First up, you have got to stop this insistence that I want to make some greater point about 'woo words'; either you are being deliberately dishonest or you are a cretin.

Secondly, imagine the OP had posted something like "Should I pay my taxes?". I then reply with something like "Yes, because you might end up in prison". You then argue that my point is insubstantial because such a concept applies to all law-breaking. You then spend multiple posts insinuating that I am watering down my true anti-not-paying-taxes agenda.

This is inane.

It's all good, old bean. If using common words helps you get your point across honestly then I can't fault you for that.

haha It's easy for me at this point since I literally don't have the vocabulary but I might add some more fancy words as I learn them just to stunt.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stunt

I disagree, I think language causes confusion - everyday, in all areas of life. If it wasn't for people taking responsibility for their communication (speaking or listening), then we could not discern meaning.

So now you are singling out a specific area, why? What's the criteria, who is gets to judge what are of communication has "more" confusion? Smacks of the word "police." Just because some words may require more thought or inquiry, we shouldn't use them?

You are right - that was inane. Qualitatively different situations. DUCY?

And I wasn't insinuating - I was being direct and not really unpleasant.

Well it looks like adsf is happy to take up the position of someone who feels that spirituality is a topic where there this confusion is especially prevalent, but I'd appreciate if you had the honesty to admit that I have at no point suggested that this is MY position, so your constant bleating about "the point zumby WANTS to make" is just made up out of your head.

Thanks.

It's worth noting that the OP understood my point (even though we were in disagreement) and me, Husker and asdf have been thoroughly confused by your rambling. In light of this you should be a little more contrite.

And by using, in this case, woo terminology the person speaking is not taking responsibility for their communication (unless they wish to decipher what they said, in which case they could of saved time by using more appropriate terminology).

We're singling out a specific area because it's specific to this forum. If this were a literature forum I might be arguing for more direct, less flowering language.

And are you kidding me with the whole "judge" spiel? If you find yourself constantly having to go back over what you said to clarify your position it's probably not the most efficient way of communicating.

I mean, ffs, you just admitted that you have been directly accusing me of having a hidden agenda, despite my many posts explaining the scope of my argument. Baffling.

I guess that is the point - why is this case any different than anything else? Sure people have to take responsibility, that is in all instances of communication. Not just in this esoteric "woo terminology".

I am not letting you off the hook that easily, with the its the "specific forum" catchall. You said it doesn't happen in all areas of language - so yes, how do we judge? How do you know its not the listener that is being obtuse?

There hasn't really been anything said that seems to justify the bias against this nebulous concept of "woo terminology" - it just seems to be an attempt create some arbitrary second class of words.

It's not different than anything else. It does, however, happen in this field more than in others. You don't often hear physicists refer to gravity as a mystical aura for a reason.

Because I'm not ******ed. If a materialist refers to feeling uplifted during a sermon as a spiritual experience, and not an emotional one, he's likely using the wrong word to describe what he's talking about.

No. Jesus, do you even know the definition of woo? It's not a 'second class' of words. THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT WORDS DESCRIBING DIFFERENT THINGS. The person using "woo" is substituting non-mystical words for mystical ones. It's that simple. Woo terminology is anything but 'nebulous'.

"Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers."

Alright - unfortunately work seems to interfere with the more fun things in life, but let's hope that the time away will cool the discourse a bit. However, before I get the meat of things, just want to clear some things up.

I never accused you of having a hidden agenda. It merely appeared to me to be that you were limiting yourself to the lexicon of "religion" and your point being that certain words shouldn't be used because they cause confusion. Your posts were unclear as to whether you thought that these certain words should be avoided because they are inherently unclear or that you were arguing that people intentionally say one thing but mean another.

And to be honest I was writing a post starting with the above paragraph to outline such a shifting stance, however, it appears that I was mistaken. So fair enough - it appears I tripped my self up in my post #31. Which led to an awkward post #38. Also, completely missing a reasonable stance in this:

The above is basically what I am trying to say (though I wouldn't say limited vocabularies) - take responsibility for your communication, if you don't understand what is being said, try to clarify (which apparently, I didn't really do for my end). However, as demonstrated in the above quote from Zumby there is no need to dismiss the use of such language with a pejorative.

There shouldn't be an attempt to discourage certain speech - there should be an encouragement of responsibility for being understood and understanding. To single out speech based on content - emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific - by using a word that is generally considered to be derogatory, necessarily curtails the marketplace of ideas and the of understanding between people. This can lead to a slippery slope, once you are allowed to casually dismiss a person's ideas - how far behind is casually dismissing the person?

In a way it goes back to the post about the DL and his story of the scientist who told him that there is no way for mental states to cause brain states. There is an assumption against the first person perspective, an assumption against the experiential since it would not fit the current definition of science or the third person investigative model of the scientific method.

If we make the assumption of "woo" then all phenomenological language becomes dangerously close to meaningless because, by definition such first-person examinations are outside the current scientific method - is this a path that is beneficial?

