Oh I wasn't trying to defend a literalist mindset. Certainly not in most cases. I mean, I could see how in assembling furniture it might be helpful (provided the instructions are clearly writen, but... yeah).
Just the juxtaposition of the words "literal" and "direct" created a mind twitch. Like it looks like the idea of literal has been tweaked so that it means "not open to interpretation" when any human cognition is basically a interpretive function. And the promotion of the idea "not open to intrepration" leads to an ability to herd people into one given interpretation determined by whoever is doing the herding.
And this also allows those who would abuse power and language to abuse context situations. For example, all the bullshit that is going on now, the current administration tells us we must see "in a context of post-9/11 blah, blah" and then (without saying so) expects people to fall back on what has been a promotion and a training in a literal mindset to not question - or put into context - the reasons they give as context.
And if you look there are so many places where people just assume they should take a literal mindset or appeal to context (and up to what point) that it has become almost built into society. And the giving away of that right and that ability is handing over personal empowerment.
I mean, why does a judge get to say "must be literal" in one case but "must be seen in light of" in others. Yet they do. Even though this influences the case. And in doing so as the case clearly shows, the judge sets himself up as defacto jury, just the puppet-people technically render the verdict. Expand that to politicians, bosses, etc.
Yes, we must be mindful and aware. Very subservise stuff there. And it is sad that such a simple thing is so highly subversive.
no subject
Just the juxtaposition of the words "literal" and "direct" created a mind twitch. Like it looks like the idea of literal has been tweaked so that it means "not open to interpretation" when any human cognition is basically a interpretive function. And the promotion of the idea "not open to intrepration" leads to an ability to herd people into one given interpretation determined by whoever is doing the herding.
And this also allows those who would abuse power and language to abuse context situations. For example, all the bullshit that is going on now, the current administration tells us we must see "in a context of post-9/11 blah, blah" and then (without saying so) expects people to fall back on what has been a promotion and a training in a literal mindset to not question - or put into context - the reasons they give as context.
And if you look there are so many places where people just assume they should take a literal mindset or appeal to context (and up to what point) that it has become almost built into society. And the giving away of that right and that ability is handing over personal empowerment.
I mean, why does a judge get to say "must be literal" in one case but "must be seen in light of" in others. Yet they do. Even though this influences the case. And in doing so as the case clearly shows, the judge sets himself up as defacto jury, just the puppet-people technically render the verdict. Expand that to politicians, bosses, etc.
Yes, we must be mindful and aware. Very subservise stuff there. And it is sad that such a simple thing is so highly subversive.