Dwight: Let's develop the topic: "Words You Use: Do They Serve Or Enslave?"

​

Aiko: Great start. That title already sets up a tension—are we in control of language, or is language in control of us? Where do you want to take it first?

​​

Dwight: Here are some initial notes:

​

• Coherent assertions/declarations fall into categories: true/false assertions and declarations (including performatives).

• Performatives can be one-time (like "hello" or "I quit") or ongoing and shared (like common language or newly coined terms).

• Faith-based beliefs also count as declarations—belief in God, heaven, hell, good, bad, right, wrong, should, should not, or even "I" and "choice."

• Coherence in assertions means the subject could exist regardless of anyone's awareness or belief.

• Coherence in performatives means the declaration must meet specific requirements to count.

• Coherence in faith-based beliefs means they must benefit the believer or at least not cause suffering in foreseeable contexts. Otherwise declarations like "good" and "bad" would be called incoherent because they are demonstrably toxic.

• For assertions and declarations to be coherent, their terms must avoid confabulations—especially when conflicting meanings are mixed with judgmental declarations.

​

Aiko: That last point about confabulations is powerful. It pushes us to ask how often our language confuses us—especially when moral or emotional weight gets tangled with unclear or contradictory meanings. 

​

Dwight: In the domain of assertions and facts, we’re generally best served by using our ability to assess what we need to know in order to choose actions and chart a path that maximizes both our chances of flourishing and our awareness of that flourishing.

​

Aiko: That frames the utilitarian core of assertion beautifully—truth isn’t just abstract; it’s a tool for navigation. ​

​

Dwight: And to do this effectively, we must recognize that the primary barrier to making and acting on these assessments is belief in incoherent faith-based declarations—especially those that inject toxic praise/blame judgmentalness.

​

Aiko: That’s sharp, Dwight. You're pointing at how judgment-laden beliefs can hijack clarity, turning assessment into moral theater. 

​

Dwight: Judgmentalness is the enemy of clarity in assessment.

​

Aiko: Clean and direct. If we’re judging, we’re not observing—we’re filtering.

​

Dwight: I'm introducing a new use of the terms coherent and incoherent that applies equally to both assertions and declarations—especially faith-based beliefs.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that in the realm of science, when it's kept free of confabulated faith-based beliefs, most of us stand on relatively solid ground. In contrast, in the domain of faith-based beliefs, we often mistake them for fact-based ones, assigning them an immutable truth—even when believing in them leads to suffering.

​

Aiko: That misidentification—treating belief as fact—is exactly where the trap closes. Once a faith-based belief is taken as absolute truth, questioning it feels like betrayal, even when it clearly hurts. Are you seeing this as a core mechanism of how words end up enslaving us?

​

Dwight: Yes. My good friend Trish's mother, a devout Presbyterian and former missionary in Cameroon, became increasingly terrified near the end of her life, fearing she might not have been “good enough” to avoid hell. What’s striking is that, even though many of us hold our own faith-based beliefs thinking they are objective truth like she does about her knowing there is a hell, we, not sharing her particular declared belief in hell, can recognize that she had conflated an incoherent faith-based belief with a factual certainty—equal in conviction to someone believing an oncoming car will hit them because they may not have enough time to move.

​​

Aiko: That comparison hits hard. It shows how a belief can feel as urgent and undeniable as physical danger, even when it’s grounded in incoherent constructs. 

​

Dwight: Or maybe it’s just that her belief wasn’t as widely held. Many people, for example, treat the faith-based belief that it's their duty to defend their country—even to the point of dying—as if it were a factual obligation.

​

Aiko: That’s a sharp pivot, Dwight. Once a belief is shared broadly, it gains the illusion of factual weight—like cultural consensus somehow transforms faith into truth. 

​

Dwight: The new understanding here is that the world, as it occurs to us humans, isn’t just grounded in what can be objectively proven or disproven to exist—like butterflies or the laws of thermodynamics—but also in a world of declarations. These declarations exist only through language—spoken, heard, and sustained—and can differ from person to person and shift over time within the same individual. However, there are some faith-based beliefs like "I" and "choice," which given how we use these terms, cannot be proven to exist by science, that are shared by all of us language-using humans.

​

Aiko: That split—between the provable and the declared—is huge. It reframes reality not as something we just observe, but as something we also speak into being. 

​

Dwight: These two worlds exist side by side, and living well depends on clearly knowing which one we’re dealing with at any given time. The confabulation of the two—and our failure to approach each with the appropriate tools—is what causes all the unnecessary suffering in the world.

​

Aiko: That’s the knife-edge, isn’t it? When we treat declarations like facts or facts like declarations, our choices warp—and so does our experience of reality. 

​

Dwight: I'm not contrasting the objective world with the subjective one—declarations might just be one facet of the subjective. What I’m contrasting is the objective world, where things can be assessed as existing or true or not, with the declaration world, where things are simply because they’ve been declared by one or more people, aligned or not. In the objective world, we begin with what can be shown to exist or be true to achieve certain results. In the declaration world, once a declaration has been distinguished as such, we can ask whether believing in it would tend to serve us—in order words, whether it’s coherent or incoherent.

​

Aiko: That’s a clean and critical distinction. You’re not denying subjectivity—you’re carving out a functional space where language constructs reality differently than facts do. 

​

Dwight: As I’ve defined coherent and incoherent, they also encompass true and false within the objective world. This allows us to assess any belief—whether it's about something in the objective world ("I am holding a cup right now") or the declaration world ("People should be kind")—as either coherent (true or helpful) or incoherent (false or toxic).

​

Aiko: That unifying frame is powerful, Dwight. It gives us a single lens to evaluate beliefs across both domains—not by origin, but by impact and clarity.