Hello everyone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:26:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [MD] What is 'Plains-spoken' to you? > > > Krimel said: > I took the topic of this thread to be style and if I wasn't specific I hope > it was clear that I was talking for the most part about my style, > rationalizing, if you will, why I write like a blunt, guileless philistine. I > have an aversion to ritual and niceties but I readily concede the aversion is > a personal peccadillo. I suspect that often in my zeal to eschew them I do > indeed sound like a flaming asshole. Those who know me well though, would > confirm that this is not just an affectation. > > Matt: > Sure, the topic is style, but since I think rhetoric goes all the way down, > people who think they are shedding "ritual" to write in a "plain style" are > not shedding style qua style as they often think, but shedding one style for > another. I think that kind of thought is as pretentious as whatever people > might think of me. Dan: To better communicate I often find it useful to assume as closely as possible the style of writing of whom I am directing my words. I do the same in every day life when getting on with others only I use body language and speech inflections that are impossible to use here in any effective manner. So sometimes I find myself wrting like a "fucking school boy" and other times I find myself writing like an asshole. I think It has to do with neuro-linguistic programming or some such nonsense. But it seems to work for me. I don't mean to offend or sound pretentious. > > Personally, you can be as assholey as you want. I don't really care. Doesn't > bother me. > > Krimel said: > I enjoy Dan's writing. I'd love to see more of it. I don't think I am alone > in that. Dan: Thank you. That's kind of you. >Krimel: >Also I am pretty confident I am on Dan's ignore list. At some point I failed >to exhibit a properly respectful tone in our exchanges, ironically as I recall >it had something to do with his suggestion that I might benefit from >meditation and my overly prosaic response to the suggestion. Dan: I don't know where you get that idea. I seem to recall said discussion but I also recall that I explained to you I wasn't being serious. And if you've read any of my posts concerning meditation, I am sure you must have noticed that I see no purpose to practicing meditation. You're an asshole. I am a sarcastic bastard. Sorry. As for someone being an asshole, like Matt, I really don't care. Hell, some of my best friends are assholes. However, it doesn't add to the value of your writing, imo, of course. I'm sure others see value in it. But that doesn't change the fact that I rarely see any value in responding to your words. I am also sure it's my failing and not yours. > Matt: > See? If you really wanted to talk to Dan, you'd change. But you're happy > enough without it, so you don't. Personally, I don't know the story, but I'm > not entirely sure Dan requires "respectful tones." But, like me and most > people, we have only so much time and energy, and you make choices. Some > people require more energy to talk to, and who those "some" are are going to > be different for everybody. I don't know why some people take it so > personally when a response isn't forthcoming from another poster. If I got > nothing to say, I say nothing. Dan writes folders full, but is looking to > only say something if it fills in X, whatever feeling it is he finally gets > when it seems worth it to open his mouth, like this last time. I can respect > that. Having been around the MD for a long time, though not nearly as long as > Dan, we've both become more picky than we used to. Dan: I think some of us come here to socialize and some come here to intellectualize and some come here to do both. Some of us demand that others "be like us" in subtle and not so subtle ways while others in the group seem to revel instead in the dissimularities. I just come here for fun. So if I spend six hours working on a post only to discover it isn't worth sending, it doesn't matter. I had fun. That's why I write. It doesn't matter if anyone reads my words. At least, not to me. Suddenly, I am discovering that I might have been wrong... that perhaps it does matter after all. But that's why moq.org is so much fun... the learning. > > Krimel said: > I'm not so sure that words _are_ ideas or that they determine ideas in the > way you suggest. Rather I would hope that ideas determine what words we use > and that the words we use modulate the tone or shade the meaning of the ideas > we express. > > Matt: > Ah! Finally, a strictly philosophical topic. What is an idea if not words? I > think the idea that ideas are pre-linguistic is a remnant of SOM. But I'm not > sure I have the ingenuity to go from here in a convincing manner. Dan: An idea is a symbol or a concept that isn't necessary to put into words. An image, a sound, or even an odor could be an idea, or at least the germ of an idea. In the latter sense, ideas are pre-linguistic or perhaps under certain circumstances meta-linguistic might be a better way to put it. Some images go beyond words. Remember when (The Artist Formerly Known As) Prince took an unpronouncable symbol as his legal name? Fcusing on the meta-linguistic aspect of symbolic imagery might allow us to view art, mathematics, and even quantum theory as second cousins... kissing cousins, even. I think Joe often brings this up in his posts, though I have yet to grasp just how this works -- in any logically consistent manner -- as an extension of the MOQ. Just a thought, Dan _________________________________________________________________ More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_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/
