Only to Krimel, Everyone else excluded, No one else mentioned: If, for the sake of discussion, we stipulate Dan and I as the epitome of mealymouthed, back-talking, then Krimel, you are our exact opposite, a blunt, guileless philistine.
Now, I don't think either is true, but they represent the poorer of ways of understanding what I see as different rhetorical strategies. I think it the lesser part of wisdom (read: stupid) to think that there is a single context in which people are to be read, that we have true, pure voices that should be heard for what they are no matter the audience before us. Dan can be read as thinking that, and so can you, and I think you're both wrong. It is about persuasion, it is about effect, it is about doing something in a space that has been provided, space that is created by a stipulated audience, real or imaginary. We all have voices, but to think we can't, or shouldn't, modulate them, is to think that singing is best when there's one note. That's just not the point of singing. In other words, you can swear all you like Krimel, but who are you talking to? Who are you trying to convince of what? And: might there be a better way? As Pirsig said, "Hey baby, it be rhetoric all the way down. GET DOWN TONIGHT. GET DOWN TONIGHT." Or something like that. All of which is to say: just about everything everybody says on the topic of plains-spoken is almost inevitably right at some point, but not at all points--what we take to be good, effective writing always depends on the perspective and taste of the reader. The point of a forum is to toss out ideas to see if they stick, but what if you don't know what the idea is yet? Might silence be a good idea? We are here to sharpen our voices, but is all help the same? Does everybody respond in the same way to the same kind of teacher? Do all teachers teach every student in the same way? Dan _was_ saying, "Fucking college boy!," but he also wanted to say something else, something that if he'd led off with that, wouldn't really have been rhetorically permitted. Or, he wasn't saying that, because he doesn't swear and that kind of verbiage doesn't come to him as it does to you or I. Choice in words doesn't ever reduce to a few set ideas that we can dress in different ways. The choice of words _are_ the ideas, and the way we put the idea determines what we are saying. We can be brusque, or pedantic. We can be witty, or boorish. All of these things determine our voice, our ideas, our "I". Some people think I'm quite unintelligible because of the way I write, the things I say. Perfectly fine, but in a certain way, some of the things I say can't be put in a different way, can't be "cleaned up" and put more straight-forwardly. To think there is something called "plain-spoken" that is the _only_ way to write is to mount shackles on people, to tell them that if their "I" doesn't fit into this box, they should get the fuck out of here. But we know what Pirsig thinks about people who fall outside the mythos. Matt p.s. I think you're absolutely right that "After a while it isn't hard to tell when the words are sincere and when they sincerely mean, 'Professor Puffalicious is a insufferable dipshit.'" It's why I fell in love with academic writing: read enough of it, and the secret doors of its style open up and release all sorts of little jokes. What can I say: I love being an insider! > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:37:12 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] What is 'Plains-spoken' to you? > > Everyone in general, No one in particular, Dan and Matt mentioned: > > On Plains-Speak: > > [Dan] > I cannot speak for others but it seems to me that any words tend to stain > the purity (so to speak) of the discussion and so can be twisted into > something not at all intended; so often times it's better not to say > anything at all. I guess that's why my draft folder is full of unsent > messages that will (probably) never be read, and my document folder is full > of unpublished essays languishing in the graveyard of dreams. > > [Krimel] > I go through periods where I tune in the car radio to catch Limbaugh, > Hannity, Dobson, Bennett... I want to know what these folks think and why > they think that way. Before too long I find myself talking, sometimes > talking loudly, back at them. It seems to me that folders full of unsent > messages are just shouting at the windshield. > > Too me at least, IMHO, the point of an interactive medium like this is to > get those ideas out there and see if they stick. They seem profound when the > windows are rolled up but if Limbaugh was in the pickup truck stuck in > traffic next to you? How profound would he find those musings on his > musings? The idea is not so much to convince someone else that you are right > as to see how right you sound to someone else and to teach yourself to sound > righter. > > If the words stain the purity of my thoughts maybe I should find better > words or start wondering if I haven't confused purity with sterility. > > [Dan] > Still, Matt does have a point worth noting. This "softening" can also be > used as a tool by the reader to lessen the value of a statement by opening > the writer up to the possibility of being wrong. If not used though, > statements lacking such an admission have a pompous and arrogant feel to > them that I find distasteful. So I find it useful to remind myself that it > is just my opinion and nothing more even though it's possible that different > connotations could be assigned to such an admission. I take my chances, in > other words. > > [Krimel] > I hear what you are saying but I have to ask, "Does adding IMHO mean > anything?" Does anyone here think that anything put into an e-mail could > possibly be other than the author's opinion? Is the point of what we do here > really to change the minds of others or to sharpen our own? > > Once words leave the purity of our thoughts none of us can say how they will > impact another. Silence leaves us wondering if someone else heard what we > said; or if what they heard is what we meant; or even if what we said was > what we meant. I would say 'softening' is a prescription for muddy waters. > > I attend several lectures series at a local college where serious academics > discuss each other's work. The tone is always professional and dignified as > in: "I greatly admire the level of scholarship Professor Puffalicious > displays in his paper, but I wonder if..." After a while it isn't hard to > tell when the words are sincere and when they sincerely mean, "Professor > Puffalicious is a insufferable dipshit." > > [Matt] > Oh, and Dan: you should hold me responsible for my style, though perhaps not > others. I try to be a self-conscious stylist, and I happen to like some of > the stuff others can't stand, even some of the more prosaic academic > writing. Which is fair enough: we all make choices. > > [Krimel] > Everyone here speaks in their own voice. What's important is that it IS your > own voice. I think the point of these discussions is to develop our voices. > To sharpen our use of language, to make our meanings more clearly stated so > that they will be more clearly heard. Our criticisms of each other should > likewise be aimed helping others do the same. If you think what I am saying > is stupid or poorly stated, you do me no service by softening the blow. > > On that great day when Shawn Hannity or Ken Wilber makes the mistake of > rolling up beside me at a red light; believe me I will thank you one and all > for whatever abuse you graciously heaped on me today. > > [Dan] > I myself tend to rationalize this display of 'academicitis' as a symptom of > the disease anyone who has gone through higher education is afficted with > for which you yourself are not to be held responsible any more than if you > had a cold or the flu. We are dealing with social patterns of value now > though and not biological but I do believe we can safely say there are > similarities. You're a product of the system, just as we all are. > > [Krimel] > So this sounds to me like what is really being said is "Fucking college > boy!" Or I could soften that by hearing, "I enjoy the level of effort you > put into your work, you fucking college boy." > > Two bits a dollar for the school of hard knocks. > > When I was a young fucking college boy, just out of the ivory tower, one of > my first jobs was as a newspaper reporter. I got told really fast in no > uncertain terms to stop beating around the bush. "Weasel words are for > weasels," my incarnation of Perry White would say. > > He bought us all copies of Strunk and White and told us that adjectives and > the passive voice don't mean diddly in a libel suit. Say what you mean and > mean what you say and if you couldn't, he'd explain how, in terms not fit > for a family newspaper. > > [Dan] > I don't like to hurt people's feelings. I would rather absorb the hurt > myself without passing it along, which is why (without naming names) I (have > and will continue to) ignore many posts responding to my writings. > > [Krimel] > Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, I hear you, Dan. So you won't be on my thank you > list on "that great day." > > Surly editors aside, I come from a family where no holiday is complete until > Mom says, "Alright, that's enough! You boys take that outside!" It is a > testimony to our mutual love that three of us grew to manhood with only one > cracked rib and a few stitches among us. Lots of bruises, plenty of wounded > pride but the most serious injuries were self inflicted. I could never own a > pocket knife without whacking a finger and getting all nauseous from the > dripping blood. One brother lost his eyebrows trying to coax life into a > smoldering smoke bomb by sprinkling it with black power from the can. One > brother shot himself in the tongue with a BB gun. > > Every Christmas we have these ruthless all nighters of the board game Risk. > One year to get even with me for being late, everyone conspired to make sure > that the game dragged on but that I would lose. I was being all rational, > making strategies, forging alliances, but getting royally hosed over. > Finally someone did something that actually hurt them more than it hurt me > but still hurt me enough to jump up, exclaim, "This is pointless!' and stomp > off. > > Fifteen years later, at Christmas I can count on hearing "Jingle Bells", > "Ho, ho, ho", "Bah hum bug" and a whiney chorus of "This is pointless!" > Perhaps I should have borne the insult in silence. There is something to be > said for that. The incident would be long forgotten by now. But then I think > of all the joy it brings others at Christmas time with the opening of > presents, pouring salt in old wounds. I get to feel a bit of that kind of > joy myself every time I ask my brother how a BB tastes. > > [Dan] > I don't know exactly what to make of all this though I suspect it revolves > around what RMP calls "Plains-spoken" in LILA. > > [Krimel] > One of the examples Pirsig gives of plain spoken folk is the Sundance Kid. > > "The voice of an unseen gambler says, 'Well, it looks like you cleaned > everybody out, fella. You haven't lost a hand since you got the deal.' > There is no change in the Kid's expression. > 'What's the secret of your success?' the gambler's voice continues. It is > threatening. Ominous. > Sundance looks down for a while as if thinking about it, then looks up > unemotionally. 'Prayer,' he says. > He doesn't mean it but he doesn't say it sarcastically either. It's a > statement poised on a knife edge of ambiguity." > > A word plainly spoken, its meaning left for others to decide and when they > do bodies hit the floor. Plains-spoken words need plains-spoken ears; there > is risk on both sides. > > Plains-speak should be honest, direct and from the heart but Pirsig doesn't > say it is polite or respectful: > > "Europeans often think of white Americans as being too direct and > plain-spoken, bad-mannered and sort of insolent the way they do things, but > Indians are even more that way." > > Sometimes when I am listening to the AM, pounding my steering wheel and > speaking plainly to the windshield, I take a deep breath; a moment of > pranayama. I let a wave of bliss wash over me and in the purity of the > moment I reflect that some around me are calm. They are not shouting at > their windshields they are singing to theirs. I flip the radio to golden > oldies on the FM. > > There it is! > > The Byrds are singing Ecclesiastes, "To everything there is a season and a > time to every purpose under heaven." > > I sure hope I am not listening to that crap on that great day when Rush > Limbaugh pulls up beside me. _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_042008 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
