Well, my hopes of finding anything of viable interest on this mailing = list have fallen asunder. Is this list nothing more than a bunch of = coffee house idlers with nothing more than large (if not ultimately = incorrect) vocabularies and no time or ability other than to throw shit = back and forth wrapped up in pretty packages of jargon and antiquitous = abasements? [Translation: do you have nothing better to do than to wave your dicks = around? (although it would seem most of you already have dictionary.com = bookmarked, as shown by your poor use of synonyms for which most have = more applicable semantical equivalents)] If so, then I'm afraid I'm going to leave this mailing list, and = withdraw any recommendations I've made to friends concerning this site = and mailing list. [I'm gonna stop the spam]
Re:virus: Inanity
« Reply #1 on: 2003-01-30 01:49:10 »
I'm sorry things around here havent been so pleasent. There was once a time when the CoV was a great place to share ideas and expand your knowledge. Then a few people, with far to much time on their hands, decided to ruin it for everyone. Hopefully we can resolve this problem once and for all and get to the good stuff.
**Note... I do not try to use a lot of huge words, and sound like an asshole. Some people need to realize that the constant use of big words that they pull out of the thesaurus on dictionary.com... just makes them look like idiotic asses.**
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do. Just stay with me, safe and ignorant, Go back to sleep Go Back to sleep
> > I'm sorry things around here havent been so pleasent. There was once > a time when the CoV was a great place to share ideas and expand your > knowledge. Then a few people, with far to much time on their hands, > decided to ruin it for everyone. Hopefully we can resolve this > problem once and for all and get to the good stuff. > > **Note... I do not try to use a lot of huge words, and sound like an > asshole. Some people need to realize that the constant use of big > words that they pull out of the thesaurus on dictionary.com... just > makes them look like idiotic asses.** > On the other hand, some people simply don't possess good vocabularies, and they come off as exactly what they are - linguistically ignorant and incompetent. Words were created to be used, and the most precise and concise term should always be employed, even if it's multisyllabic. > ---- > This message was posted by ElvenSage to the Virus 2003 board on Church > of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=27714> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: virus: Inanity
« Reply #3 on: 2003-01-30 20:34:45 »
[Elvensage] > **Note... I do not try to use a lot of huge words, and sound like an > asshole. Some people need to realize that the constant use of big > words that they pull out of the thesaurus on dictionary.com... just > makes them look like idiotic asses.**
[Joe] On the other hand, some people simply don't possess good vocabularies, and they come off as exactly what they are - linguistically ignorant and incompetent. Words were created to be used, and the most precise and concise term should always be employed, even if it's multisyllabic.
[Kalkor] An invalid conclusion in my opinion. I come off as linguistically ignorant all the time. There are some grammatical rules I'm not up to speed on, as well as many words I frankly do not know. Does this also make me linguistically incompetent? In other words, does not knowing a word or how to use it correctly in context make me incapable of learning the definition or how to use it? I don't think so. I could be wrong however; I have been known to be ;-}
Since Webster's defines incompetent as:
\In*com"pe*tent\, a. [L. incompetens: cf. F. incomp['e]tent. See In- not, and Competent.] 1. Not competent; wanting in adequate strength, power, capacity, means, qualifications, or the like; incapable; unable; inadequate; unfit.
then someone who is "linguistically incompetent" is also "linguistically incapable, unable, inadequate"... in the interest of concision and precision, would it have not been a better idea to exclude that term, and stick with simply "linguistic ignorance?"
I think that the desire for precision and concision, while beneficial in the pursuit of unambiguous communication, can be satisfied in almost all cases without resorting to the esoteric and subsequently implying incompetence from observed ignorance. Not understanding the terms used does not imply inability to understand the concepts communicated. An analogy would be that you can catch a baseball without understanding the mathematics involved in attempting to describe the baseball's ballistic flight.
Also in the interest of unambiguous communication, I submit that my purpose for this reply is not to tear down your statement, Joe, but to point out that if the goal is precision and concision, and not esoterism, then there is maybe a better way to approach it for maximum efficacy. Sometimes we have to trade precision and/or concision in the interest of retaining the greatest possible percentage of our target audience. If I'm not mistaken, that's part of what Michelle was trying to get across in her reply to your essay of a few days ago, which I thoroughly enjoyed by the way.
