Posted by Varjak on November 07, 1997 at 21:49:31:

In Reply to: And now, my reply posted by Nightwing on November 07, 1997 at 19:39:44:

Let's jump right in!

But, life, computers, and words are three unique things. What is true of one is not true of another.

Not necessarily true, anyway...

Viewed at its most basic level or not, life is undeniably life.

Nope. Life is chemical reactions. On the whole they produce life, but at their most fundamental level they are not synonymous with life. One of the most fundamental chemical reactions in the body is sugar and oxygen turning into carbon dioxide and water, while releasing energy. If you have sugar, you can create this reaction in your own home. At the most fundamental level, the same thing is happening. But I would maintain that the burning of sugar on a stove top does not equal life (though it may equal a fire hazard). Life is life, but not if you look too closely. Look too closely, and life is just a lot of very simple, very mundane chemical reactions. I can certainly look at an animal or a tree and say, "That's life," but viewed at its most basic level, there's no longer anything remarkable about it.

: That was the major thing you seemed to disagree with about my philosophy. Words have meaning, you said. "Words are power," "words matter." To be more precise, the ideas those words represent are power, and those ideas matter. And if I agree with an idea, if I imbue it with meaning and power, then absolutely that idea matters, absolutely it holds power. A man who believe in an idea has it in his power to change the world ...

: ... provided the world likes his idea. You see, it ultimately rests not on the holder of the idea, but on the receivers of the idea. Yes, people are persuaded by the ideas of others, yes words can change minds, but only if those minds allow themselves to be changed. You and your words don't change my mind; I do.

I find that I can't entirely agree with that, either. It's not completely wrong, but it's not completely right either. If me and my words change your mind, then my words are partly responsible for that. Even accepting that it's you who changes your mind, the fact remains that without those words, your mind wouldn't have been changed; therefore, those words ultimately were responsible. Those words led to a change in you. Even if you are the one who allowed that change to take place, the words were the catalyst. This is undeniable.

You see, words do have power, because in many cases it's not what is said but how it is said that matters. Let's use an analogy. Suppose a certain somebody had once written, "We think you and your whole rotten operation stink and we refuse to be part of it anymore. You use us and give nothing in return, so we're going to ignore you. Leave us alone. And if you don't like it, you're way the hell across the ocean, so what are you going to do about it? Nyah nyah nyah!" Now, this is quite an unremarkable essay. It gets right to the heart of the matter, but it isn't going to influence many people. Now, take a look at this same essay, worded rather differently: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." etc. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? The idea, the central thrust of the essay, is the same, but the presentation is different, the choice of words is different, and suddenly we have one of the most famous essays in history, an essay which unified a great number of people against England. Sure, the discontent was already there, the thought of rebellion was already there... but it was the power of the words chosen that made the difference. The people were influenced by the words of the Declaration Of Independence in a way that the first essay could never have managed. Ideas are undeniably important, but the words that represent them are just as much so, if not more; poor word choice can turn people against a perfectly legitimate idea.

When I look back on that time but a few weeks ago now, my anger doesn't take the form of "Victor, that SOB, how could he do that", but of "[Nightwing], you stupid SOB, why'd you let him get to you like that?" He hurt me, but I let him in.

And if it wasn't for his words, there wouldn't have been anything TO let in. The words would not have existed, and they could not possibly have had an effect on you. If he hadn't voiced them, there wouldn't have been any big deal. But he did, and as a direct consequence you got upset. One can say that it's your fault that you got upset, but clearly Victor was responsible for starting the chain of events that led to you getting upset; therefore, he is partly responsible.

: One last thing before I stop typing: When I say that I no longer hold power over words that are always (always = already?) put out for consideration, I am not absolving myself of responsibility over my actions. Ideas and actions are two totally separate things. Actions are physical and undeniable; ideas are only of consequence if they lead to actions. I'm responsible for my actions, and for the creation and shaping of my ideas, but not for what people do with them after they've been shared. Once that's done, the power is in the reader, not the writer. It's not just true for me, you realize, but for every intelligent being in Creation.

If a person presents an idea and people decide the idea is crap and don't act on it, then fine. No big deal. But if your words influence someone, if your words lead to some change in a person (and for argument's sake, that change leads to certain actions on the part of that someone, actions that would not have occurred otherwise), then you have had a hand in that change, and are therefore by definition responsible. Not totally responsible, but responsible on some level. Your action, the introduction of an idea, led to a change; therefore, you were part of the sequence of events that led to that change; therefore, you are partly responsible. You're not necessarily at blame or credit for that change, but you have an undeniable degree of responsibility. This is not a good thing, nor is it a bad thing. It simply is. Victor was partly responsible for hurting you, even if the fault was your own. His role can't simply be ignored, because it was part of what happened.

: I decide what ideas have power and what ideas do not. If I find an idea to be pleasing or to make sense by my standards, I embrace it, instill it with all the power it warrants. If I allow an idea the power to offend me, I rebuke it, but realize that it was always me to had the power, and I didn't have to get offended. Hopefully, if I find an idea to be potentially offensive, I'll be able to deny it that power. It's the power to deny ideas their power that every human being holds in his or her hands. That's all I'm saying.

I don't really debate that. However, the person who says something that influences others is partly responsible for that influence, because that person had a role in that influence. That's all I'm saying.

Have I forgotten anything... Oh yeah! The customary insults! Okay, um... Loser! Troublemaker! Heretic! Waste of perfectly good oxygen! Substitute chemistry teacher! Akiva-esque writer! Michael Eisner wannabe!

There. I feel much better now, don't you?

I didn't think so.

(You know, it's been a while since I've had this much fun participating in a GN thread...)