Big Words VS Dumbing Down - Round 5

[This thread was split off from The Element of Charity]

Great Edward Dude err Dudette. Whichever you prefer today! Here is your new post. “What is Rational”?

Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals, I will tell you the same thing I have told Zeno in the past. Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! If you want people to pay attention to what you are writing about you might want people to pay attention to being with. It is hard and not even worth trying if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. No one really cares. You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. And you will get way more fans in the end by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend! Peace and this ain’t no lie!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

If you think that you, in the context of an inquiry you are committed to and based on its rules of evidence and argument, have what it takes to claim X, then you're being rational. Some groups, to carry out inquires that interest them, may rule out certain sources of information, for example what they deem to be supernatural. Others may rule in or out other kinds of evidence and other forms of argument. If someone wants to participate in their language-game, they must play by their rules. But no language-game, whether it be that of science or religion or whatever, gets to rule on what is an isn't rational as such. That's up to history, if anything. Unless you believe that the eternal laws of reason for all possible inquiries have been discovered once and for all, then you have to concede that we do what we can with the vocabularies of inquiries we possess -- and that we should be on the lookout for more vocabularies.

The "best evidence" is always relative to an established language-game. There are only a very few of those where discussion is rigorous in any scientific sense, e.g. mathematics, physics. The rest have to do with more human concerns, i.e. how we are to live together, what we should live for, hope for. Most of the "factual" disputes I've seen here are really proxy arguments for value disputes. People couch value disputes in factual terms because they've been convinced that the latter are somehow more "rational." But they aren't.

---

I'm not interested in "people" in the abstract. Individuals will get involved in conversations to the extent that they are interested in them, attracted to them. They may understand little or nothing, initially. I first discovered Samuel Beckett when I was 12 or 13, wandering through the stacks of my undistinguished local public library. I don't know why I spotted "How It Is," but I was so astonished when I began reading it that I literally sat down on the floor. I simply hadn't realized that a novel such as this was possible. Did I understand it? No. What I did know is that I WANTED to understand it. I don't think that a watered-down "introduction" to Beckett would have been so inspiring.

On the other hand, once inspired, I benefited from "introductions." If something is interesting or puzzling, ask for expansion or explanation regarding what's unclear. I'm happy to explain all I can, and I recognize the duty to do so, but specific questions, please!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

Great Edward Dude err Dudette. Whichever you prefer today! Here is your new post. “What is Rational”?

Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals, I will tell you the same thing I have told Zeno in the past. Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! If you want people to pay attention to what you are writing about you might want people to pay attention to being with. It is hard and not even worth trying if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. No one really cares. You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. And you will get way more fans in the end by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend! Peace and this ain’t no lie!

---

God help me but I just realized this sounds as if I compare myself to Beckett. What a horrible mistake. Mea maxima culpa.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

I'm not interested in "people" in the abstract. Individuals will get involved in conversations to the extent that they are interested in them, attracted to them. They may understand little or nothing, initially. I first discovered Samuel Beckett when I was 12 or 13, wandering through the stacks of my undistinguished local public library. I don't know why I spotted "How It Is," but I was so astonished when I began reading it that I literally sat down on the floor. I simply hadn't realized that a novel such as this was possible. Did I understand it? No. What I did know is that I WANTED to understand it. I don't think that a watered-down "introduction" to Beckett would have been so inspiring.

On the other hand, once inspired, I benefited from "introductions." If something is interesting or puzzling, ask for expansion or explanation regarding what's unclear. I'm happy to explain all I can, and I recognize the duty to do so, but specific questions, please!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

If you think that you, in the context of an inquiry you are committed to and based on its rules of evidence and argument, have what it takes to claim X, then you're being rational.

---

I am exterminating witches from my religious community, and my rules of evidence include placing stones in the pockets of suspects and throwing them into a lake. If they pop back to the surface, they are witches. Since I have my own context of inquiry and rules of evidence, I am being rational.

Quote:

---

Some groups, to carry out inquires that interest them, may rule out certain sources of information, for example what they deem to be supernatural. Others may rule in or out other kinds of evidence and other forms of argument. If someone wants to participate in their language-game, they must play by their rules.

---

I don't wish to participate in the "language games" of witch hunters, and I feel the same way about the language games of mass murders in the Bush administration. If you recall, Orwell had a lot to say about such things in his classic essay "Politics and the English Language." I shudder to think how Orwell would have reacted to your relativistic muddling of our mother tongue. If words and meanings are made wholly relative to cultural and political contexts, we lose our anchor to reality because our words are our thoughts, and at some point meaning must stop being relative. If "A" means "A" here in this context, but "A" means "B" in that context and "C" in some other context, the very concept of "A" becomes so fluid that it loses all meaning and we find ourselves paralyzed by confusion.

Quote:

---

But no language-game, whether it be that of science or religion or whatever, gets to rule on what is an isn't rational as such.

---

If this is true, then everyone is rational, and when everyone is rational, the very term "rationality" no longer has meaning.

Quote:

---

Unless you believe that the eternal laws of reason for all possible inquiries have been discovered once and for all, then you have to concede that we do what we can with the vocabularies of inquiries we possess -- and that we should be on the lookout for more vocabularies.

