Yes, I agree. It is helpful to see words as if they were mathematical variables, and at that, personal mathematical variables.

That is, for (most) every word, there is a set of things (empirical things or even other words) that the word can represent. People are different in what they are represent with their words. Sometimes that doesn't make much of a difference; sometimes it can make a HUGE difference.

For example, your word could be inclusionary, mine could be exclusionary. For instance, the word "American." For you it could represent all the people in the USA but also Canada, Mexico, countries in Central America, even countries in South America. For me it could represent all people in the USA only. That might not make a difference you and I were US citizens. But being that you live in Canada, Milton, it does make a difference.

So if you said "I'm American" and I said "No, you're not," neither of us is necessarily wrong by how we define our terms. ("Define our terms" means "list what is represented by the words we use.") Instead, our variables just represent different sets.

When you investigate individuals' sets, you can better reach agreement. When I say, "What do you mean you're 'American'?," and you say "For me, 'American' represents anyone living in North and South America," I can then say, "Oh, I see." And then we can get onto things. A common alternative is to fight about these things. So instead of saying "Oh, I see," commonly a person would say something akin to "That's not what 'American' means." This person doesn't see that peolpe may define terms differently, and different contexts may provide that flexibility.

Anyway, some thoughts. Another route to agreement me that general semantics taught was just that we each have similar nervous systems but there are differences between us. Hence, we process reality differently to an extent. Keeping that in mind humbles your own perspective so you lose the desire to see your perspective as "right" or "the right way of seeing things," and instead as "just another perspective of things."

Ben

Ben wrote "That is, for (most) every word, there is a set of things (empirical things or even other words) that the word can represent. People are different in what they are represent with their words. Sometimes that doesn't make much of a difference; sometimes it can make a HUGE difference."

Hi Ben, Below is a paragraph from a page on "sets" from an article "Mathematics, General Semantics, As Ways to Improve Communication" I have been working on for the AKML in October.

In international affairs we hear references to “the Americans, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Palestinians”, and so on. Relationships might improve if these labels were thought of as referring to “administrations, governments, regimes”, etc. at a date--names for “fractions of a whole” (subsets), and not identified and treated as names for the set of all members of a particular culture, nation, or society. With this “allness thinking”, bundling, semantic bungling, and putting everyone in the same set, opportunities for communication-relationships with those whom might be sympathetic to a cause, goal, or interest are missed. Modifying our thinking with the notion of sets, propositions, variables, functions, frame of reference and other mathematical and general semantics terms, could help improve relationships by having a better understanding of how many problems in communication arise.
BTW. I wonder if Ralph would be interested in joining this new forum?

Milton

Milton, I think that is an excellent point that those words tend to represent administrations rather than, say, regular citizens.

I have imagined that plenty of people hear, for example, "American" and think "American citizen" when at times it might be more appropriate to think "American government official." And I have also imagined that people aren't even very conscious of their confusion. I say that because I've probably fallen victim a number of times to that sort of confusion myself!

In light of this, writers and speakers may need to be more careful with their words, and designate with a bit more clarity what they mean. It isn't hard to add an indexing word like "administrator" to the word "American." The result is better clarity about what is meant.

However, if you want to work like a propagandist to generate support for your cause or opinion, it's probably better to leave off indexes like these and let people be manipulated by abstract speech. This is more to say that If you want to be manipulated, don't ask into a speaker or writer's indexes and just assume that what you hear is what the speaker or writer meant!

Snarkily,
Ben