Thats easy. If ones purpose is to communicate to a given audience, it is the responsibility of the communicator to find the words, images or whatever that will have meaning to most members of that audience.
This is not TV, Sandy. Or a public school, or politically correct town meeting. I, for one, enjoy JYA postings. It takes some intelligence to twist the tongue in the right way and also to understand the implied. It is fun, since thought process is revealed and much more info conveyed. It is called "language", and although 200-word pigeon english seems to be the standard these days, it doesnt mean that there are no sentient beings around that do not feel obliged to run the speech center in "lite" mode. Dont look around. Spontaneous group leering will not help you. Perhaps this is too complicated for you. Let me simplify: Even if "everyone" programs in visual basic, there is still beauty, style and efficiency to be done in C or assembly. And there are things which cannot be done in VB. You seem to exhibit standard american "culture" conditioning that denigrates everything which is not immediately understandable by complete idiots. Like genital action, for example. I understand that that is your expertise.
Anonymous wrote:
I, for one, enjoy JYA postings. It takes some intelligence to twist the tongue in the right way and also to understand the implied.
It also takes some intelligence to write clearly and concisely. "So what?" in either case. If you're PERSONAL preference is intellectual obscurantism, more power to you. But the Cypherpunks list is about getting things done more than it's about cutesy vanity.
It is called "language", and although 200-word pigeon english seems to be the standard these days, it doesnt mean that there are no sentient beings around that do not feel obliged to run the speech center in "lite" mode.
I'm a wordsmith by trade. People pay me to put words in a row. When you can get that sort of real-world praise for your writing, then I might be more inclined to listen to your whining.
You seem to exhibit standard american "culture" conditioning that denigrates everything which is not immediately understandable by complete idiots.
And perhaps you are just projecting. The audience I was talking about is the Cypherpunks list--a long way from "complete idiots." I relish beautiful, expressive language. That's not the same thing as intentionally, self-indulgent, narcissistic obfuscation. You seem to be stuck in some elitist artsy-fartsy mode where the more rococo and Byzantine the language, the more you praise it.
Like genital action, for example. I understand that that is your expertise.
Why thank you! (Just ONE of my areas of expertise, of course.) Now you can go back to playing with yourself, which I understand is YOUR expertise. :-D S a n d y
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
I'm a wordsmith by trade. People pay me to put words in a row.
And what do we call a "wordsmith" that doesn't like poetry?
See: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.06/spirit.brush.html S a n d y
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 02:31:23PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
more power to you. But the Cypherpunks list is about getting things done more than it's about cutesy vanity.
Really? It always struck me as that this list was a lot more about vanity than getting things done. :) -Declan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Really? It always struck me as that this list was a lot more about vanity than getting things done. :)
Apropos, I'm looking for full-duplex no-hassle crypto voice programs (preferably, for *nix) which would work on anything >200 MHz StrongARM and over wireless modem links. (It's in a wearable context). Apart from SpeakFreely (I'm not sure it's full duplex), any pointers? ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
PRZ told me last week he was working on (and I put this in my Wired article) PGPfone in Java. You may want to compare notes. -Declan On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 12:37:34PM +0200, Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
Apropos, I'm looking for full-duplex no-hassle crypto voice programs (preferably, for *nix) which would work on anything >200 MHz StrongARM and over wireless modem links. (It's in a wearable context).
Apart from SpeakFreely (I'm not sure it's full duplex), any pointers? ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
the Cypherpunks list--a long way from "complete idiots." I relish
Some would question that. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
On the regulation of storytellers: And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen, who are so clever that they can imitate anything, comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his poetry, we will fall down and worship him as a sweet and holy and wonderful being; but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him with myrrh, and set a garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls' health the rougher and severer poet or story-teller, who will imitate the style of the virtuous only, and will follow those models which we prescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers. -- Plato's cynicism in The Republic A passing shadow wrote, quoting S a n d y's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
Thats easy. If ones purpose is to communicate to a given audience, it is the responsibility of the communicator to find the words, images or whatever that will have meaning to most members of that audience.