---

Speaking of vocabularies, I notice that your writing often piles abstractions on abstractions until the entire pile threatens to collapse under its own weight. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong, but I will never know that until I can understand what you're saying. What is an "eternal law of reason for an inquiry"? What does "inquiry" even mean in the way that you're using it? What is a "vocabulary of inquiry"? And what reason would I have to think that I'm short on "vocabularies"? I think the trick is not to keep explaining your terms but to use terms that need no explanation in the first place. The English language gives us a very large number of commonly used words having widely accepted meanings. Except in the most unusual circumstances, those common words and meanings suffice for almost all the communication we will ever need. Orwell said (and I paraphrase) that the great muddler of the English language is insincerity. So we would all do well to see our expressions in that light.

Putting relevance to what I said earlier would probably be a good idea eh? Let me rewrite it so even a UC Berkley dean may understand. Oh and I really hope this is not the way you treat your student body. Everyone deserves to understand and want to read and participate in a conversation. If you write something that only about ten percent of the population is comfortable in reading than you are defeating you purpose and losing your audience.

The way you guyz write would be compared to manufacturing automobiles. Oh by the way anger management is an issue also. Flying off the handle is not becoming, oh ya the automobile manufactures. Lets say we are manufacturing NASCARS. Now this is beyond the norm and a spectacular vehicle yes? Yet only a few may feel comfortable in driving one everyday. Top of the line and way way more than most would ever dream of! Yet most would prefer something a little more tame and comfortable. Something they can slip into and sip a cup of tea at the same time. Something maybe warm and inviting, easily blending in with society today. Like maybe a Subaru Outback, or a Toyota Camry. Easy and effortless introduction to today’s new world around us all. Admitting trying the Sleek NASCAR Is inviting, but once tried whom is really going to drive one everyday? Now you as manufactures of these automobiles should without a doubt notice the need for a more subtle auto and really take into consideration you clientele and give the public something they can drive and feel comfortable in driving! Peace and I hope you take this to heart!:Yinyangv:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

I'm not interested in "people" in the abstract. Individuals will get involved in conversations to the extent that they are interested in them, attracted to them. They may understand little or nothing, initially. I first discovered Samuel Beckett when I was 12 or 13, wandering through the stacks of my undistinguished local public library. I don't know why I spotted "How It Is," but I was so astonished when I began reading it that I literally sat down on the floor. I simply hadn't realized that a novel such as this was possible. Did I understand it? No. What I did know is that I WANTED to understand it. I don't think that a watered-down "introduction" to Beckett would have been so inspiring.

On the other hand, once inspired, I benefited from "introductions." If something is interesting or puzzling, ask for expansion or explanation regarding what's unclear. I'm happy to explain all I can, and I recognize the duty to do so, but specific questions, please!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

... I notice that your writing often piles abstractions on abstractions until the entire pile threatens to collapse under its own weight. ... Orwell said (and I paraphrase) that the great muddler of the English language is insincerity. So we would all do well to see our expressions in that light.

---

Frederick, once again I find myself wondering what you're doing. Mykil, and now, more articulately, Willie, are trying to get through to you what I've said in the past. It seems all of your posts devolve into a discussion of what is true, and what is real and how difficult it is to understand people's motives and meanings. Get over it.

If you look up you'll see this thread is about a person coming out as bisexual in this public forum [see original thread here]. I see absolutely no connection between that topic and your posts. Perhaps the "What is a lie?" thread held a conversation where your posts fitted into the discussion.

Now both Mykil and Willie have called you on your obfuscating language and I have to agree. Sometimes I read one of your sentences several times and wind up with no understanding of what you mean let alone what your motives are.

Perhaps a little proofreading before posting is in order. You and Mykil both (for different reasons) could use some of that. I suggest you question yourself before even writing as to why you are going to take the time. Come up with a bottom line to your post and then proofread to make sure your bottom line as articulated makes sense to you and will make sense to your readers.

Hint: name dropping of scholars nobody on this list has read except you and Zeno won't impress much of anybody.

I welcome your additions here but please write some posts the rest of us can relate to.

-Jeff

Ummm, okay I am not a dummy here my IQ is decent but . . . I agree with the guys (Mykil, Braggi and Willie) - write so I care. Yes even "dumb it down" or KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). I do not come onto a post to be overwhelmed by thesis style talk with no ability at understanding the knowledge.

ie: I have been reading the wi-fi debate - now not all of it do I understand but . . . I am gaining information and knowledge of the concern. I am able to follow the links and the conversation without feeling overwhelmed (purposely or otherwise).

Many times I see your posts as overwhelming and then like you don't want the vast to "get it". If I got it I could move to new thought levels if I don't get it I just think that you were busy talking to the one or two people who answer and not really including the rest who are also on a public forum with you.

Saying (quote below) this is pretty ludicrous and sad statement of self. You should always be concerned with the "people" and appreciate that they do get involved in conversation without prior knowledge it shows the desire to learn and grow. A desire to be a part and not just an observer. Action versus inaction. :Clap:Applause for all those who participate just for the sake of participation, growth and knowledge!

"I'm not interested in "people" in the abstract. Individuals will get involved in conversations to the extent that they are interested in them, attracted to them. They may understand little or nothing, initially."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

God help me but I just realized this sounds as if I compare myself to Beckett. What a horrible mistake. Mea maxima culpa.

