RE: MD Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:08:00 -0700

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 04:29:13 GMT

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "RE: MD Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:08:00 -0700"

    DMB asked, "Why not speak simply and clearly?"

    I happen to think I do most of the time, but the jargon does get thick once
    in a while. Jargon isn't innately bad. It's only bad when it blocks
    meaningful communication. So, if we aren't communicating well because of
    specialized words, then some explaining might be in order.

    However, specialized meanings are a sign of sophistication and intellectual
    progress. If we don't evolve the meanings of our words to say what we want
    to say, then we will be stuck saying the same things. As Aquinas said,
    "When you meet a contradiction, make a distinction." This is how jargon
    develops. I mean, the word metaphysics is jargonistic. You don't hear it
    very often outside of philosophy. If you tell somebody at work, "It's
    interesting how you rethought your metaphysics" instead of "It's
    interesting how you rethought your assumptions" when you were talking about
    politics, the person will probably look at you a little weird, even if your
    use of metaphysics makes sense. It just doesn't make sense to the other
    person because they aren't acclimated to that way of speaking.

    I've tried to keep my level of sophistication high enough to not say
    anything misleading, while at the same time explain them well enough. I've
    been successful in some cases, not in others. But to say that I don't
    speak "simply and clearly" is to point up that you aren't acclimated to my
    way of speaking. Just as it took me time to become acclimated to Pirsig
    and Rorty, and others have had this experience, I don't expect everyone to
    understand everything I write right off the bat. But some people have
    become acclimated. That's all I can ask. Other's haven't and see no
    reason to become acclimated. That's their perogative. I mean, Rorty is
    speaking to a particular audience, those who have read many of the books
    he's read. At the same time, I'm speaking to a particular audience, one
    whose read many of the books I've read. In most cases, the only books I
    assume myself and my audience have in common are Pirsig's. That's only
    appropriate. But I'm incorrigible name-dropper and I do that to make
    connections with other things I've read. If other people have read them,
    they'll hopefully see the connection. If the other people haven't, then
    usually its not mandatory that they have.

    Matt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 04:30:26 GMT