> Also in the interest of unambiguous communication, I submit that my > purpose for this reply is not to tear down your statement, Joe, but to > point out that if the goal is precision and concision, and not > esoterism, then there is maybe a better way to approach it for maximum > efficacy. Sometimes we have to trade precision and/or concision in the > interest of retaining the greatest possible percentage of our target > audience. If I'm not mistaken, that's part of what Michelle was trying > to get across in her reply to your essay of a few days ago, which I > thoroughly enjoyed by the way. > > Kalkor > Everyone here likes to quote Noam Chomsky's political opinions, but his linguistic opinions are far superior. He claimed a division between competence and performance. Competence was the vocabulary one could understand, and performance was the vocabulary one used. I endeavor to reduce the difference between the two as much as possible, at the same time I strive to increase my competence. I consider this a beneficial path, and not just for me, for words are the vehicles in which our ideas ride, and if we have a greater profusion of vehucles, we are capable of expressing, and even conceiving, a greater quantity of ideas. And, as Engels said, the increase in quantity eventually surpasses a tipping point, beyond which quality also benefits. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
[Kalkor: ] > > Also in the interest of unambiguous communication, I submit that my > > purpose for this reply is not to tear down your statement, Joe, but to > > point out that if the goal is precision and concision, and not > > esoterism, then there is maybe a better way to approach it for maximum > > efficacy. Sometimes we have to trade precision and/or concision in the > > interest of retaining the greatest possible percentage of our target > > audience. If I'm not mistaken, that's part of what Michelle was trying > > to get across in her reply to your essay of a few days ago, which I > > thoroughly enjoyed by the way. > > > > Kalkor > > [Joe: ] > Everyone here likes to quote Noam Chomsky's political opinions, but > his linguistic opinions are far superior. He claimed a division between > competence and performance. Competence was the vocabulary one > could understand, and performance was the vocabulary one used. I > endeavor to reduce the difference between the two as much as > possible, at the same time I strive to increase my competence. I > consider this a beneficial path, and not just for me, for words are the > vehicles in which our ideas ride, and if we have a greater profusion of > vehucles, we are capable of expressing, and even conceiving, a greater > quantity of ideas. And, as Engels said, the increase in quantity > eventually surpasses a tipping point, beyond which quality also > benefits.
While your logic has a sort of coy luster to it, I'd have to disagree with you on the principal that: Firstly, the basis of language is not as just a tool box full of words for one to hap-hazardly throw together. According to your statement, one would be led to believe that by simply increasing his effective vocabulary one would increase thier ability to communicate with out having to take anything else into account. This is not possible because the basis of language is the complex interaction of words to form idea-tokens which are then interacting with other idea-tokens to form meta-tokens, etc, etc and only after a few levels of this is any significant meaning arrived at. Any mechanic or craftsman will tell you that the truely adept persons can do complex and taxing jobs with fewer and simpler tools at thier disposal. Although a certain spectrum of tools is necessary and an even wider spectrum can add even more color to your speech, (or work, to follow the previous analogy) the rate that quality increases as you add words to your vocabulary is on the order of "log n" such that the utter detail of this spectrum that is being filled in is approaching obscurity!
> disposal. Although a certain spectrum of tools is necessary and an > even wider spectrum can add even more color to your speech, (or work, > to follow the previous analogy) the rate that quality increases as you > add words to your vocabulary is on the order of "log n" such that the > utter detail of this spectrum that is being filled in is approaching > obscurity! > Words are not like bricks building an idea house, because bricks in a wall are usually the same as each other, and words, with the exception of synonyms, communicate different meanings. One word may be a brick, another may be a two-by-four, and a third may be a roofing tile. The more different building materials you possess, the greater your array of choices is as to the design of your idea-house. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
[Joe: ] > Words are not like bricks building an idea house, because bricks in a > wall are usually the same as each other, and words, with the exception > of synonyms, communicate different meanings. One word may be a > brick, another may be a two-by-four, and a third may be a roofing tile. > The more different building materials you possess, the greater your > array of choices is as to the design of your idea-house.
I never intended to imply that all words are the same, you're simplifying my argument. I do agree with you, in that a certain assortment of materials and instruments are necessary, which is why I chose the tool box analogy as opposed to the brick analogy; you're equating your stack of bricks to my tool box. That simply isn't the case; those analogies are incongruous. Although, to follow your analogy, I agree that a certain variety of materials is needed, but to follow it even further along your previous argument -- which I understood be the more-is-better philosophy -- it's unjustified to say that 300 (for example) forms of support are needed to build a house: a house, all things being equal, is a fairly simple design. There are only so many forms of basic support, after which you end up just combining simpler elements to produce more complex systems. In mechanics, there are only a few basic forms of mechanical advantage (lever, inclined plane, etc) and all other machines are based on the interaction of these basic 'building blocks' of varying sizes, etc.