---

I find way more frightening than the thought of any announcement of any sexual orientation, the idea of the request to "dumb it down" for the uneducated amongst us, and the thought that we may attempt to comply. I enjoy the nuance of language choices available to us. I have been growing my vocabulary for a very long time with the idea of greater understanding coming forward as a result, over time, and have never wished(ok cept for Joyce) that writings be simpler. I yearn for the layers of expression that come from a thought expressed with just the right words to clarify, enlarge, etc., and feel as if understanding is a prize earned, perhaps only by those efforting, not sitting with baby bird mouths waiting for the special nugget to drop in. There are times I am astounded by the Mykil ramblings in the deftness with which language is abused, sometimes with unintentional brilliant irony that leaves me wondering about intent of a higher order. Sometimes the rhythm is the appeal. Basically this is my appeal to continue the diversity of language options available to all, and keep the layers of understanding open. Mindy

I don't mean dumb it down to stupidity or lack of nuance but if you want a message to reach the masses write it for the majority of who you want to reach not the 1%.

I keep this quote very close at hand because I tend to answer questions before they are asked. I think it applies often to many things when bisected slightly. Since we all take portions as we need I hope someone gains something from it. It is from Abraham Hicks.




Law of Attraction is Universal, and every person is affected by it.
And it is always true that what I think and what I feel and what
I get are always a match, and there is not a person on the planet
that did not know that when they were born, and there is not a
person on the planet that would not benefit by knowing it.
But many, many, many are not yet asking and therefore are
not yet ready for the answer. And so, we would say that --
although everyone wants this information -- everyone is not
necessarily ready for it. We would not spend any time trying
to convince anybody of anything because if they're not asking,
your answers are just irritating.
..........................
Excerpted from the workshop in
San Diego, CA on Saturday,
February 7th, 1998
...........................
All Is Well

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by alanora:

I find way more frightening than the thought of any announcement of any sexual orientation, the idea of the request to "dumb it down" for the uneducated amongst us, and the thought that we may attempt to comply. I enjoy the nuance of language choices available to us. I have been growing my vocabulary for a very long time with the idea of greater understanding coming forward as a result, over time, and have never wished(ok cept for Joyce) that writings be simpler. I yearn for the layers of expression that come from a thought expressed with just the right words to clarify, enlarge, etc., and feel as if understanding is a prize earned, perhaps only by those efforting, not sitting with baby bird mouths waiting for the special nugget to drop in. There are times I am astounded by the Mykil ramblings in the deftness with which language is abused, sometimes with unintentional brilliant irony that leaves me wondering about intent of a higher order. Sometimes the rhythm is the appeal. Basically this is my appeal to continue the diversity of language options available to all, and keep the layers of understanding open. Mindy

---

.Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals,,,, Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! ... if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. ... You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. ... by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend!

Mykel--

ROFLMAO - Ahhh my husband would lvoe this he would think you had read my emails and ims!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

.Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals,,,, Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! ... if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. ... You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. ... by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend!

Mykel--

---

>Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals... Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! ... if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. ... You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. ... by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend!

Mykel--
I guess your point is that if the writers are interested in your understanding them, they should use simpler language. Valid point. Writers can use language to obfuscate ... oops, I mean, uh, what's the word?

But, you know, I read a lot of books, and I confess to having a Ph.D., and I've been known to use a polysyllable when cornered, so you must be including me in your protest. So I feel I have the standing in court to say, as they do in the real world, fuck you.

Nothing personal. Fact is, though, that some of us use the English language to say what we're trying to say, not necessarily to show how bright we are. I grew up believing that words were useful tools, and that the dumbing-down of language was as ugly a thing as wiping out all the inconvenient species. Nobody's deriding you -- sorry, dissing you -- for the way you write, so chill, ok?

If you're trying to build a chair you should have something in your tool chest besides just a hammer. If you won't sit in my chair because well-built furniture is a personal insult, well, that's your privilege. Stay monosyllabic: it's your choice, and it always has been.

As for "people in the real world"... Jaysus! where have I been for the last 66 years? That phrase starts to hit buttons that make me want to say something I really shouldn't, so I won't.

Relation of this to the "bisexual" thread? I have no idea. Well, maybe that I grew up in a social sphere where eggheads and fags were all, to the "real" people, exactly the same species of scum. Sadly, that's still true among large portions of the populace today, but happily for me, I'm outside it.

Cheers--
Conrad

Well then The PHD sayz it all the over educated part would fall in your category yes? I am not sure weather to be offended or should I just stop laughing now? LMAO!!!

I guess I can understand your point of view to some extent. What you are saying is you fought you way our of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belit6tle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes? I am not trying to get Ebonics past you here just a little appreciation of your surrounding and a sense of community spirit. Something written that all can understand is not asking that much, err is it? I guess some are set in there wayz and can’t be changes no matter what or whom they represent. All in all I feel I am right and you are wrong so there you have it!! Peace love and granola!!!

Huh?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

I guess I can understand your point of view to some extent. What you are saying is you fought you way our of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belit6tle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes? I am not trying to get Ebonics past you here just a little appreciation of your surrounding and a sense of community spirit. Something written that all can understand is not asking that much, err is it? I guess some are set in there wayz and can’t be changes no matter what or whom they represent. All in all I feel I am right and you are wrong so there you have it!! Peace love and granola!!!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

I guess I can understand your point of view to some extent. What you are saying is you fought you way our of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belit6tle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes? ... All in all I feel I am right and you are wrong so there you have it!! Peace love and granola!!!