Let us walk, then, and speak of the meaning of meaning: " http://www.learn.columbia.edu/raphael/htm/raphael_philo.htm " Raphael, The Stanza della Segnatura, The School Of Athens Meaning is two or more objects in a relationship. As language is imperfect, the 'disposition of the sign' is rarely a mirror image in two minds. Sandy's argument exemplifies Wittgensteinian thought: a perfect language is one that has TOTAL identity of reference, and all communication should have this goal. For Sandy, anything else is "nonsensical." Those who have the strongest power of reasoning, and who most skilfully arrange their thoughts in order to tender them clear and intelligible, have the best power of persuasion even if they can but speak the language of Lower Brittany and have never learned Rhetoric. And those who have the most delightful original ideas and who know how to express them with the maximum of style and suavity, would not fail to be the best poets even if the art of Poetry were unknown to them. (Descartes)
This is not TV, Sandy. Or a public school, or politically correct town meeting.
Anonymous, (a fellow Sophist? FN1), points out that mass media is written for the masses. A larger point is that THOUGHT PRESUPPOSES LANGUAGE. By limiting your language to the lowest common denominator, your limit the 'lodestar' of the sign vehicles. American media speaks in the lowest common denominator in the interest of social justice and convenience. Some feel it has worked an equal injustice by hobbling our ability to THINK. "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind." (Wittgenstein) Great THOUGHT rarely speaks to the lowest common denominator. Great DIALOGUE is not betwixt idiots.
I, for one, enjoy JYA postings. It takes some intelligence to twist the tongue in the right way and also to understand the implied. It is fun, since thought process is revealed and much more info conveyed.
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when one has used them -- as steps -- to climb up beyond them. (Wittgenstein)
You seem to exhibit standard american "culture" conditioning that denigrates everything which is not immediately understandable by complete idiots.
Anonymous is correct when he says we are limited by our cultural language conventions and folkways. I believe other cultures plowed richer fields of thought.
Even if "everyone" programs in visual basic, there is still beauty, style and efficiency to be done in C or assembly. And there are things which cannot be done in VB.
"Let the use of words teach you their meaning." (Wittgenstein) I find Young's wordplay provoking. He buries little treasures in there sometimes...very unique. Our language folkways limit our conceptualization, and THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH THROUGH DIALOGUE. Just because language invokes a personal dialogue does not mean it invalid, or limited to an emotive conveyance. In this category fall the most powerful *communicative* works of human existence. Poetry and prose can attain equal footing with logical factual propositions, such as those couched in Justice and Philosophy. " http://www.learn.columbia.edu/raphael/htm/raphael_ceiling_details.htm " Raphael, The Stanza della Segnatura, The Ceiling (see iconography)
Like genital action, for example. I understand that that is your expertise.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Wittgenstein) My apologies for taking license, but it's the Allegory of the Cave in here sometimes.... ~Aimee 1. In an Aristotelian sense.
At 02:46 PM 6/9/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
On the regulation of storytellers:
AF, we have only so much patience. State your point in a paragraph at most, or don't expect to be read. I think that was SS's point. Noone has any obligation (much less interest) to read anyone's linguistic masturbation.
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 02:46 PM 6/9/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
On the regulation of storytellers:
AF, we have only so much patience. State your point in a paragraph at most, or don't expect to be read. I think that was SS's point. Noone has any obligation (much less interest) to read anyone's linguistic masturbation.
Drop fucking dead. -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:41 PM 6/9/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 02:46 PM 6/9/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
On the regulation of storytellers:
AF, we have only so much patience. State your point in a paragraph at most, or don't expect to be read. I think that was SS's point. Noone has any obligation (much less interest) to read anyone's linguistic masturbation.
Drop fucking dead.
Well at least you're concise.