Ahhhh... the soothing sound of trains of thought colliding head-on and derailing...
> Words are not like bricks building an idea house, because bricks in a > wall are usually the same as each other, and words, with the exception > of synonyms, communicate different meanings. One word may be a brick, > another may be a two-by-four, and a third may be a roofing tile. The > more different building materials you possess, the greater your array > of choices is as to the design of your idea-house. > I also wish to note that quality and quantity do not comprise an either- or, but a both-and. While it is true that a master artisan can 'do more with less', (s)he can do even more with more, and knows how to use them, while a piker simply does not know how to use the less frequently encountered tools and materials, and probably can't use the routine and common ones in a sparkling fashion, either (although perhaps in a spackling fashion).
> > Words are not like bricks building an idea house, because bricks in a > > wall are usually the same as each other, and words, with the exception > > of synonyms, communicate different meanings. One word may be a brick, > > another may be a two-by-four, and a third may be a roofing tile. The > > more different building materials you possess, the greater your array > > of choices is as to the design of your idea-house. > > > I also wish to note that quality and quantity do not comprise an either- > or, but a both-and. While it is true that a master artisan can 'do more > with less', (s)he can do even more with more, and knows how to use > them, while a piker simply does not know how to use the less frequently > encountered tools and materials, and probably can't use the routine and > common ones in a sparkling fashion, either (although perhaps in a > spackling fashion).
I'm impressed with your impeccable persistence, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you once more. My primary point here is that more does not equal better as you are stating to be such an imperative. While a skilled writer can use a larger vocabulary to their advantage, they could also write extremely well formed and well thought out things with less. More power to you if you have twice the vocabulary as the average layman, and my most humble respect if you can use that vocabulary creatively while not alienating your audience. It's just that your point is balanced neatly on top of an assumption that is quite a bit off: the assumption that no matter by how much you expand your linguistic toolbox, your language will improve. As I was saying in an earlier post, there is a spectrum being filled here. I.e.: If you have a 256 color monitor, and you throw a few more colors on there, making it 258 (ignoring all rules for binary number growth), would you really notice the difference? Whereas, you add two colors two a 16 color monitor, you would really notice it. Hence my statement that the quality of language grows in relation to quantity at a rate on the order of log n. A logarithmic curve grows extremely fast towards the beginning -- for each step that n takes, y takes an extremely large boost -- but slowly flattens out, meaning that as you reach the top half of the curve, y (quality) begins to grow at fractions of what n (quantity) is growing. Your looking at a child with a double-digit vocabulary, increasing their effective communication range by adding new words. I'm looking at a full grown adult that adds a few words that he never can fit into context, because any word out side if the adults vocabulary has a greater chance of being a very specialized word and thus you wouldn't notice the increase in the quality of his speech nearly as much as the child's.
> communication range by adding new words. I'm looking at a full grown > adult that adds a few words that he never can fit into context, > because any word out side if the adults vocabulary has a greater > chance of being a very specialized word and thus you wouldn't notice > the increase in the quality of his speech nearly as much as the > child's. > > Ishnigarrab > While it is true that a master artisan might be able to smooth a piece of lunmer with a flatheaded screwdriver (more common tool), (s)he could nevertheless do a much better job of it with a power lathe, a tool which the piker might not be able to employ at all. Of course each additional word adds a lesser percentage to an increasing aggregate, but it is an additional asset nonetheless, just as each year seems shorter as we grow older because we subjectively measure it against the totality of our lifespans, yet we nevertheless continue to age. While statistically there are less opportunities to use the more esoteric terms, episodically there is sometimes no (or at the very least a poor) substitute for the precise and concise yet uncommon term when the linguistic need arises. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> While it is true that a master artisan might be able to smooth a piece of > lunmer with a flatheaded screwdriver (more common tool), (s)he could > nevertheless do a much better job of it with a power lathe, a tool which > the piker might not be able to employ at all. > Of course each additional word adds a lesser percentage to an > increasing aggregate, but it is an additional asset nonetheless, just as > each year seems shorter as we grow older because we subjectively > measure it against the totality of our lifespans, yet we nevertheless > continue to age. While statistically there are less opportunities to use > the more esoteric terms, episodically there is sometimes no (or at the > very least a poor) substitute for the precise and concise yet uncommon > term when the linguistic need arises.