---

Mykil, sheesh! Read Conrad's post again. It's written in very clear language, easy even for us uneducated people to read. Yes, he responded directly to you, but I have to agree with Conrad that dumbing down posts is kind of pointless. Words we don't understand we can lookup, right on our computer in seconds, including pronunciations! That's amazing and something I've wanted for years. I love the fact that I learn new words almost every day on Waccobb. I appreciate that people more educated than us post here. They could be sticking to some university bulletin board that features only educated posters and we'd be that much poorer.

Learn to appreciate those who write clearly but at a level that gives us something to learn. It's one thing when someone is using their education to intimidate others or to bolster a needy ego. Some educated people can string sentences together in a way that would confuse Einstein. Conrad is someone who speaks and writes in such a way he reaches most of his audience very clearly.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

Great Edward Dude err Dudette. Whichever you prefer today! Here is your new post. “What is Rational”?

Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals, I will tell you the same thing I have told Zeno in the past. Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! If you want people to pay attention to what you are writing about you might want people to pay attention to being with. It is hard and not even worth trying if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. No one really cares. You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. And you will get way more fans in the end by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend! Peace and this ain’t no lie!

---

Big words can be looked up in a dictionary, but even small words can be a problem when they lead further and further away from something you can picture in your mind. So I think your criticism is right on. I hope that all of us will take your advice seriously.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

Everyone deserves to understand and want to read and participate in a conversation.

---

Again, I think this is excellent advice. Simple writing is free of fuzziness and grandiosity. I'd say that we don't need to dumb down, we need to clear up!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by alanora:

I enjoy the nuance of language choices available to us.

---

But generally nuances can be expressed even in simple language. In fact, clear writing makes nuances easier to understand and therefore more effective.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Mykel--
I guess your point is that if the writers are interested in your understanding them, they should use simpler language. Valid point. Writers can use language to obfuscate ... oops, I mean, uh, what's the word?

But, you know, I read a lot of books, and I confess to having a Ph.D., and I've been known to use a polysyllable when cornered, so you must be including me in your protest. So I feel I have the standing in court to say, as they do in the real world, fuck you, etc., etc., etc.

---

Yes, but I notice that you just expressed all your responses in easily understandable language. Why is that? I imagine it's because you wanted to be understood, isn't that so? And that's mainly what these critics are saying to us: Write simply so we can be understood. I think our critics have their bs detectors on and are rightly suspicious of what they hear.

OK, Granted dumb down was bait, but not necessarily trolling, just more on the lines of getting ones attention. For everyone’s information the words “Dumb Down” are by far one of the worst things you can say to someone as bright as the people that this was focused on and I smirkingly[is that a word] apologize! Just one man's opinion as usual!

> Well then The PHD sayz it all the over educated part would fall in your category yes? I am not sure weather to be offended or should I just stop laughing now? LMAO!!!

Mykil--

My mama told me never to get into a pissing contest with a fire hydrant. So I don’t know why I’m responding. Maybe that’s proof positive of my ignorance.

A Ph.d. isn’t a guarantee of stupidity. I’ve known dumb academics as well as dumb blue-collar workers, and really dumb prison inmates and Sunday school teachers. There's plenty of shit-for-brains to go around. For me, it was a necessary passage, like many people’s first marriages: it seemed a good idea at the time. And I had some wonderful teachers. I left college teaching 36 years ago and have been making my living ever since as one of the mitochondria in the belly of the beast.

If it makes your Thursday happier to chortle, then chortle. Pardon if it calls to mind, for me, my high school classmates who’d yell at me, “Pisshead! Candyass!” and if I responded, “What’s your problem?” would start making animal sounds (“Ork ork! Yadayada!”) and amuse themselves like crazy.

> What you are saying is you fought you way out of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belittle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes?

We didn’t have ghettos in Iowa. We just had the wrong side of town. And I didn’t fight, I just studied and worked like hell to be the first kid in the family to go to college. I got educated enough to know how much I don’t know.

So I’m trying to fathom how it follows that I’m claiming to be “better than everyone else” and am belittling “all” by using the language that’s one of our few truly beautiful inheritances.

>Something written that all can understand is not asking that much, err is it?

If you’re talking about specific people, say so. That’s communication. If you’re trying to be funny, make that clear. Right now, despite your misspellings, I think you’re failing your own standards of clarity.

Willie just noted that we should all try to be clear. I agree and urge you to do the same. And I’m happy to drop the issue and let you have the last word.

--Conrad

Presenting bait designed to enlighten myself, introducing myself to your mind, channeling off your well being with the ease of stealing candy from a baby! All I can with a few well-placed words. You and Willie are allot alike, I like the both of you over the top and appreciate a good sense of humor, yet still fragile as a … Sorry to mislead, but I think you know where I was coming from and you went right where I new you would. Drop it oh course. Keeping on track my original plan to be at the ready leap when I see the opportunity to make life a little simpler and more forth coming in the future of this wonderful little conscience community of oneness and keep people on their toes when it comes to sharing and seeking out the whole and not just the opportunities for the few. Going where no… Peace in our community, and in our world, and in our universe and…:Yinyangv:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

> Well then The PHD sayz it all the over educated part would fall in your category yes? I am not sure weather to be offended or should I just stop laughing now? LMAO!!!

