Detweiler, Vulis, Toto, John Young, and mattd

[John Young]

Psychological and psychiatric catergories are entertaining to
toy with, and the diagnostic manuals are a hoot, but none are as
subtle and supple as language needs to be to convey what
people do, believe, say and act. They are way too rigid and 
domineering to get at the complexity and unpredictability of 
human behavior. But simple-seeking minds are soothed by 
them.

Similarly, grammatical language is pitifully limited in what it 
can communicate, and its adherents must bully their message
to say what they cannot so long as they abide by the rigidity
of a highly conventional structure, not of their own making, 
not even of their understanding as to what can be done
contradicting the ever challengable conceits of grammar's
illusory supremacy.

Fortunately, there are numerous creative alternatives to 
rigid, authoritarian language as in all arts and sciences. 
Alternatives which the conventionally obedience ever 
attempt to demonize and castigate with simian terms 
of opprobrium. Psychoanalysis a prime tool, literary
criticism another. Plain language philosophy, too, 
idolizes word structure, the false hegemon of the
dictionary.

Any more of this kind of shit writing belabors the obvious 
point that serious writing, along with serious thinking, is 
ridiculous, a conceit of mind and tongue unable to bear 
frightful freedom, afraid of its own yearning for disorderly
structure as though there is something wrong with singing
your heart out, and laughing at your tone deafness.

A joke beats a wise statement any day of the week for
content, style and performance.

An unintended joke is a masterstroke. If it is upon oneself
that is sublime. Take God's own case, a sublime lack of
humor about the predicament sui generis.

Nobody here has ever gone that far, though the best ones
vainmostly aspire.