What does this statement mean to you?

[Finrock]

What does this mean to you? I recognize that I cannot control what others post but to clarify my intentions I want to explicitely state that I am not interested, at this time, in whether a person feels that this statement is true or false.

It is good for a person to do away with the euphemisms in life.

Regards,

Finrock

[mcrow]

To me it would mean do not do anything simply to appease others and do not soften things to the point of being ineffective. I think far too often we are so worried what others think of us that we sacrifice principles in order make others happy.

[Vort]

It is good for a person to do away with the euphemisms in life.

It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

A "euphemism" is an expression that makes something sound more palatable than it otherwise might. "Buying the farm" is a (humorous) euphemism for death. Many euphemisms have to do with elimination of bodily waste (e.g. "pee-pee" and "poo-poo") and, perhaps surprisingly, sex (e.g. "making love", "getting turned on", and names of genitalia).

If "the euphemisms in life" just means "the use of euphemisms", this statement is basically saying, "It is good to quit using euphemisms." In some cases, I would agree with this, but as a general rule, I don't see that it is true or wise.

If "the euphemisms of life" is used metaphorically to mean ways of talking about, thinking about, or dealing with life situations that involve indirect methods to make things more palatable or less painful, then again, in some cases I would agree, but as a general rule, it is not obvious that dealing with life situations in a strictly literal and direct method is always best. For example, if you have having trouble with an adult son or daughter, talking directly to him or her about what's bothering you may not be the best way of dealing with things.

[Bini]

For me.. If a subject strikes my fancy, I'll take time to share my viewpoint in extensiveness, and I'm not worried about how others think of me. That said, I try to be tactful in my response with people. You can be steadfast in your beliefs and disagree with the opposing opinion, and yet be civil in discussion, even if the other party does not show the same civility.

[Bini]

Finrock, is this a quote from the forum? It reads familiar.. Otherwise, I haven't ever run across the expression before.

[Guest]

So many words!

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Bini. I hope you're doing great! :)

Finrock, is this a quote from the forum? It reads familiar.. Otherwise, I haven't ever run across the expression before.

It is a statement I came up with while trying to express a sentiment in words. I want to know if people understand this statement the same way that I do. I think the expression entails an interesting concept and I want to know if anyone applies the same meaning to the words that I do.

I am purposefully not discussing what I understand that statement to mean or what I want it to mean (I may have to use different words if it's meaningless to others) so that I don't influence others' thoughts.

Regards,

Finrock

[Bini]

Hmm.. I will have to wait and see what else unfolds in thread, then :)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Vort. I hope you are well today! :)

It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

A "euphemism" is an expression that makes something sound more palatable than it otherwise might. "Buying the farm" is a (humorous) euphemism for death. Many euphemisms have to do with elimination of bodily waste (e.g. "pee-pee" and "poo-poo") and, perhaps surprisingly, sex (e.g. "making love", "getting turned on", and names of genitalia).

If "the euphemisms in life" just means "the use of euphemisms", this statement is basically saying, "It is good to quit using euphemisms." In some cases, I would agree with this, but as a general rule, I don't see that it is true or wise.

If "the euphemisms of life" is used metaphorically to mean ways of talking about, thinking about, or dealing with life situations that involve indirect methods to make things more palatable or less painful, then again, in some cases I would agree, but as a general rule, it is not obvious that dealing with life situations in a strictly literal and direct method is always best. For example, if you have having trouble with an adult son or daughter, talking directly to him or her about what's bothering you may not be the best way of dealing with things.

Thanks for the contribution.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good afternoon mcrow. I hope you are enjoying your day! :)

To me it would mean do not do anything simply to appease others and do not soften things to the point of being ineffective. I think far too often we are so worried what others think of us that we sacrifice principles in order make others happy.

Thank you for posting your thoughts.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest]

Does it mean the same as "Stop beating around the bush."?

[Bini]

Does it mean the same as "Stop beating around the bush."?

★☆

Sometimes I have to tell my husband, "Stop beating around the bush, and just jump through it already!" Hehe.

[Finrock]

There are some scriptures that I believe speak to what I mean by my statement, or what I'm getting at, with my statement. I'm trying to capture the essence of the idea expressed in these scriptures.

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come"

"for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be"

What does it mean to know something as it really is? Or to speak of something as it really is?

Regards,

Finrock

Edited August 29, 2012 by Finrock
Added a question because I felt it added beneficial context.

[Anddenex]

I am understanding the quote to mean, whether we think we are being tactful or not, even if we implant a softer word, the meaning is still the same. Nothing has changed.

If nothing has changed, depending on context, is it then still appropriate to say.

[BrendaM]

What does this mean to you? I recognize that I cannot control what others post but to clarify my intentions I want to explicitely state that I am not interested, at this time, in whether a person feels that this statement is true or false.

