[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[david buchanan]

John said to Arlo:
Tell that one to dmb, who seems to think all definitions are neatly encapsulated by academics and bequeathed to their kind via wiki and SEP.



Arlo replied:
I can't speak for DMB, but I've always read him to also believe that clarity and precision encourages the evolutionary process. Its not about setting things forever in stone, its being clear and precise about what the dialogue you are responding to, what you are saying, and how you anticipate being interpretted.


dmb says:

Thanks, Arlo. That's certainly my intention and I hope that intention would be apparent to any fair reader.

As I see it, your average dictionary is not the gold standard of intellectual validity. It just represents the most basic of basic requirements. If your argument relies on the use of a term that is so off the mark that it can be contradicted by a common dictionary, then your argument is very weak indeed. Isn't it true that the Pirsigian notion of "rhetoric" demands excellence in writing? And how can it be even a little bit good if your writing includes the misuse of terms or a misleading use of terms. At the very least, it's just bad taste to so. If rhetoric is an art form, then such abuse of the terms is a kind of aesthetic blunder. It's "ugly" and it "doesn't work" because it's confusing and it interferes with the process of communication. 


I really don't understand how this is even debatable. It's a slam-dunk and no-brainer, ain't it? Making a case for this is like making a case for food at dinner. If there is no food, who does it even get to be called "dinner"? Same with thought and speech. If you're not trading in common concepts and words, then how does it even deserve the name "conversation", let alone "philosophy"?



And yet the response to this obvious truism is hostility and abuse? Only a douche bag would cite the dictionary against the misuse of terms? Only an academic elitist would site a common encyclopedia against the sloppy use of terms? I think that kind of reaction is completely bogus. In my book, you can continue complaining about dictionaries after you've been contradicted by dictionaries but it will only get you charged with a second count of idiotic solipsism. 

English is OUR language, not YOUR personal plaything. The dictionary is a public institution and it's purpose is to standardize word usage, which means English is OUR language and not one's personal plaything. To be perfectly frank, I think you'd have to be a very slippery bullshitter and a pathological narcissist to think otherwise. I mean, show me a chess player who feels oppressed by the rules of chess and I'll show you a very, very bad chess player. Except in the case of the rare genius, of course, which is completely irrelevant in this case because I'm just calling for some of the most basic of basic standards. If some genius poet-philosopher were here bending words around in magical ways and I threw the dictionary at her, I'd be the idiotic solipsist. 

Oh, maybe that's it. 

Okay, everybody. Please raise your hand if you are an unrecognized poetic genius. Also, if you have an artistic gift that transcends language itself please raise your hand. And finally if you feef that the rules of communication don't apply to you because you're so precious and special and rare, then please raise your hand. Okay, please keep them up while I take account. I wanna make sure I don't confuse you with those delusional hacks who only think they're above it all.