Mykil--

My mama told me never to get into a pissing contest with a fire hydrant. So I don’t know why I’m responding. Maybe that’s proof positive of my ignorance.

A Ph.d. isn’t a guarantee of stupidity. I’ve known dumb academics as well as dumb blue-collar workers, and really dumb prison inmates and Sunday school teachers. There's plenty of shit-for-brains to go around. For me, it was a necessary passage, like many people’s first marriages: it seemed a good idea at the time. And I had some wonderful teachers. I left college teaching 36 years ago and have been making my living ever since as one of the mitochondria in the belly of the beast.

If it makes your Thursday happier to chortle, then chortle. Pardon if it calls to mind, for me, my high school classmates who’d yell at me, “Pisshead! Candyass!” and if I responded, “What’s your problem?” would start making animal sounds (“Ork ork! Yadayada!”) and amuse themselves like crazy.

> What you are saying is you fought you way out of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belittle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes?

We didn’t have ghettos in Iowa. We just had the wrong side of town. And I didn’t fight, I just studied and worked like hell to be the first kid in the family to go to college. I got educated enough to know how much I don’t know.

So I’m trying to fathom how it follows that I’m claiming to be “better than everyone else” and am belittling “all” by using the language that’s one of our few truly beautiful inheritances.

>Something written that all can understand is not asking that much, err is it?

If you’re talking about specific people, say so. That’s communication. If you’re trying to be funny, make that clear. Right now, despite your misspellings, I think you’re failing your own standards of clarity.

Willie just noted that we should all try to be clear. I agree and urge you to do the same. And I’m happy to drop the issue and let you have the last word.

--Conrad

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

What you are saying is you fought you way out of some sort of ghetto and are now better than everyone else and have the right to belittle all with the words you choose fit and no one can tell you different yes?

---

For some reason that I've never fully explained to myself, I've always been inclined to cut Mykil a little slack. Perhaps I'm overly impressed by what he's overcome to make himself a success in life, and maybe I'm swayed by the courage he shows in facing his own uncertain future. He tends to shoot in all directions at once, but he's a good guy, and if my skin has had to grow a little thicker, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

None of us (I presume) likes the language-games of witch-hunters, and most of us don't approve of Bush either. But is their irrationality what we don't like about them? I don't think so. It's that we're acquainted with other ways of looking at the world and relating to others, and we're committed to them.

On the issue of clarity, I agree that it is a virtue, and I also agree that the English language can deliver clarity very well on everyday issues. Some of the things that Willie, Zeno, and I have been discussing are not everyday. They ran into rather rarified debates in the philosophy of mind and language. I've read posts here by Willie in which he debates the merits of proposals for a unified field theory. Although I'm tremendously interested in such things, the conversation is taking place in a vocabulary that is beyond me. The only thing I could have contributed to it was to request that the parties stop talking among themselves and explain everything to me in language that I could understand.

Doing so struck me as beyond the pale. But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe we should adhere to a different standard such that the conversation doesn't become too technical or require specialized knowledge.

The principle of charity does imply that most of us are rational most of the time, but it doesn't follow from that that rationality is meaningless. It DOES follow that any one field's standard of rationality is not a reliable way of settling disputes over very large issues, such as whether or not witchcraft needs to be suppressed. (Rational 17th century Salemities had very good reasons for suppressing it, as not doing so might have brought down God's wrath on them.)

The appropriate response to a Bush conservative, or Salem witch-hunter, is not to demonstrate that they have no right to their beliefs because they don't survive your standards of rationality. If you're talking to them at all you already have much more in common than whatever differentiates you. The appropriate response is to suggest a way of looking at things that is more attractive and inspiring than what they're spouting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

I am exterminating witches from my religious community, and my rules of evidence include placing stones in the pockets of suspects and throwing them into a lake. If they pop back to the surface, they are witches. Since I have my own context of inquiry and rules of evidence, I am being rational.
I don't wish to participate in the "language games" of witch hunters, and I feel the same way about the language games of mass murders in the Bush administration. If you recall, Orwell had a lot to say about such things in his classic essay "Politics and the English Language." I shudder to think how Orwell would have reacted to your relativistic muddling of our mother tongue. If words and meanings are made wholly relative to cultural and political contexts, we lose our anchor to reality because our words are our thoughts, and at some point meaning must stop being relative. If "A" means "A" here in this context, but "A" means "B" in that context and "C" in some other context, the very concept of "A" becomes so fluid that it loses all meaning and we find ourselves paralyzed by confusion.If this is true, then everyone is rational, and when everyone is rational, the very term "rationality" no longer has meaning.Speaking of vocabularies, I notice that your writing often piles abstractions on abstractions until the entire pile threatens to collapse under its own weight. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong, but I will never know that until I can understand what you're saying. What is an "eternal law of reason for an inquiry"? What does "inquiry" even mean in the way that you're using it? What is a "vocabulary of inquiry"? And what reason would I have to think that I'm short on "vocabularies"? I think the trick is not to keep explaining your terms but to use terms that need no explanation in the first place. The English language gives us a very large number of commonly used words having widely accepted meanings. Except in the most unusual circumstances, those common words and meanings suffice for almost all the communication we will ever need. Orwell said (and I paraphrase) that the great muddler of the English language is insincerity. So we would all do well to see our expressions in that light.