Ok, so we agree with each other, I could go on a push insignificant points around and split already shredded hairs; but I'm not going to. Our arguments have converged on agreement, we're looking at the same point from different angles: the hair bends left, no it bends right; regardless we see the same hair.
Re:virus: Inanity
« Reply #12 on: 2003-02-06 12:19:32 »
[ishnigarrab] Well, my hopes of finding anything of viable interest on this mailing list have fallen asunder. Is this list nothing more than a bunch of coffee house idlers with nothing more than large (if not ultimately incorrect) vocabularies and no time or ability other than to throw shit back and forth wrapped up in pretty packages of jargon and antiquitous abasements?
Translation: do you have nothing better to do than to wave your dicks around? <snip>
[rhinoceros] Anything better... I am not sure, but we can try, can't we?
Language must function. Language, however, is not only a tool for building and processing meaning but also a tool for transmitting meaning.
Sure, it is doubtful, for example, whether any non-trivial reasoning would be possible if we didn't use words to build concepts and their correlations. This seems true not only for natural language but also for artificial languages such as mathematics. Up to this point, everything said in this thread seems ok.
Of course, there is also the communication function of language; using words as building blocks for a house which is going to be used by others. This is not as simple as it sounds. There can be problems with the background of the audience, problems of perspective, even problems of the speaker's intention -- what makes each one of us want to post something?
Imagine that you have bought a book on how to build a radio. There are a lot of schematics in there, with all the resistors and the capacitors labeled in the conventional way. No need to know a lot about electronics. But... most people would not even know how to read the labels and how to purchase this stuff. What is the problem here?
The problem is that the information (memes) contained in the book are meaningless and useless outside a human brain equipped to interpret them. For all the reader knows, the book's content may be utter bullshit. The best way for the reader to judge the book is to find out whether anyone has really built a radio by using it.
Things can be more difficult when we are talking about abstract or even subjective concepts. If we are lucky, peer review will be available. If we are not, we'll have to do with multiple groups of "peer reviewers", possibly hostile to each other. In either case, some people from the general audience will be able to follow the reasoning and make judgements, while the rest will only find themselves in a psychological game of verbal impressions, attempted intimidation and character affiliations. Or, some may chose to ignore whatever they find hard to follow, either as out of their league or as pure bullshit.
What we are after in CoV is already difficult. So, demanding from any alleged specialist between us to break it all down into human talk seems to be a helpful practice.
Lucifer, I LOVE you! In a purely platonic way, of course. I've been trying to get him to do that for eons. to no avail. Dood, you're like, the Messiah, or something.
Well, my hopes of finding anything of viable interest on this mailing list have fallen asunder. [Translation: do you have nothing better to do than to wave your dicks around? [...] If so, then I'm afraid I'm going to leave this mailing list, and withdraw any recommendations I've made to friends concerning this site and mailing list.
[in a melodramatic squeal]
"Oh, dear! IGOR, release the dancing sequined-vested monkeys! My god man, hurry before all the newcomers suddenly lose interest and stop reading our posts! Quick, someone light your gentials on fire before we lose even more subscribers!!!"
My three korunas worth:
(1) You can easily cease the spam-age by using the BBS instead of the mailing list. ---->> http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/
(2) You are making the most common 'newbie' mistake here: your first post to the list is just an announcement of how much you dislike the list and its members. Well, since a post is also a contribution, how much of a 'contribution' is it to exclaim, in a haughty, dismissing fashion, "You Suck"? How can you complain of the atmosphere if, first time posting, you add to the pollution? In short, you just dissin' us is not contributing anything useful. Either abandon ship or take it upon yourself to stimulate conversation/debate that you enjoy. It's not like you've even made an effort to do so. (Tip: when you are here for a long stretch of time and get to know the inhabitants, the stretches of dead air and toxic waste aren't as unbearable if you are patient or ambitious enough to appreciate the sporadic rewards.)
(3) The importance of a superior vocabulary is superseded by mastering the art of Communication. I think, Ishnigarrab, you were trying to make this same point, weren't you? But you have to realize, there is a difference between balanced prose that is not too wordy nor too bland, and writing that is actually capable of REACHING a person on the other side. Your ramblings may be eloquent and intelligent, but in what way are they engaging? Positively? To me, the best way to communicate is not tell others how to think or what to think, but to make them feel and understand how *you* do.
Author
Logged
