Thursday, November 11, 2004

Learning how to not take myself so serious ;)

(thanks to the really pissed off progressive Mike who tutored me on how to put myself under erasure)

Michael Benton

11 comments:

Mad Mike said...

Did I? I hope that is a good thing :)

Deleted said...

For a minute, I read tutored as tortured and wasn't sure how to comment.

Mad Mike said...

I did too at first.

Thivai Abhor said...

Mad Mike I meant you gave me the technical know-how to signify it in print (which was very cool), probably the amazing Dr. Rebecca Saunders at Illinois State University first prompted me to understand "being" as "becoming" and to re-conceive my self (effectively crossing out various negative versions of myself and working toward constructing new ways of being/meaning/understanding)

lokigr said...

When did this discussion about slowing down the pace of life, being motivated beyond the amassing of wealth, and examining our society become so complicated? Thivai you have the soul of a linguist. Good thoughts presented in a way that makes my head hurt. Even as I learn how to teach academic discourse I grow increasingly alienated with its distancing, and elitist tendencies.

I really hope this doesn't sound like an attack. You know I love this site.

Mad Mike said...

I am still a little confused, what did you mean by "Mad Mike I meant you gave me the technical know-how to signify it in print" I am at a loss as to what technical know-how you are talking about.
You seem happy with it anyway so that is good in my view.

lokigr said...

I was rethinking my comments about language. Complex issues like ideology do indeed need a well developed language to give us analytical tools to properly discuss our points. Precise connotations and denotation can be necessary to effectively communicate complex ideas. However, there is a cost in using advanced, diction and syntax in our writings. A large part of the right's appeal right now is its simple, clear statements of belief and purpose. It seems many people fear the unknown, signified sometimes by complex rhetoric’s, more than clearly stated lunacy. There are definite costs as well as rewards in using advance lexicon.

Thivai Abhor said...

Mad Mike--I may be mistaken, but i thought it was you that answered my question on the html code to do the crossing out of words... if not, I am grateful to the person that did...

Lokigr--I like language, I like playing with it, I love language, twisting and wrapping and shaping, this is why I do this (teach, write, blog, study, conversation). In fact I almost think of writing as lovemaking (probably Derrida's influence)... the intercourse of discourse.

The problem isn't the way we state our message (although I agree with Lakoff that it is important for us to be aware of our cognitive framing), it is more the empty promise of a bankrupt democratic party that can't "imagine" a true alternative to the conservative right. Even more important than learning to re-frame our messages we need to move genuinely radical messages into the public realm ... in other words if they are going to bar us from the stage we need to bum-rush... it is the effective domination of a monological worldview (framed as a dualistic system--good and bad) that fails to see the multitude of differances and desires that are out there that makes it impossible for many people to "imagine" a better world.

Yes, I definitely use some jargon and I often make-up words concepts--but you know what think of all the technologies/concepts/words that were not around 20 years ago... think how easily people adapted to these radical technological changes? The people (however you want to define them) are much smarter than so-called experts give them credit for being. We are constantly learning anew, becoming instead of just being, and we will spread new meanings once we quit chasing distracting butterflies...

Thivai Abhor said...

Mad Mike--I found out the problem it was "really pissed off progressive Mike" who gave me the technical advice... fixed the kudos.

Thanks for the link to the hawk sanctuary!

oso said...

I think I agree with Lokigr's first comment. They brought it up in that "blogging and academia" presentation - and that is that many disciplines create an exclusive jargon to shut out the public at large when the public starts to creep in. Precision is important when discussing any topic (and I'm a lover of language myself) but I always have the most respect for those who can present the most complicated and abstract arguments in the simplest terms. (Barbara Kingsolver, Jane Smiley, Milan Kundera) Sure, everything David Foster Wallace writes interests me a great deal, but I feel like he purposely makes it inaccessible.

Thivai Abhor said...

Yes, if you use complicated language and obtuse jargon to appear intelligent or set yourself apart that is correct, but when studying language and operations of culture, one must be able to deconstruct words and theorize new meanings?

I assume that the readers/visitors at this blog are very educated (in various ways--real life experience, formal education, and there own creative ventures) and thus I just let my language go where it will assuming that we are not afraid to ask questions (notice my frequent willingness to expose my ignorance about technical issues)