That's why people misuse them in any society. It's almost effortless to confuse a Relation with an Object or an Action.
What's the difference?
If people say "He's bad," this phrase translates to "This person has been RELATED to some action at some point of time and some specific place where this person either expressed misunderstanding of a situation (unintentional) or conducted an action with a specific malicious goal (intentional). It might also be that the observers misunderstood the situation as well."
This person isn't "bad." This person has been RELATED to some events which were perceived as aggravation.
If people say: "It's an apple," this phrase translates to "This specific object has been RELATED to a class of objects with similar properties which we can operate on (such as eating)."
The word apple is not an object. It's a relation to an object (yes, the word object is also a relation).
How do people see it instead?
"He's bad." That's it. Repeat that 100 times, and you'll have an association. The words "bad" and "apple" will become objects. Your mind will do its job and still create a relation... just not the correct one.
The problem is that "bad" will not convey any information because such compression loses the information.
Then people start performing operations on such abstractions and create even more abstractions. Abstractions become objects, and the cycle repeats.
Connecting abstractions to emotions is a final step when a real mess begins.
Some examples:
- "That is a true innovation!" - it's innovative how exactly? Does it reduce energy usage or eliminate effects on the planet's atmosphere?
- "We need to change it!" - what kind of change? Can you point to some specific situation in reality that might have a particular improvement? "No, but we need to change something, right?" Randomly change something?
- "We will improve lives!" - how? Will people live longer? Travel faster?
Usually, when you ask such questions - you'll become an asshole because nobody can answer them (yes, "asshole" as an object, not a relation).
The problem is that at this stage, nobody lives in reality anymore, only in snapshots of abstractions upon abstractions upon reality.
Such a mechanism is useful, but it has a limited scope as any other instrument. It's perfect for mathematics, for example.
There is an evolutionary advantage to compress meaning with less energy a.k.a making shit smaller. "Beast! Behind you!" is better than "A beast is running towards you from your back. You should dodge, probably..."
Not so good in the case of "bad" or "true innovation."
For some reason, it's a default mode of thinking. Usually, without special training (which is not taught in any course on the planet, I presume), it's hard to separate Relations from Objects/Actions.
Relations always show continuity, a bigger picture, something to be investigated, a dynamic view of the world. Object/Actions represent a static view of the world.
The world is highly dynamic and probabilistic, but words-as-objects-and-actions put us in mind-stasis eventually.
We don't have the privilege of misinterpreting reality forever.
What's the difference?
If people say "He's bad," this phrase translates to "This person has been RELATED to some action at some point of time and some specific place where this person either expressed misunderstanding of a situation (unintentional) or conducted an action with a specific malicious goal (intentional). It might also be that the observers misunderstood the situation as well."
This person isn't "bad." This person has been RELATED to some events which were perceived as aggravation.
If people say: "It's an apple," this phrase translates to "This specific object has been RELATED to a class of objects with similar properties which we can operate on (such as eating)."
The word apple is not an object. It's a relation to an object (yes, the word object is also a relation).
How do people see it instead?
"He's bad." That's it. Repeat that 100 times, and you'll have an association. The words "bad" and "apple" will become objects. Your mind will do its job and still create a relation... just not the correct one.
The problem is that "bad" will not convey any information because such compression loses the information.
Then people start performing operations on such abstractions and create even more abstractions. Abstractions become objects, and the cycle repeats.
Connecting abstractions to emotions is a final step when a real mess begins.
Some examples:
- "That is a true innovation!" - it's innovative how exactly? Does it reduce energy usage or eliminate effects on the planet's atmosphere?
- "We need to change it!" - what kind of change? Can you point to some specific situation in reality that might have a particular improvement? "No, but we need to change something, right?" Randomly change something?
- "We will improve lives!" - how? Will people live longer? Travel faster?
Usually, when you ask such questions - you'll become an asshole because nobody can answer them (yes, "asshole" as an object, not a relation).
The problem is that at this stage, nobody lives in reality anymore, only in snapshots of abstractions upon abstractions upon reality.
Such a mechanism is useful, but it has a limited scope as any other instrument. It's perfect for mathematics, for example.
There is an evolutionary advantage to compress meaning with less energy a.k.a making shit smaller. "Beast! Behind you!" is better than "A beast is running towards you from your back. You should dodge, probably..."
Not so good in the case of "bad" or "true innovation."
For some reason, it's a default mode of thinking. Usually, without special training (which is not taught in any course on the planet, I presume), it's hard to separate Relations from Objects/Actions.
Relations always show continuity, a bigger picture, something to be investigated, a dynamic view of the world. Object/Actions represent a static view of the world.
The world is highly dynamic and probabilistic, but words-as-objects-and-actions put us in mind-stasis eventually.
We don't have the privilege of misinterpreting reality forever.