It is good for a person to do away with the euphemisms in life.

Regards,

Finrock

To me, it means that you are saying that it is good to simply say what you mean and don't sugar coat it.

[Finrock]

If we accept the scriptural charge that we are required to seek after truth in all things or in other words to know things as they really are, then this has many significant implications to how we should conduct our lives. It has implications that touches every aspect of our life. To name a few: It has implications to how we communicate, how we judge people, to how we interact with ourselves, to our diet, to our political views, to our religious views, etc.

I don't know if most people have a true appreciation or a true sense of how important it is to seek to know how things really are in every aspect of life.

Our society seems to have decided that pop culture, stereotypes, euphimisms, and other rhetorical/mental constructs that minimize reality are perfectly good ways in which to interact with the world. But, it isn't just the big, obvious ways in which society errs that is of concern. It is the fact that even "good" individuals seem content and happy to just have a superficial knowledge of things that have significant ramifications to them and to the lives of others.

Regards,

Finrock

[Dravin]

It is the fact that even "good" individuals seem content and happy to just have a superficial knowledge of things that have significant ramifications to them and to the lives of others.

That's kind of amusing, in this use ""good"" is effectively an euphemism. It is a nicer way to go about implying such individuals aren't really good, or aren't deserving of being called good without coming right out and directly saying it.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

I don't think that euphemisms are good or bad. I don't think that a person needs to "give them up" in order to get to things "as they really are" and "as they really will be" because I don't think that is the thing blocking us from reality.

I think people are afraid of how things really are and afraid to talk about how they really feel about things. Using metaphorical language in communication, imo, can help people talk about difficult subjects or talk in difficult contexts.

If you are afraid that people aren't communicating with one another and less direct methods block better understanding, it is my opinion that better listening is required. I know I can get to the heart of the matter and that sometimes I need a metaphor to help me find the words. But if the other isn't plugged in, neither are going to mutually understand how things really are.

If you are concerned about people misunderstanding God's communications, I think that there is some fear there too. I mean what if God really did tell us the truth! And here too I think we have poor listening at play. I think sometimes when we aren't sure if we've received communication from God, then we guess. We read his mind or over interpret what God thinks about a situation or a person or an idea. I see people do that a lot when they guess how God sees their sins or when they are judging another person's behavior. I catch myself doing it anyway.

I like the idea of getting direct in our communications. It certainly helps with family relationships. And I love the idea with receiving messages from God. But in our culture we condition each other out of direct communications. For example, we shame emotions and emotional talk. We favor the rational and the "controlled" and the polite. But when we communicate from our heads we are in effect being indirect and avoiding how things really are. I think sometimes our ideas about or our practices with prayer keep us in a rather indirect posture with God as we get our revelation from secondary sources rather than the horses mouth. :) ( I actually just did that by accident. But I kept it cause it loved that it happened that way.)

Edited August 29, 2012 by Misshalfway

[Finrock]

That's kind of amusing, in this use ""good"" is effectively an euphemism. It is a nicer way to go about implying such individuals aren't really good, or aren't deserving of being called good without coming right out and directly saying it.

No, I actually meant good individuals who really are good and are actually deserving of being called good. I meant people who are actively, anxiously, and with all of their might, mind, and heart, engaged in living the gospel of Jesus Christ. I may have used the quotation marks incorrectly, but I intended the quotation marks to denote our imperfection. So, the meaning of "good" would be more precisely stated as: imperfect but good.

But, the point I'm interested in is to know your thoughts on what it means, in pratical terms, or really in any other terms, to know, speak, feel, understand, etc. things as they really are?

Regards,

Finrock

[Dravin]

So, the meaning of "good" would be more precisely stated as: imperfect but good.

And why didn't you say "imperfect but good"? Because euphemisms, and turns of phrase, and even conventions like scare quotes are a part of culture and language. It's all part of an interconnecting morass of how we communicate ourselves to the outside world full of nuance and color to better reflect what exactly it is we're trying to communicate (even if prone to misscommunication occasionally)*. It's why I think, like Vort, some sort of blanket condemnation of euphemism (and we'd need to include dysphemism, similes and other figures of speech because they don't communicate on some hypothetical hyper-literal level of 'as they really are') is problematic. Truth doesn't require, or a proper understanding of how things are if you prefer, doesn't rule out such things. Is anyone really confused about the situation as it really is if someone says, "They passed away" instead of, "They died."? Or even, "They bough the farm.", baring someone being Amelia Bedelia-like?

Of course why stop at euphemisms?

1- They died.

2- They were murdered.

3- They were shot in the head for their wallet.

