Semantic considerations on drug-related vocabulary

[endlessness]

here´s a text I wrote for university on misleading terminology of drug-related discussions.. comments welcome



Semantic consideration on drug-related vocabulary and discussions

In the 50s, two linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, brought the so called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which says that thought is determined by language. For these two linguists, the lack of a certain word in a specific language, for example, will imply in the lack of possibility for the speakers of that language to even be able to think of that concept. So if a society doesn’t have the word ´time´, they could not think of time. This hypothesis was very criticised, though, by specialists like Steve Pinker who refused this idea of radical linguistic determinism. In spite of these criticisms, the contribution remains of a general connection between thought and language, maybe not in such a causal deterministic way but existing nonetheless

We know that in the media, for example, the words affect the content and meaning of a message. Two headlines talking about the same thing could say “guru drinks booze to supposedly feel God

 

[user_1919]

Excellent! I really enjoyed reading this text!

To change the world we must first change ourselves and how we express ourselves, looking for ways to achieve a more encompassing understanding between all.

:thumbsup:

PEACE & LOVE

 

[????????]

Everyone should read this :thumbsup:

 

[buffachino]

Nice one man!

Consensus baseline reality is a speculation in itself.
Kind of contradictory don’t you think?

 

[silv]

Nice job! If I may what are you studying?

 

[druglessdouglas]

i liked that. it was very cromulent :wink:

 

[endlessness]

thanks ppl

Nice one man!

Consensus baseline reality is a speculation in itself.
Kind of contradictory don’t you think?

yes sure, we all watch reality from different dynamic perspectives.. the existence of a fixed universal normality is an illusion. Just looking at the different societies, we can see how different the concept of normality and the vallued ideals are in each place and time...

Nice job! If I may what are you studying?

may sound a bit unexpected with all this ´terms and semantics´ discussion but I study psychology hehe

 

[Meduzz]

Alcohol is not a drug... it's a solvent :lol:

 

[silv]

may sound a bit unexpected with all this ´terms and semantics´ discussion but I study psychology hehe

Well, in this essay you combine linguistics, philosophy (in ways of describing some normative ethics) and in it's subject some psychology. As I'm studying these three fields combined with computer science and math in Artificial Intelligence you managed to catch my attention
Dunno if you're still in your bachelor or masters, but I'm guessing this'd do well in any bachelor course related to the subject!

edit: I just realised, in the essay you make some quite bold statements in the aforementioned normative ethic way. It might not hurt to back these up with some reasoning/research, as it might very well for example be argued that the bad connotations with the words you want to replace are there for a reason (that reason being drugs are bad mmkay). Maybe you want to argue against this a little in the paper.

 

[endlessness]

may sound a bit unexpected with all this ´terms and semantics´ discussion but I study psychology hehe

Well, in this essay you combine linguistics, philosophy (in ways of describing some normative ethics) and in it's subject some psychology. As I'm studying these three fields combined with computer science and math in Artificial Intelligence you managed to catch my attention
Dunno if you're still in your bachelor or masters, but I'm guessing this'd do well in any bachelor course related to the subject!

edit: I just realised, in the essay you make some quite bold statements in the aforementioned normative ethic way. It might not hurt to back these up with some reasoning/research, as it might very well for example be argued that the bad connotations with the words you want to replace are there for a reason (that reason being drugs are bad mmkay). Maybe you want to argue against this a little in the paper.

thats exactly what I want: people to confront the ideas so I can see where the weak spots are..

if you have some time and patience and would like to be more specific on where exactly you think there are problems, where more argumentation is needed and so on, I would greatly appreciate it

 

[silv]

This afternoon I'll try to pick out some weak spots

 

[Forkbender]

Sounds interesting, I'll try and 'deconstruct' it as soon as I find the time. :wink:

 

[silv]

with a help to society in dealing with different substances in a less biased way.

Leaving behind a little the psychedelic part, there is still an expression that needs to be revised: altered states of consciousness. The word altered brings a connotation of something negative, incorrect, not normal.

We see, therefore, that when addressing the subject of psychoactive substances, it is important that we try to obtain a semantic enrichment and etymological accuracy, with adequate non-biased definitions to what we talk about, so we can deal in proper ways with each situation and case, avoiding prejudice and mistaken conclusion.

