You said that to say what?

... which is an interesting question to throw out there when we are trying to be intentional ... to take responsibility for events .... or in other words trying to get something done, accomplished, changed, or found out. The presumption when asking this question is that the "we" in question already has some requisite common agreement or notion or even just a feeling that wants of some peculiar thing to occur ... or some consequence to be applied ... or even some threatened thing to continue ... or in other words some common purpose is assumed to exist, or has been proposed, or is being proposed. The questioner is asking whether the saying in question is furthering that purpose ... or perhaps what purpose the saying is furthering.

At times, perchance the question might better be asked, "You said that to do what?" ... or at other times, "You said that to feel what?".

You see we already know the person said that to think what, because saying is just public thinking and they are in fact thinking what publicly as they say it.

Comments

Seth says

choy 2014-10-06 09:08:44 17823

seth 2014-10-06 09:07:36 17823

choy 2014-10-06 08:34:07 17823

seth 2014-10-06 07:55:10 17823

choy 2014-10-06 06:59:00 17823

Some people say things just to hear/see their own voice/words of their own opinion.

yep

... that is a fact. people say something to solidify or manifest their voice publicly.

... maybe that is where we get the alternate popular craze which goes ... "just saying" ... no responsibility for any consequences accepted. eh?

Or in the vernacular they just like to hear themselves talk.

... er, same thing (

). A person likes to hear themselves talk just because they like to solidify and/or manifest their voice publicly. Me, i make no derogatory judgement on the behavior whatsoever ... and i do it frequently myself. But i do distinguish that behavior of just expressing my personality from acting intentionally for some purpose. Me, i think those two come from different motivations. I seem to be aware of which is which.

Similar, in my book, to the motivation for taking a selfie.

quite so.

Seth says

choy 2014-10-06 10:32:50 17823

seth 2014-10-06 10:09:22 17823

source: mark
The original title question is an infinite loop which eventually will touch an rwg of some sort (already started). The question I asked is far deeper than the loop you started.

... fine, a deeper question indeed

.

but there is no infinite loop in this topic ... it is about people asking that question. It is about talking intentionally for a purpose ... of being aware of the consequences of your actions.

Why questions are open-ended. Any child knows how to ask them. Why, daddy, should I eat my collard greens? Why are they green? why? why?

Well a why-question seeks a purpose, intention, or the prediction of some consequence. If we allow such because-thingies in our ontology, then those inquiries are no more "open-ended" than a what-, when-, or who-question. You yourself answered a why-question in this very thread: (to hack at it for the sake of brevity) you asked about source because you thought it was deeper than why.

Seth says

choy 2014-10-06 08:32:31 17823

seth 2014-10-06 07:57:42 17823

choy 2014-10-06 07:22:36 17823

What being or Being is creating those words? Who am I(me) or Me(I) being as the words emerge? Where do they come from?

they come from some individual mind ... you asked that to ask what?

Maybe, maybe not or something else analogous like consciousness at different levels.

I chose to ask it to have you ponder these questions. IMHE (in my humble experience) one can not always guess why one or another says something & is often wrong if not asked. Subject seems to get into the rwg area if probed with bias which everyone has. Who wants to have their motives questioned? Deal with the content instead of the meta-meta-meta ...

... well i think you use the word "consciousness" to point to something quite different than I do. So we almost cannot use that word together until we can figure out our differences there.

But my model of where things come from is language strings go in our eyes and ears and rattle around in our minds and get remembered and rehashed and re-associated even with new things that we create inside ourselves and then come out our fingers or our mouths and produce whatever consequences and feedbacks out there.

Me, i just don't know why you associate that as pertinently about "You said that to say what?" ... which is why i asked.

Seth says

and i think your idea that RWG trumps everything is just beauty in your own eyes. everything is really not just about you and your pride, and me and my pride. you seem to presume that it is ... and, imho, that is fucking with your ability to engage.

i totally wish you would

it . and wish we had worked on other things instead of that

habit.

Seth says

me 2014-10-08 08:25:33 17823

seth 2014-10-08 08:19:10 17823

me 2014-10-08 08:12:53 17823

seth 2014-10-08 07:40:23 17823

me 2014-10-08 07:15:52 17823

The definition of an infinite silly loop: You said that to say what? (.. & You said that (<--) to say what .... & etc.

so don't do that

. nor is that anything that i have done here.

True, but the RWG will eventually trump that.

speak for yourself.

I am certainly not alone in this regard. If the question is not asked out loud the answer is made up inside. But maybe you can deny that too!

well i deny that my agenda is usually just to make something that you said wrong.

I do try to consider the effects of my actions on others ... and that includes what i say to them. The effect of what i say on myself is just for me personally and i know nobody can know or share in those feeling. There is no infinite loop in that and there is no RWG in that. i don't think this is quite so very complicated and it seems to me you are making it.

Seth says

source: mark

[snip blatant rwg]

You can not know ALL the effects of your actions on others unless you are a mind & soul reader with exact fidelity to what is so.