---

I don't believe I've written anything that could remotely be accused of "obfuscation." I've not tried to hide anything. If I were someone who took offense easily, I would be very offended by your assertion, and would have to ask you and anyone else making that charge to identify an instance of my trying to conceal what I mean to say with ambiguous or meaningless jargon.

I do realize that I might have said things that are unclear. This of course is relative. Some of what I've said is less unclear to Willie than it is to you, but it's even less unclear to Zeno than it is to both you and Willie. (That has nothing to do with who is smarter or more rational. It's just a matter of different intellectual formations.) I've suggested that you ask for clarification on specifics, but it seems that you're making a broader demand. That's something that should certainly be considered. Having read some highly technical conversations here (e.g. on unified field theory), I assumed it was acceptable to go into technical matters to the extent that others saw fit to respond. As for how all this got on this thread, I don't know. If it's a problem I'm happy to stop posting except for comments that bear on the specific issues of bisexuality and coming out.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Frederick, once again I find myself wondering what you're doing. Mykil, and now, more articulately, Willie, are trying to get through to you what I've said in the past. It seems all of your posts devolve into a discussion of what is true, and what is real and how difficult it is to understand people's motives and meanings. Get over it.

If you look up you'll see this thread is about a person coming out as bisexual in this public forum [see original thread here]. I see absolutely no connection between that topic and your posts. Perhaps the "What is a lie?" thread held a conversation where your posts fitted into the discussion.

Now both Mykil and Willie have called you on your obfuscating language and I have to agree. Sometimes I read one of your sentences several times and wind up with no understanding of what you mean let alone what your motives are.

Perhaps a little proofreading before posting is in order. You and Mykil both (for different reasons) could use some of that. I suggest you question yourself before even writing as to why you are going to take the time. Come up with a bottom line to your post and then proofread to make sure your bottom line as articulated makes sense to you and will make sense to your readers.

Hint: name dropping of scholars nobody on this list has read except you and Zeno won't impress much of anybody.

I welcome your additions here but please write some posts the rest of us can relate to.

-Jeff

---

I know we're not supposed to be talking about this anymore, but I must say I really don't believe in the "masses." It's an ugly word. The "people" is better, but still a bit disturbing. However, I don't want to clog the communication flow....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by shellebelle:

I don't mean dumb it down to stupidity or lack of nuance but if you want a message to reach the masses write it for the majority of who you want to reach not the 1%.

I keep this quote very close at hand because I tend to answer questions before they are asked. I think it applies often to many things when bisected slightly. Since we all take portions as we need I hope someone gains something from it. It is from Abraham Hicks.




Law of Attraction is Universal, and every person is affected by it.
And it is always true that what I think and what I feel and what
I get are always a match, and there is not a person on the planet
that did not know that when they were born, and there is not a
person on the planet that would not benefit by knowing it.
But many, many, many are not yet asking and therefore are
not yet ready for the answer. And so, we would say that --
although everyone wants this information -- everyone is not
necessarily ready for it. We would not spend any time trying
to convince anybody of anything because if they're not asking,
your answers are just irritating.
..........................
Excerpted from the workshop in
San Diego, CA on Saturday,
February 7th, 1998
...........................
All Is Well

---

Fred, please, I am very, very interested in knowing how I can show a Bushie a more attractive and inspiring way of looking at things than the venom that they are spewing.

Thank you sincerely,

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

...The appropriate response is to suggest a way of looking at things that is more attractive and inspiring than what they're spouting.

---

We have to alert the Bushies (those capable of being stirred, that is) to the greatest elements of the American political tradition and learn to describe these elements to them in ways that enable them to feel how attractive these ideas are. This is the tradition that includes Jefferson, Emerson, Whitman, Dewey, and others: the idea that we are all similarly ignorant of absolute knowledge but can create solidarity around the need to support the freest and most robust inquiry possible into how to live and what to believe. That we will fight all these battles in the realm of public debate and exchange rather than bodies and territory, because it is not only safer but more interesting that way for everyone.

It won't do any good to tell them how awful they are and hope they will "convert." Politics is about inventing narratives that tell how things are, how they got to be that way, and how we can make them better that unite rather than divide people. It is not a war, although that is how the Republicans have approached it for the last 30 years.

Can this work? I don't know, and recent history suggests that it won't. But if anything can give us hope, it's the larger history of the nation. What New York was in the 1880s has in the last 30 years become characteristic of major centers all over America: a massive influx of immigrants, and from all over the world not just Southern and Eastern Europe. And all this in the context of incredible economic growth and change. The narrow ethnic politics and the demagoguery and nativism that we see in response is predictable and even normal. The more enlightened political response is obvious: a coalition of the new and the old that will point the way forward to a livable world.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

Fred, please, I am very, very interested in knowing how I can show a Bushie a more attractive and inspiring way of looking at things than the venom that they are spewing.

Thank you sincerely,

Edward

---

Yes I agree and audience is better but the point remains. And in truth you haven't hit on the the heart of things. Intention -

I am much better at explaining business so let me try this from a more comfortable angle.

In business we market, sell and provide/produce.

I always have businesses describe their audience, who they plan to sell to. Then I ask can this audience fully support and grow your business? Then the question is how are you going to get the message that you have what they need/want to them.

The sale happens upon the agreement of terms and completes upon delivery of the promised product.

So in this case I think everyone is trying to say who is your audience and how are you getting the message to them.

