains types of dreams, knowledge of certain herbs, how to do certain ceremonies WITHOUT HAVING ANY PERSON REVEAL THEM TO YOU is required. One of the abilities such a person must be able to manifest in front of all the people at the sundance is the ability to put their hands in boiling water without harm. I have heard it said that there is an herbal compound that makes this possible, but even if this is the case, that the "spirits" have to reveal this compound to the potential heyoka.

On a side note, many white people dabbling in these traditions become fascinated with this role and start saying that they are heyoka which I imagine is because it is the "super-speshul-est" role they can find. However, amongst the natives, it is considered a very difficult road to walk and not something any sane person would wish upon themselves.

Again mentioning the idea that these ways are the degraded remains of some culture far in the past, the point I am trying to make is that we could extrapolate at least that there was indeed tests. A person had to prove to their society that they had specific and well-defined skills and knowledge
 

Iron

Dagobah Resident
Adaryn said:
Maat said:
I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Yes, that's the reality in France in nearly all professional fields. Even if you're resourceful, creative, have the skills and competence, you won't get the job if you don't have the diploma (doesn't matter if the guy with the diploma is incompetent, the employer will always choose the one with the diploma over the self-educated person, even if that person has a lot of experience).

This sounds like Brazil.
Gotta have the degree, showing that you are able to it. Even if you cannot do it at all.
And to change fields here, means that you will drop everything and attend courses in the area, spending anything from 2 to 4 years, just to be able to fight for a job, that will be denied to you because you lack experience, or are too old.
In some jobs here, 28 or 30 is considered old to some companies.
 

Avala

The Living Force
Iron said:
Adaryn said:
Maat said:
I think it's more cultural than that, it's programmed in the french mind. In France it's difficult to get out of what the system put you in. if you are secretary, you can't expect to become a manager one day, even if you have the skills. Let's say you love so much computers that you've learned all by yourself, could you apply for a job in this field even if you're skilled but have'nt the diploma ? In France not at all (except if the employer already knows you but from stranger to stranger it's totally impossible)

Yes, that's the reality in France in nearly all professional fields. Even if you're resourceful, creative, have the skills and competence, you won't get the job if you don't have the diploma (doesn't matter if the guy with the diploma is incompetent, the employer will always choose the one with the diploma over the self-educated person, even if that person has a lot of experience).

This sounds like Brazil.
Gotta have the degree, showing that you are able to it. Even if you cannot do it at all.
And to change fields here, means that you will drop everything and attend courses in the area, spending anything from 2 to 4 years, just to be able to fight for a job, that will be denied to you because you lack experience, or are too old.
In some jobs here, 28 or 30 is considered old to some companies.

That's how it is in most European countries too.
 

Kisito

Jedi Council Member
Le sujet est passionna et je n'ai pas encore une idée bien arrêtée.

La réponse de Richard est intéressante, sur ce qui semble être le sexisme des langues, à savoir une représentation métaphorique d'une pensée de l'époque. Dans ce sens on peut penser que les langages sexistes sont archaïques.

Laura a insisté sur le fait que la langue anglaise est une évolution du français et de l'allemand et par ce fait serait plus évoluée.
Les Anglos-saxons ont donc intellectualisés une langues qui était beaucoup plus instinctive.
Aussi remarquons-nous que l'anglais est la langue qui crée le plus d'enfants dyslexique, car la représentativité du phonème par le sens instinctif ou émotionnel a été remplaçait par une interprétation intellectuelle.

Certains diront que le langage émotive et plus vrai que l'intellectualisation du langage, car il se rapproche de la source ! Les premiers alphabets ont bien été crées sur des représentations instinctives ou émotionnelles, le sens n'était pas intellectualisé?

Pour ma part l'évolution du langage ne cesse de nous disperser, car au commencement n'y avait-il pas qu'un langage?
N'est-ce pas les lizzis qui ont détruit Babel, notre langue unique? Ainsi chaque évolution linguistique, bien qu'elle soit sous l'égide de la culture, ne serait-ce pas une détérioration de la compréhension humaine? (Heureusement il y a les traducteurs maintenant) :)
 
Top Bottom