Honig wrote:
AF, we have only so much patience. State your point in a paragraph at most, or don't expect to be read. I think that was SS's point. Noone has any obligation (much less interest) to read anyone's linguistic masturbation.
Yes, David, truly, I expected (to paraphrase Sandfort) "the most members of this audience" to be drawn in by Plato's Republic, so as to entertain the nature of Sophist dialogue ...reflect on Wittgensteinian philosophy ...engage in concept analysis ...to sit and marvel on the colored numenons of Raphael ...to meander down linguistic folkways.... Yea, to even come away pondering The Allegory of the Cave.... Damn. ~Aimee
Aimee Farr wrote:
Anonymous, (a fellow Sophist? FN1), points out that mass media is written for the masses.
A larger point is that THOUGHT PRESUPPOSES LANGUAGE. By limiting your language to the lowest common denominator, your limit the 'lodestar' of the sign vehicles. American media speaks in the lowest common denominator in the interest of social justice and convenience. Some feel it has worked an equal injustice by hobbling our ability to THINK. "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind." (Wittgenstein)
Not in the interests of social justice. In the interests of advertising, sales, and ratings. Ken
As so many have pointed out, privately. I was referring to a time before the media was uhm...expatriciated. Anybody care to cast a lot for their picks of Net/new media written in the spirit of gentil intellection? ~Aimee
Aimee Farr wrote:
Anonymous, (a fellow Sophist? FN1), points out that mass media is written for the masses.
A larger point is that THOUGHT PRESUPPOSES LANGUAGE. By limiting your language to the lowest common denominator, your limit the 'lodestar' of the sign vehicles. American media speaks in the lowest common denominator in the interest of social justice and convenience. Some feel it has worked an equal injustice by hobbling our ability to THINK. "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind." (Wittgenstein)
Not in the interests of social justice. In the interests of advertising, sales, and ratings.
Ken
At 09:29 PM 06/11/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
As so many have pointed out, privately. I was referring to a time before the media was uhm...expatriciated.
Anybody care to cast a lot for their picks of Net/new media written in the spirit of gentil intellection?
John's writing may lead to some speculation about whether he did a little too much James Joyce in the 60s, but it's worth reading a much higher fraction of the time than most Internet writers, and when he's making stuff up it's almost always creative and interesting. On the other hand, it's less clear whether *you're* asking about people who write in a gently intellectual spirit or whether you're talking about goyish intellectuals here...
Bill Stewart was the dog that bit me:
Anybody care to cast a lot for their picks of Net/new media written in the spirit of gentil intellection?
John's writing may lead to some speculation about whether he did a little too much James Joyce in the 60s, but it's worth reading a much higher fraction of the time than most Internet writers, and when he's making stuff up it's almost always creative and interesting.
On the other hand, it's less clear whether *you're* asking about people who write in a gently intellectual spirit or whether you're talking about goyish intellectuals here...
Touche. I do not aspire beyond my station, Bill. I meant media (whatever form) that is: thought-provoking, rather than *just* factual, written for a reasonably broad audience.... First Monday usually makes me ponder on something. ~Aimee
Aimee Farr wrote:
Anonymous, (a fellow Sophist? FN1), points out that mass media is written for the masses.
A larger point is that THOUGHT PRESUPPOSES LANGUAGE. By limiting your language to the lowest common denominator, your limit the 'lodestar' of the sign vehicles. American media speaks in the lowest common denominator in the interest of social justice and convenience. Some feel it has worked an equal injustice by hobbling our ability to THINK. "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind." (Wittgenstein)
Not in the interests of social justice. In the interests of advertising, sales, and ratings.
To the American media, advertising, sales, and rating *ARE* social justice. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
participants (11)
-
Aimee Farr
-
Anonymous
-
Bill Stewart
-
David Honig
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
-
Harmon Seaver
-
Jim Choate
-
Ken Brown
-
petro
-
Sandy Sandfort