You are right if your target audience is Willie etc you hit right on but if you hoped to open up conversation with a larger group well you did that you just didn't necessarily open the conversation I believe you intended.

So Intention - Aim your conversations with Intention - know your audience or at least recognize the audience you'd like to get to know. You may not hit a bullseye every time but you'll gain knowledge and so will they.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

I know we're not supposed to be talking about this anymore, but I must say I really don't believe in the "masses." It's an ugly word. The "people" is better, but still a bit disturbing. However, I don't want to clog the communication flow....

---

I don't disagree, but in conversation what we're looking for is understanding, mutual understanding; agreement is too much to ask for. That's perhaps a bit different from closing a sale.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by shellebelle:

Yes I agree and audience is better but the point remains. And in truth you haven't hit on the the heart of things. Intention -

I am much better at explaining business so let me try this from a more comfortable angle.

In business we market, sell and provide/produce.

I always have businesses describe their audience, who they plan to sell to. Then I ask can this audience fully support and grow your business? Then the question is how are you going to get the message that you have what they need/want to them.

The sale happens upon the agreement of terms and completes upon delivery of the promised product.

So in this case I think everyone is trying to say who is your audience and how are you getting the message to them.

You are right if your target audience is Willie etc you hit right on but if you hoped to open up conversation with a larger group well you did that you just didn't necessarily open the conversation I believe you intended.

So Intention - Aim your conversations with Intention - know your audience or at least recognize the audience you'd like to get to know. You may not hit a bullseye every time but you'll gain knowledge and so will they.

---

Agreement is not your sale - conversation, information - your intention - that is your sale.

My point remains - choose your intention and be clear in conveying it. Whatever it may be. Like you are marketing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

I don't disagree, but in conversation what we're looking for is understanding, mutual understanding; agreement is too much to ask for. That's perhaps a bit different from closing a sale.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

None of us (I presume) likes the language-games of witch-hunters, and most of us don't approve of Bush either. But is their irrationality what we don't like about them? I don't think so.

---

Perhaps not, but the original issue wasn't what we like or don't like about people. Rather, it was whether or not it is rational to call someone else irrational. If so, that's just what I was doing. If not, the term "irrational" has no meaning because you can never point to irrationality and say, "There it is!"

It looks to me in this conversation that what you're all talking about isn't really the use of "big words". It's about WHY people use them. Words are tools, they have uses: using vocabulary to communicate ideas is what those words are FOR. I'm completely with Conrad that stupidizing our discussions to the lowest common denominator is the wrong way to go. We've got enough problems with the steady dumbing-down of America without having thoughtful people decide to start talking like morons just to fit in.

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.


SM

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Mykil, sheesh! Read Conrad's post again. It's written in very clear language, easy even for us uneducated people to read. Yes, he responded directly to you, but I have to agree with Conrad that dumbing down posts is kind of pointless. Words we don't understand we can lookup, right on our computer in seconds, including pronunciations! That's amazing and something I've wanted for years. I love the fact that I learn new words almost every day on Waccobb. I appreciate that people more educated than us post here. They could be sticking to some university bulletin board that features only educated posters and we'd be that much poorer.

Learn to appreciate those who write clearly but at a level that gives us something to learn. It's one thing when someone is using their education to intimidate others or to bolster a needy ego. Some educated people can string sentences together in a way that would confuse Einstein. Conrad is someone who speaks and writes in such a way he reaches most of his audience very clearly.

-Jeff

---

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational. He may be mistaken, wrong, in error, misinformed, confused, and so on, but not irrational. The very act of pointing out to someone that he is in error presupposes that he is rational, i.e. open to correction. Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc. (Of course, assuming others are rational means assuming they are rational as you understand it -- which includes being open to correction by others as to what constitutes rationality under a given set of circumstances.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

Perhaps not, but the original issue wasn't what we like or don't like about people. Rather, it was whether or not it is rational to call someone else irrational. If so, that's just what I was doing. If not, the term "irrational" has no meaning because you can never point to irrationality and say, "There it is!"

---

YES!! And saying what could be said with less words.

I wonder if anyone else is like me -I have a few minutes to get on and catch up. I am mom, I am employee and I run my own business - my time is a commodity. I really want to hear and enjoy conversation that is new and interesting. But when it comes to the point that I can't find the intention - the message and I need a dictionary to read it then I say well enough - time to move on.

But I also then note that who ever posted is not quick reading or worse pointless and I bypass all their writing even if I read the thread and everyone else's. I know I may miss great info but I am a commodity and so is my time - it is finite not infinite as am I.

I also wonder why does the writer need so much of my time and how do they find so much time to write? What do they do that they can write for hours on end these articles of pragmatic info and still live a successful life? I of course realize they must not have a young child in the house demanding their time and self yet still how do they make a successful living when their writing demands so much of them?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark:

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.


SM

---

Oh Boy Fredrick; this is like opening a can of worms that is just dieing to get out! LMAO!!! About what you just wrote, this is a wonderful wonderful statement that I understand completely. Now on the other hand, I have been getting scrutinized about the way I write every step of the way. I can’t spell yet I have something to say. I have gotten about five hundred complaints about my misspellings and misrepresenting on the vocabulary I am writing. It is a wonder I even try to stay in focus with the issues and conversation at all. Am much as I get accused of being in such poor relations with the English language I am surprised myself that I even continue to write on the BB. If you where to take about five percent of the abuse I have for you writing over the top you would never return to this little community.