I´ll try to make an observation about these three little fragments that I see as a weak point in your essay. I have the feeling that these sentences all are based on a sort of assumption that people see open-mindedness and objectivity as a virtue that should be practised most (if not all) of the time. Whereas someone opposing your essay could state that these negative connotations are there for a reason and that reason being that drugs are bad (with quotes here and there from scientific research). I think that you could make it a little more clear that this semantic enrichment is also demanded for by scientific research into the usage of psychedelics as therapeutic tools and also research about how the proof that they are in fact bad for you is not quite foolproof. You might want to draw the comparison with alcohol a little further to show how alcohol is such a killer compared to (most) illegal drugs.
Hope that helps a little

 

[buffachino]

I would suggest paralleling this argument with wider societal concerns, in fact the subject of semantics as a method of manipulation in general, and avoid focus on drugs as the primary factor. Drug propaganda is merely a symptom of a much larger speculative attitude toward definition i think.

we all watch reality from different dynamic perspectives

We don’t watch reality from dynamic perspectives; reality IS a dynamic perspective.

 

[endlessness]

I´ll try to make an observation about these three little fragments that I see as a weak point in your essay. I have the feeling that these sentences all are based on a sort of assumption that people see open-mindedness and objectivity as a virtue that should be practised most (if not all) of the time. Whereas someone opposing your essay could state that these negative connotations are there for a reason and that reason being that drugs are bad (with quotes here and there from scientific research). I think that you could make it a little more clear that this semantic enrichment is also demanded for by scientific research into the usage of psychedelics as therapeutic tools and also research about how the proof that they are in fact bad for you is not quite foolproof. You might want to draw the comparison with alcohol a little further to show how alcohol is such a killer compared to (most) illegal drugs.
Hope that helps a little

Ok lets see.. if I understand correctly, what you are saying in more general terms is that my argument can seem pleasing to us here, but to the wider straight audience, they would not be convincing, or in other words im ´preaching to the converted´, right?

You have a valid point there.. Would be interesting for a conservative straight person to read this and give me the feedback..

One of the things you say is that I should explain why semantic enrichment is necessary not just because im saying so, but giving scientific and therapeutic related examples why a bad vocabulary is a negative thing. Thats a good point, maybe I should add a paragraph in the beginning with examples of bad vocabulary and misleading etymology/mistaken semantics..


Another suggestion you give is that I add more detailed facts about specific numbers, such as in the alcohol vs illegal drugs question... Point taken, but what I need to be careful is not turn into a ´legalization´ work, as this was not the point (even though it definitely should be a point to a new text sometime I will write)

I will think about this all and will see what I can come up with

Thanks a lot for the feedback

I would suggest paralleling this argument with wider societal concerns, in fact the subject of semantics as a method of manipulation in general, and avoid focus on drugs as the primary factor. Drug propaganda is merely a symptom of a much larger speculative attitude toward definition i think.

we all watch reality from different dynamic perspectives

We don’t watch reality from dynamic perspectives; reality IS a dynamic perspective.

Yes indeed you are right that semantics can be a weapon of control and manipulation.. This would in fact be a very interesting work.. I could, as said to the poster above, add on this subject, giving examples of manipulation in general, indeed this might help the work..

But I still wanted to focus on drugs and not make it a general semantics topic, first of all because the idea came as a work for a subject im making in uni about drugs, and secondly because im not sure I have enough knowledge on the subject in general yet to write so much.. But I definitely agree with you that drugs is the tip of the iceberg and that the question goes much deeper, how language and communication has much power in manipulation.. I would love to write about that sometime and if I do I´ll be talking to you about it

As for the last point, indeed I also feel reality as this dynamic change and so on.. But dont you think that it gives more credibility, specially for ´straight´ people, if I say we perceive reality differently, than if I say that reality IS dynamic and changing?

in any case, thanks a lot also for your comments

I feel like this is a nice thing, and maybe when I write other texts I might post and ask what you guys think, as this is definitely a very good way for improving the weakpoints, when other intelligent people can give you feedback

 

[buffachino]

But dont you think that it gives more credibility, specially for ´straight´ people, if I say we perceive reality differently, than if I say that reality IS dynamic and changing?

Only because they are dependant on the idea of an inert object that can be comprehended thusly. It is both you see; reality is dynamic and changing because people feel that they view it dynamically, or reality is static because people feel that it is so. Reality is subject to mind, not mind subject to reality.