4- A 9x19mm FMJ entered their skull near their ear, destroyed galial cells and neurons, fragmented and exited their eye socket. They twitched on the ground for 15 seconds before shock, blood loss, and brain damage cause cessation of heart function.

Which one lets us know the situation as it really is? Surely we aren't required by truth's sake or a charge to know things as they really are to tell a 8 year old #4? Now I'm not saying you are making such a claim, but there has been a certain undercurrent (and possibly only in my head) about euphemisms and softening as somehow not being desirable. I think the desirability of such is conditional. It depends upon intent and use. While euphemism, dysphemism, figures of speech and the like can be used to obscure the truth either from ourselves or others I don't think they use is on the face of it an attempt to do so. To be fair it is probably the use of euphemisms to try to hide truth that you're talking about in your mention of euphemism, but there seems to be an undercurrent in the thread that euphemisms are somehow of their nature bad and as you can see, I have some thoughts about that idea.

*For instance in a way when I tell my wife that my love for her burns with the intensity of a thousand fiery suns it in a way it more truthfully and accuratelly communicates my feelings to her than simply saying, "I love you a lot."

But, the point I'm interested in is to know your thoughts on what it means, in pratical terms, or really in any other terms, to know, speak, feel, understand, etc. things as they really are?

To seek and know truth. Of course not all truth is needful. You may ask, "What?" but I don't think you need to know or seek out how often the Bishop has marital relations with his wife. Likewise when breaking the news of his parent's murder you don't need to read to an 8 year old the coroner's report, nor do I think the child is obligated to seek such out.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

Hi Fin.

I don't think euphemisms are the thing that blocks people from things "as they really are." I actually appreciate them on occasion. Using something metaphorical is a great way to talk about something that is hard, or to describe something that has deeper meaning. And I think it helps people talk about things when otherwise they might not. They can lighten the mood or make something more palatable.

I do think that people often miss reality. Maybe they try to stay at a safe distance from it. There is no doubt people try to escape from reality by medicating, avoiding, or lying to themselves about it.

In social situations, I'm not sure directness is always valued. In some circles it might be considered mean or "not nice" to tell someone no or lay out a clear boundary of some kind . In family/marriage relationships, I don't think people talk at all about what is really going on between them. They might fight about money or parenting or some other such problem. But they don't talk about what is really going on between them emotionally. They don't do it because they we either taught not to or they simply don't know how to tolerate such realness.

One of the reasons I am still LDS is because of my experiences with the spirit telling me "how things really are". No hyperbole. No exaggerations. No judgments. No games. Just clarity on the things that have weighed most on my soul. But I don't know that people always want such clarity about things. A nice distance is safer for people. It's safer, for example, to stay in the dogma of what is "right" rather than travel in the murkiness of faith sometimes. Or maybe we just aren't good listeners. And so we guess or imagine what is real or how God feels about a behavior, a person, or an idea.

I don't know exactly what you are shooting for here, but it sounds like you value getting to the heart of the matter. I'm not sure it matters how we get there, but I do see value in dealing with reality vs. imaginations of reality or the fears about reality. And I think living in such an authentic way takes courage. It feels to me like walking on water.

[Sharky]

Initially as I read the original post my thought was:

Just say it. Say what you mean. Don't worry about who it might offend. If it needs said, it needs said!

Get the bush out of the way already. Quit trying to hide the elephant! (talk about euphanisms....)

As I read others comments & read Finrocks later comments, my thoughts turned to "The Lion King".

I know this probly makes little sense to most but hear me out:

Simba does not know who he is. A monkey comes along & tells Simba that He knows who Simba is & even KNOWS Simba's father & tells him that Mufusa is still alive.

He leads Simba to the waters edge & at first Simba sees only his own relection, but then he sees his father & begins to understand that his father lives on in him ..... That having forgotten who he is, he has forgotten his father. That he is more then who he has become.

The monkey KNEW of things the way they were & the way they are & of things they way they would be.

Through a bit of trickery he showed, taught, Simba of those trueths so that Simba could also see and KNOW the trueths of the way things are & the way things are intended to become & the way things will be.

So when you ask

what it means, in pratical terms, or really in any other terms, to know, speak, feel, understand, etc. things as they really are?

I think of that part of the Lion King & I think of & remember times when I felt what Simba must have felt to suddenly know & realize something so sure and certain, without doubt. Edited August 30, 2012 by Sharky

[Misshalfway]

Initially as I read the original post my thought was:

Just say it. Say what you mean. Don't worry about who it might offend. If it needs said, it needs said!

Get the bush out of the way already. Quit trying to hide the elephant! (talk about euphanisms....)

As I read others comments & read Finrocks later comments, my thoughts turned to "The Lion King".

I know this probly makes little sense to most but hear me out:

Simba does not know who he is. A monkey comes along & tells Simba that He knows who Simba is & even KNOWS Simba's father & tells him that Mufusa is still alive.