I can understand what all of you are talking about this is easy enough. The challenging part is having to try. Reading a small article should be like riding a bike, not having to get on a dam unicycle every time you want to go get a gallon of milk from the store. You have a problem with you over zealous communication skills just like I have a problem with writing proper English. You don’t even realize you are using such prolific language until someone enlightens you, I know I don’t get all the mistakes I make and probably never will, I will try harder. You also have this habit of comparing things to people and places I for one have never heard of. When you compare Davidson to god knows what most really do not understand where you are coming from. Peace and you can probably hear me saying HUH next time you use a word with more than ten letters in it!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational. He may be mistaken, wrong, in error, misinformed, confused, and so on, but not irrational. The very act of pointing out to someone that he is in error presupposes that he is rational, i.e. open to correction. Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc. (Of course, assuming others are rational means assuming they are rational as you understand it -- which includes being open to correction by others as to what constitutes rationality under a given set of circumstances.)

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark:

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.SM

---

As I see it, you can always look five-dollar words up in the dictionary, so that's no real problem. What can be a problem is the unclear use of words of any denomination (whether two-cent or five-dollar). There is no dictionary that tells you what a fuzzy sentence means. It's possible to write clearly in long sentences, but short sentences usually are easier to understand.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational.

---

This strikes me as a very wild assumption. Try talking to some homeless people sometime. About one-third of them are seriously mentally ill. If you think that mentally ill people are rational, then I'd say you don't know what "rational" means.

Quote:

---

Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc.

---

I don't know about you, but if I'm being irrational, I like to have that pointed out. Some months ago I got into a disagreement with Mad Max, and he pointed out that my argument was irrational. I reviewed my reasoning, and . . . sure enough! It wasn't rational. I got a very interesting view of myself, and Max got the satisfaction (I assume) of giving me that view.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by shellebelle:

when it comes to the point that I . . . need a dictionary to read it then I say well enough - time to move on.

---

There's nothing wrong with that. You're generally pressed for time. On the other hand, many others have time to improve their vocabularies by using a dictionary--nothing wrong with that either.

Quote:

---

I also wonder . . . how do they find so much time to write? What do they do that they can write for hours on end these articles of pragmatic info and still live a successful life?

---

I think I've already given my two cents. I'm retired, and ordinarily I'm very fast with the written word (something you wouldn't guess by talking to me).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

I have gotten about five hundred complaints about my misspellings

---

Just ignore them. In an earlier post I referred to research indicating that bad spelling doesn't necessarily indicate bad thinking.

Quote:

---

You have a problem with you over zealous communication skills just like I have a problem with writing proper English.

---

It seems to me that if you're saying something without being understood, you might as well not be saying anything at all. But when people complain about your writing, what exactly do they complain about? That you don't spell well, or that they can't understand what you write? Again, I'd suggest that you just ignore complains about spelling. On the other hand, if people complain that they don't understand what you write, then you do have a problem.

Ahhh retired - that makes it easier!

See I am good with the spoken word. I can converse and in most cases keep up with even the most eloquent of speakers but as true with everything it has to be interesting.

Some of this loses interest due to the wording.

I can understand you, I can understand Jeff - I totally get Mykil (spelling mistakes and all - I have a son and daughter who are almost autism bright but write phonetically) but Frederick - lost - just lost. Like he doesn't want to touch the real world. Ahhh well.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

There's nothing wrong with that. You're generally pressed for time. On the other hand, many others have time to improve their vocabularies by using a dictionary--nothing wrong with that either.I think I've already given my two cents. I'm retired, and ordinarily I'm very fast with the written word (something you wouldn't guess by talking to me).

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

This strikes me as a very wild assumption. Try talking to some homeless people sometime. About one-third of them are seriously mentally ill. If you think that mentally ill people are rational, then I'd say you don't know what "rational" means.

---

By "conversing," I meant something like seriously and sincerely trying to communicate and understand, not just babbling.

Quote:

---

I don't know about you, but if I'm being irrational, I like to have that pointed out.

---

I take you to mean that if you are misinformed, uninformed, in error, or being illogical, you like to have that pointed out. If one insists on equating being in error, etc., with being irrational, OK, but it seems awkward insofar as only a rational being would care about error, ignorance, etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

By "conversing," I meant something like seriously and sincerely trying to communicate and understand, not just babbling.

---

There's nothing wrong with my seriousness or sincerity, and in talking with people who are to some degree mentally ill, I get the feeling (it's no more than that) that they are just as serious and sincere. Red Skelton often played the part of Cauliflower McPug, the punch-drunk prize fighter. McPug's classic line was a shouted "Look out!" followed by the exclamation, "Boy! A flock of 'em sure went over that time!" When a mentally ill person acts like that, he's not being insincere. He really sees a flock of birds just as clearly as you and I see a street sign or a house. But the problem is that he's irrational because he's mentally ill. What he sees bears no correspondence to reality.

Quote:

---

I take you to mean that if you are misinformed, uninformed, in error, or being illogical, you like to have that pointed out. If one insists on equating being in error, etc., with being irrational, OK, but it seems awkward insofar as only a rational being would care about error, ignorance, etc.

---

I see your point. But some people don't seem to care about error, ignorance, etc., and many of those I'd call irrational.