Restoring Discrimination

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness



Why?

When I write, I do not picture myself orating or preaching to a crowd of people. Trust me, if I did, I would make sure to water down my vocabulary and seduce with convenience. Know your audience, they say. But I am against crowds of people and what they do. I am against every guru and priest who exploits their flock. I'm not here to teach. No life can be compressed to an instruction manual and I refuse to write them. If you'll notice, in this and every polemic I put here, it is written to someone of my own discriminating tastes—in this case, my comrade, my friend, a fellow lover and defender of language. You've merely stumbled in on a conversation and decided to eavesdrop.

It's about art, dear sir. It's something other than the bric-a-brac to lay one's attention on if they so choose. There is a wide variety of other choices for your tastes. Yes; we could all paint the sun in a simple manner so that everyone can understand it, but what does this say about painting? That it is useful to those who don't paint? What does this say about the sun? That it should not be looked anew and fresh every single time? It is not she who merely looks at the painting who cannot put the brush down. It is not she who merely looks at the painting who seeks to view and capture the sun from another angle. So it is with words and writing. Infinite possibilities from finite means.

You've stumbled upon an artifact of mankind and decided to read. You found it too confusing and verbose, and you immediately stopped reading and walked away. I am not the voice for your ears. I am speaking to someone else.

There is much time to be silent after death, friend.

Ah completely understandable... you've a strong passion for words and their intricacies, and seem to desire a comradery with someone else that savors each minute iteration... like a well aged wines bouquet opening deeper and more complex as it breathes... or unfolds on it's own accord and do not mind, how many others miss the point or fail to see you... either through some bias or lack of comprehension... as to you; if they don't get what you are expressing then whatever they are expressing is moot due to their bias or lack of comprehension of expression; because ultimately, you desire just one that understands you for you through your words, writing, and love of it, even if that is only yourself no matter how morose that may sound to someone else.

I have to confess, I only read the title... I typically scan just the concepts with my first reply, and still have yet to read your OP, and it's a shame... this confession; knowing the amount of work you put into crafting the beauty you do, it's a lost art and I honestly do appreciate your ability to wordsmith. I have yet to fail comprehension of the things you've posted elsewhere... yet rarely they leave a cause for a reply to be perfectly honest... because you wrap everything up succinctly using multiple layers, that there is nothing really left to be said... because it's been antithesis after antithesis. I typically do not read and comprehend from my shoes, unless I am speed reading.

A word of advice... don't tie the bow so tight to were someone that does get it, can't remove their finger from the bow on the gift you have made for them, sure you may trap their finger, but with nothing left to really say on the matter? You've removed the option or need for them to reply, and perhaps have not even realized it.

I'm not your huckleberry, you probably know that though... so good luck finding; the one and avoiding any melancholy, when waiting and wondering. I doubt I needed to digress and say that, since words are your friend. I do need to apologize for the two slaps and pistols at dawn approach, I gave to you and your words by being so barbaric in response. Thanks for the reminder to slow down and smell the wine unfolding, instead of the grapes still sitting on the vine... as I once loved words perhaps as much as yourself, but have been operating under the circumstances you've described that you do not write for. Of course all of that is not for myself even though it has been misinterpreted as such before... to wit I know you are no stranger of.

Salut

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

...and rescue our precious commodity from those who simply do not care otherwise, but who no less shape our language and culture through their careless misuse. "

France' s Académie française battles to protect language from English

The Académie, a council of 40 writers and artists, is entrusted with protecting French from “Anglo-Saxon” attacks and writing an official dictionary, of which the latest unfinished version began in 1992...

...Criticised for being an elitist club for ageing linguistic reactionaries, the Académie last year decided to ban entry to anyone over the age of 75.

Maybe you wanna protect English from English?

:-)

Yes you don't care. I get it.

But I do care Les - you really don't get it. I love English - even when it's being abused. Tortured even. I love words, and can be just as pedantic as you

But, language still means what it means when we mean it:
Discrimination

(I'm a little bored too Les)

When the meanings of words get adulterated, the power of thought gets truncated.

A language is a model of the universe, in that it attempts to describe anything that happens.

Discrimination is a word to do with finely tuned thought, messing it up with direct political connections ruins its potential as fertile soil for language to grow and evolve into the perfect analog of reality.

The abuse to the word "discrimination" has made every one stupider.

George Orwell said that the socialists destroy language in order to destroy thought.

Also, self education is a lot easier when word have specific meanings.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

George Orwell said that the socialists destroy language in order to destroy thought.