He leads Simba to the waters edge & at first Simba sees only his own relection, but then he sees his father & begins to understand that his father lives on in him ..... That having forgotten who he is, he has forgotten his father. That he is more then who he has become.

The monkey KNEW of things the way they were & the way they are & of things they way they would be.

Through a bit of trickery he showed, taught, Simba of those trueths so that Simba could also see and KNOW the trueths of the way things are & the way things are intended to become & the way things will be.

So when you ask "what it means, in pratical terms, or really in any other terms, to know, speak, feel, understand, etc. things as they really are?"

I think of that part of the Lion King & I think of & remember times when I felt what Simba must have felt to suddenly know & realize something so sure and certain, without doubt.

This reminds me. I often have a conflict in my mind between two John Mayer songs; "Say What You Need to Say" and "My Stupid Mouth."^_^

[Finrock]

And why didn't you say "imperfect but good"? Because euphemisms, and turns of phrase, and even conventions like scare quotes are a part of culture and language. It's all part of an interconnecting morass of how we communicate ourselves to the outside world full of nuance and color to better reflect what exactly it is we're trying to communicate (even if prone to misscommunication occasionally)*. It's why I think, like Vort, some sort of blanket condemnation of euphemism (and we'd need to include dysphemism, similes and other figures of speech because they don't communicate on some hypothetical hyper-literal level of 'as they really are') is problematic. Truth doesn't require, or a proper understanding of how things are if you prefer, doesn't rule out such things. Is anyone really confused about the situation as it really is if someone says, "They passed away" instead of, "They died."? Or even, "They bough the farm.", baring someone being Amelia Bedelia-like?

Of course why stop at euphemisms?

1- They died.

2- They were murdered.

3- They were shot in the head for their wallet.

4- A 9x19mm FMJ entered their skull near their ear, destroyed galial cells and neurons, fragmented and exited their eye socket. They twitched on the ground for 15 seconds before shock, blood loss, and brain damage cause cessation of heart function.

Which one lets us know the situation as it really is? Surely we aren't required by truth's sake or a charge to know things as they really are to tell a 8 year old #4? Now I'm not saying you are making such a claim, but there has been a certain undercurrent (and possibly only in my head) about euphemisms and softening as somehow not being desirable. I think the desirability of such is conditional. It depends upon intent and use. While euphemism, dysphemism, figures of speech and the like can be used to obscure the truth either from ourselves or others I don't think they use is on the face of it an attempt to do so. To be fair it is probably the use of euphemisms to try to hide truth that you're talking about in your mention of euphemism, but there seems to be an undercurrent in the thread that euphemisms are somehow of their nature bad and as you can see, I have some thoughts about that idea.

*For instance in a way when I tell my wife that my love for her burns with the intensity of a thousand fiery suns it in a way it more truthfully and accuratelly communicates my feelings to her than simply saying, "I love you a lot."

You've missed my point.

Outside of the forums, I was trying to formulate a statement that encapsulated a concept that I have been thinking about. I decided to post a draft statement to see what other people understood the statement to mean so that I could compare it to what I felt it meant and see if it was a useful statement. I left my intentions and my own feelings vague so as not to influence others views. In the meantime, I've abandoned my original statement because it isn't unambiguous enough or the words do not properly communicate the meaning I want them to communicate. I've now provided more clarification as to what I'm talking about or what I intented to mean with my statement.

I was wanting to know how others understood my original statement. I didn't want to know what others think what I mean with my statement.

To seek and know truth. Of course not all truth is needful. You may ask, "What?" but I don't think you need to know or seek out how often the Bishop has marital relations with his wife. Likewise when breaking the news of his parent's murder you don't need to read to an 8 year old the coroner's report, nor do I think the child is obligated to seek such out.

Truth is knowledge of things as they really are (D&C 93:24). To know of things as they really are, is to seek and know truth? That is true, but it is also circular. I think there is something more to the concept of knowing, speaking, understanding, etc., of things as they really are.

Regards,

Finrock

[Dravin]

I was wanting to know how others understood my original statement. I didn't want to know what others think what I mean with my statement.

If I parse the word life to mean life instead of apricot it's because I'm parsing it based on the idea that I think you meant life and not apricot. You're essentially demanding, "What does this sentence mean? But don't tell me what you think that choice of words communicates!"

And you seem to be forgetting that you don't just talk mention euphemisms in your first post, you said this:

Our society seems to have decided that pop culture, stereotypes, euphimisms, and other rhetorical/mental constructs that minimize reality are perfectly good ways in which to interact with the world. But, it isn't just the big, obvious ways in which society errs that is of concern.

How exactly did you intend this if not some form of, "Euphemisms are bad."?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Dravin