This thread can certainly be seen as a step in the right direction--that of reaching out for understanding--yet it seems to trip over itself, thus falling far from the goal it seeks to obtain. In the atmosphere of positive criticism, let me point that out.
Firstly, the key element under consideration is '
understanding'.
I I have noticed that misunderstandings are . . .
I wish to have my comments understood according . . .
. . .who completely misunderstood the meaning. . .
(#3) I also tend to attach less importance to "form". . . rather than the "content" (actual meaning). . .
I just cannot understand how. . .
. . . as to understand my point of view. . .
. . . never manage to understand me. . .
I can't understand such behaviour.
II This is the purpose of this thread. I want to avoid all future misunderstandings, . . .
The secondary element is the listing of the definitions attached to some words that Maciamo uses. In other words, he then fixes the definitions/referents intended when
he uses those words so as to possibly avoid misunderstanding. So far, everything looks up; this is going in a good direction. . . a first step. It is about that time, however, that a aura of foreshadowing occurs.
(#1 par.3) I have often been criticised on this forum (Eupedia Forum; in locative context--combined forums; emotional/adverbial context?) by people who completely misunderstood the meaning of what I said because they judged it according to their own definition of the words used.
Of course this statement represents Maciamo's understanding of another's understanding, and there is where we start to see some water leaks develop. (I might point out here that the very important matter of context has been ignored.)
In further explanation, on post number three--somewhat reminiscent of the old 'Some Explanation About Me In the Last Few Months' thread (Dec. '05; pg 3 of Community subfora)--we find the following in the third paragraph:
It is in my character to attach a lot of value to reason, logic, knowledge, independence of mind, curiosity, outspokenness and wit. . . I also tend to attach less importance to the "form" (the way something is said) rather than to the "content" (actual meaning), which also means that I prioritise "truth" or 'facts' over people's feelings (even my own).
The points to keep in mind here as we go, are that the words chosen to say something do not carry the weight of what the core meaning is; according to Maciamo's personal view. One Immediate drawback is seen in that the emphasis of emotion expressed by how someone says something can be reasoned to have true meaning--to be factual, and have an actual referent--to the extent that a person's emotional state is indeed a fact !
Therefore, if we value reason and independence of mind, we will understand that there is truth and fact in 'the way something is said' too. For example, take the sentence: "You never listen to me when I talk to you." Of course we do not see the fact being that everytime the speaker speaks, the addressed listens 0% of the time--as the words chosen literally mean--but rather that the speaker is showing annoyance with the lesser quantity of listening. (even if that may be as much as 80%) It is clearly the case that the emotion that the speaker is portraying is
a fact !
So here we find an element of contradiction. To say that the actual meaning cannot be expressed in how a person chooses to say something is obviously false. To claim that a lot of value is given to reason and independence of mind, and to assert the anti-thesis of the statement that a person's emotional state is a fact, is cearly leading to a crash in contradiction.
A greater problem, however, appears to be hidden in the jungles of what comes next. . . and I will make that a second post. Please bear with me.