Curses - foiled again

:-)

Language changes - always has - always will

What do you propose? Language jail? I guess we should support anything that will keep us from getting stupider

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So instead, here is my argument for your consideration, which no one in this thread has even disputed. This is what I’d rather engage in thought about. To assume that all black people, white people, or Jews are the same due to some invalid unit of measure like skin-color, is to be indiscriminate rather than discriminate. Careless, indiscriminate generalizing—the exact opposite of discrimination—is the root of racism, xenophobia and bigotry.

And my argument - is that everyone knows what the word discrimination means - everyone

It's in the dictionary (as I showed you with that link) the first definition in line is about - discrimination as it is commonly used in the USA - today

If you wanted to make a powerful statement about bigotry - and discrimination - you could have said what you just said instead of going the long way round

You're just being fussy. Which is another word for pedantic

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And my argument - is that everyone knows what the word discrimination means - everyone

It's in the dictionary (as I showed you with that link) the first definition in line is about - discrimination as it is commonly used in the USA - today

If you wanted to make a powerful statement about bigotry - and discrimination - you could have said what you just said instead of going the long way round

You're just being fussy. Which is another word for pedantic

:-)

Everyone Is wrong—everyone. It's in the dictionary as proof of this error.

You're just being careless.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And my argument - is that everyone knows what the word discrimination means - everyone

It's in the dictionary (as I showed you with that link) the first definition in line is about - discrimination as it is commonly used in the USA - today

If you wanted to make a powerful statement about bigotry - and discrimination - you could have said what you just said instead of going the long way round

You're just being fussy. Which is another word for pedantic

:-)

Everyone Is wrong—everyone. It's in the dictionary as proof of this error.

You're just being careless.

i suppose the definitions of "pedantic" and "pedant" are also incorrect.

pe·dan·tic adjective pi-ˈdan-tik

Definition of PEDANTIC

1
: of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
2
: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

ped·ant noun ˈpe-dənt
: a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details

i got these from merriam webster dictionary by the way.

they are wrong too, im sure.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Semicollegiate

George Orwell said that the socialists destroy language in order to destroy thought.

Curses - foiled again

:-)

Language changes - always has - always will

What do you propose? Language jail? I guess we should support anything that will keep us from getting stupider

Language is supposed to change because of isolation, folks over here never hearing other folks in distant places speaking the same language.

The 20th century language changes have all been associated with politics or behavior modification to fit some agenda.

And the biggest behavior modification is less thinking.

In an age when science and history and the arts have never been so advanced and plentiful, the language should be more discriminate.

BTW I've heard of the French Language board. They limit the words in the French Language in some way. Do you know much about that?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

"language should be more discriminate"

there is a difference between cultured and anal retentive. some people are just bored and looking for something to do. so the semantic applications and philosophical implication of our language, for some reason, presents an appealing challenge. that doesnt mean its necessary or even useful. potentially inspiring, inevitably tedious.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So instead, here is my argument for your consideration, which no one in this thread has even disputed. This is what I’d rather engage in thought about. To assume that all black people, white people, or Jews are the same due to some invalid unit of measure like skin-color, is to be indiscriminate rather than discriminate. Careless, indiscriminate generalizing—the exact opposite of discrimination—is the root of racism, xenophobia and bigotry.

And my argument - is that everyone knows what the word discrimination means - everyone

It's in the dictionary (as I showed you with that link) the first definition in line is about - discrimination as it is commonly used in the USA - today

If you wanted to make a powerful statement about bigotry - and discrimination - you could have said what you just said instead of going the long way round

You're just being fussy. Which is another word for pedantic

:-)

There was a time when every instance of the word "discrimination" brought to mind, even for an imperceptibly short moment, an association with good thinking. Now the first thought brought by the word is injustice and guilt.

Feeling injustice and guilt is the opposite of feeling like a solution can be got.

There are probably many more examples of this, but I stay as far away from the centralizers as I can.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"language should be more discriminate"

there is a difference between cultured and anal retentive. some people are just bored and looking for something to do. so the semantic applications and philosophical implication of our language, for some reason, presents an appealing challenge. that doesnt mean its necessary or even useful. potentially inspiring, inevitably tedious.

Understanding in ones own terms, by one's own inclinations of thinking, needs good communication with rest of civilization.

Making the discernment of the meaning of words more complicated impedes communication and thinking.

To think for ones self it is best to have a standard with which to interact with all other human minds. The easier the interaction is, the easier it is for everyone to genuinely benefit from science and politics.

There is more knowledge now than ever before. Solid language is the only way to know what I going on.

