John said to Arlo:
Tell that one to dmb, who seems to think all definitions are neatly
encapsulated by academics and bequeathed to their kind via wiki and SEP.
Arlo replied:
I can't speak for DMB, but I've always read him to also believe that clarity
and precision encourages the evolutionary process. Its not about setting things
forever in stone, its being clear and precise about what the dialogue you are
responding to, what you are saying, and how you anticipate being interpretted.
dmb says:
Thanks, Arlo. That's certainly my intention and I hope that intention would be
apparent to any fair reader.
As I see it, your average dictionary is not the gold standard of intellectual
validity. It just represents the most basic of basic requirements. If your
argument relies on the use of a term that is so off the mark that it can be
contradicted by a common dictionary, then your argument is very weak indeed.
Isn't it true that the Pirsigian notion of "rhetoric" demands excellence in
writing? And how can it be even a little bit good if your writing includes the
misuse of terms or a misleading use of terms. At the very least, it's just bad
taste to so. If rhetoric is an art form, then such abuse of the terms is a kind
of aesthetic blunder. It's "ugly" and it "doesn't work" because it's confusing
and it interferes with the process of communication.
I really don't understand how this is even debatable. It's a slam-dunk and
no-brainer, ain't it? Making a case for this is like making a case for food at
dinner. If there is no food, who does it even get to be called "dinner"? Same
with thought and speech. If you're not trading in common concepts and words,
then how does it even deserve the name "conversation", let alone "philosophy"?
And yet the response to this obvious truism is hostility and abuse? Only a
douche bag would cite the dictionary against the misuse of terms? Only an
academic elitist would site a common encyclopedia against the sloppy use of
terms? I think that kind of reaction is completely bogus. In my book, you can
continue complaining about dictionaries after you've been contradicted by
dictionaries but it will only get you charged with a second count of idiotic
solipsism.
English is OUR language, not YOUR personal plaything. The dictionary is a
public institution and it's purpose is to standardize word usage, which means
English is OUR language and not one's personal plaything. To be perfectly
frank, I think you'd have to be a very slippery bullshitter and a pathological
narcissist to think otherwise. I mean, show me a chess player who feels
oppressed by the rules of chess and I'll show you a very, very bad chess
player. Except in the case of the rare genius, of course, which is completely
irrelevant in this case because I'm just calling for some of the most basic of
basic standards. If some genius poet-philosopher were here bending words around
in magical ways and I threw the dictionary at her, I'd be the idiotic
solipsist.
Oh, maybe that's it.
Okay, everybody. Please raise your hand if you are an unrecognized poetic
genius. Also, if you have an artistic gift that transcends language itself
please raise your hand. And finally if you feef that the rules of communication
don't apply to you because you're so precious and special and rare, then please
raise your hand. Okay, please keep them up while I take account. I wanna make
sure I don't confuse you with those delusional hacks who only think they're
above it all.
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/md/archives.html