So, yes, we should discourage this dismissal of language as "woo-woo." Let people say what they wish - use your "discerning intellect" and then judge what they mean. Its like gold - if someone tells you that they just gave you a piece of gold, you examine the gold piece to make sure it is gold. If you find that the gold is gold, you should treat as such - if you find that it is not, you can call it woo? Kidding - no, you just throw it away - its a different idea than "woo."

I still don't think you're understanding our position. Woo language is fine. But use it when it fits, not when it doesn't. OP is talking about using woo terminology in such a way as to fit a square peg in a round hole for the benefit of those that are spiritual/religious.

As Lestat already mentioned, the problem with 'woo language' is not that the person objecting to the vocabulary is not willing to 'get on the speaker's level' but that the language itself is largely undefined and therefore useless. The purpose of language is to convey thoughts and ideas, and so it is important that we all understand exactly which concept is being described by each word being used in order to accurately understand the ideas being described by the speaker. 'Woo language,' however, is language that is largely undefined, but gets a pass for one reason or another. This, of course, leads to meaningless conversations and is to be avoided. If one truly cares about understanding the speaker's ideas, one ought to ensure that all terms involved are crystal clear.

FWIW, sorta this but sorta not... My main point was basically that when introducing new ideas to someone, it is difficult to also introduce new terminology and expect a similarly positive outcome.

A much more extreme example would be if I came across an indigent tribe in Africa and wanted to teach them about math. I would be very careful with the words I chose to communicate the concepts. The simpler I can make it, using basic words that are common to their language, the better chance they can grasp the message.

Would you please give an example of using 'woo' where it would result in a more accurate (for the listener) understanding of what you're trying to communicate?

For example, write out a sentence or two of some subject you feel is too complicated (or whatever) for a typical conversation, and then write out the same sentence or two using woo terminology. I would like to see how effective woo terminology can be at teaching/translating non-woo ideas.

The words I am choosing to use would not result in a more accurate understanding of what I'm trying to communicate, especially when my definitions are so vague. Rather, it is easier for most listeners, when hearing about these concepts for the first time, to understand it in terms of language they already understand. Of course once the conversation evolves and matures, more complexed specific words will be necessary.

I tried to give some examples in OP but I'm not sure they were good. Basically I'm just trying to show how introducing new concepts and new language at the same time can be fighting twice the battle. Here's a better example:

Mutual friend: Do you believe in God? (assume they are a semi-observant Jew for example purposes)

Me: Yes, I believe in God, but in an unconventional way. I believe that god might be everything, the world around us and within us. I am spiritual and feel a connection to god, but don't really believe in the bible, etc.

Non-woo friend: I reject the notion of god, I am a Methodological naturalist. I reject the notion of spirituality, quantum physics can account for the experience of spirituality and it is made up inside your brain. (*disclaimer-potentially inaccurate).

Anyway, the thread was sort of meant as a light-hearted "why not" kind of thing, and I think I pretty much proved that I'm not in the wrong by using some woo here and there, but of course I can respect anyone who doesn't wish to use any woo words at all. It's really interesting how language can influence a conversation though...

Are the above statements supposed to be from the same position, just expressed different ways? It doesn't seem like it, but maybe that's on my end.

"For example, write out a sentence or two of some subject you feel is too complicated (or whatever) for a typical conversation, and then write out the same sentence or two using woo terminology."

They were supposed to be from the same basic position unfortunately that was the best I could come up with. I guess I shouldve just made the non-woo friend say "I reject the notion of god...I reject the notion of spirituality..." (since the rest of the stuff in there is erroneous).

As per my last post I do not think that complicated/in depth conversations can be replaced by woo words. I think by definition, woo words are sort of vague, and can never go too far in depth. I'm just saying that when introducing new concepts to someone, it is difficult to at the same time, introduce new terminology. This is all under the assumption that we are speaking to someone for the first time that is familiar with the "woo" words (god, spirituality, etc), and is not familiar with the more complicated "non-woo" words. Clearly, if you are having a conversation about theology with someone who is well versed (or presumed to be) then by all means there is no need for the "woo".

Why do we have to use the more complicated non-woo words? I can't really think of an example where this would be necessary.

Like as the conversation continues... Same conversation from my example - Me: Yes, I believe in God, but in an unconventional way. I believe that god might be everything, the world around us and within us. I am spiritual and feel a connection to god, but don't really believe in the bible, etc." ... and my friend responds, "well what do you mean? can you elaborate?" Then I would have to reply that "I view myself as an agnostic deist....etc" To me that elaboration is automatically moving away from woo since it is getting specific. If I kept with the woo at that point it wouldnt maximize my ability to communicate successfully... but I feel that if I didnt start off with something that is understandable for them then that would also not maximize my ability to communicate successfully.

It's fine to be mistaken, but to continue clinging to your mistaken interpretation over dozens of posts where I specifically and repeatedly state exactly what I did and did not say, is pretty weird.

Anyway, happy to move on.

One love,
one heart