I don't worry too much about the evolutions language is constantly going through- I just strive to keep up with them.
The word "discernment" still works, so I go with that.


(My right arm is injured so that is as deep as I can go with my left hand typing... otherwise I guess I'd delve right in for fun. Always enjoy your creations, Les)

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't worry too much about the evolutions language is constantly going through- I just strive to keep up with them.
The word "discernment" still works, so I go with that.

New words for new ideas is great.

Changing the meaning of old words is Orwellian. Like the memory hole.

Language used to change because people were geographically and thus aurally separated.

Language change now is directed from hyped up over regulation and micromanagement.

Our language change now is not evolutionary, unless we are destined to become colony insects.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I would admit I am a pedant and a grammar-freak. It can definitely annoy others. But once one understands the rules one can more liberally break them. Language, which at present is quite a vague term, is intimately connected to thinking, if not one and the same function. They do not teach the trivium at an elementary level anymore, and I feel the lack of logic, grammar and rhetoric in childhood education leads to one being basically disarmed when faced with it.

a reply to: Bluesma

I think Chomsky had a good argument against the evolution of language, which he mentioned was a dogma in the field of linguistics. Unfortunately I cannot remember it.

You injured your arm? Was it horse related?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

I would admit I am a pedant and a grammar-freak. It can definitely annoy others. But once one understands the rules one can more liberally break them. Language, which at present is quite a vague term, is intimately connected to thinking, if not one and the same function. They do not teach the trivium at an elementary level anymore, and I feel the lack of logic, grammar and rhetoric in childhood education leads to one being basically disarmed when faced with it.

take care not to miss the forest for the trees.

a reply to: TzarChasm

take care not to miss the forest for the trees.

I'm a nominalist. I don't believe in forests.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

take care not to miss the forest for the trees.

I'm a nominalist. I don't believe in forests.

i was speaking very practically, not in terms of philosophy or metaphysics.

the amazon forest is quite beautiful if you havent checked it out yet. which you apparently havent if you dont believe in it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I think Chomsky had a good argument against the evolution of language, which he mentioned was a dogma in the field of linguistics. Unfortunately I cannot remember it.

You injured your arm? Was it horse related?

No, Work related.

I am not ignorant of the point in terms of cultural movements in thought... I was on a simular train with my thread which purposely used the word "manipulate" in terms of manipulating emotions. Where it has taken on a derogatory inference relating only to subversive and hidden influence- where in it's technical usage, giving someone a smile, hug, or confirmation is also manipulating emotions! It is thought upon that aspect of how we effect each other that I meant to stimulate.

Even so, in normal speech, knowing this evolution in meaning has happened in our culture, I refrain from using it because communication gets scrambled. Same goes with Discriminate- it just doesn't vehicle the same ideas in the US anymore (and is almost the opposite, as you point out). So I will usually try to replace it with discernment, or critical thought. But your point still stands up- current cultural movements are discouraging us to use discrimination, discernment, or critical thought." Just go with our flow and don't think too hard". I like people who say, no- think! Analyze! Discriminate and discern!

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Language is supposed to change because of isolation, folks over here never hearing other folks in distant places speaking the same language.

Where did English come from? England is not exactly the island you're describing

BTW I've heard of the French Language board. They limit the words in the French Language in some way. Do you know much about that?

I know enough to have a good laugh over it. I have a family member that would like to do the same thing with English, so I bring up the French every once in a while. He hates the French - so, this of course annoys him no end

He wants to protect American culture in the same exact way. He thinks English is perfect and ought not to be tampered with. Thing is, perfect English for him happens to be American English as of about 1940ish or so. If he picked up a book or even a magazine every now and then he'd notice a thing or too - and probably have a conniption

Can't keeps the culture on a lead Semicollegiate

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

What the french board is trying to do is to keep american words out of usage in France. The reason is that they do not want the country to become "americanized"- or infused with the consumer-based culture.

The english words that have become adopted are all carrying with them specific conceptions and ideals that are being carried into the mentality here through these words.

"Shopping", for example. The french term is "faire les courses" which indicates doing errands- going out to get specific items that are predetermined and needed. "Shopping" is a concept of going out without any specific item in mind, just for entertainment, and open to whatever is proposed, vulnerable to impulse purchases.

The young people are quick to adopt these concepts and practices from the US, whereas the older generation would like to retain the traditional culture. Probably in vain... but I understand why they are making an effort.
(and why americans would dislike that effort).

They've been able to keep out Monsanto and Fracking, so who knows, maybe they'll succeed after all. I don't know.

The point, though, is that words carry ideas, and influence peoples behavior. They are not powerless.