[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[John Carl]

Ok, dave, let's see this goes ...


>
> dmb says:
>
>
> like I said to Steve, you don't get to decide what a word means any more
> than you get to decide what a buck is worth.


John:

Right.  These important issues should be left to the experts.

Who is the expert on the dollar?  Who does determine what a buck is worth,
anyway?    I dunno.  But if we're having  a negotiation, I determine
whatever I want or offer, in comparison to dollars, in a way that is
dynamically unfixed.  I think of an amount that I'd take, or offer, in
dollars.  They are a means of communicating comparative desire.  They are
open to interpretations.  There is no fixed meaning that forces me to treat
a dollar as having any intrinsic value.  Same with words.  We negotiate
meanings in conversation, just as we negotiate with dollars.  I do like the
analogy, btw.  Did you get it from james?  Is this the cash value of your
thinking or his?

Now.  You seem to think I'm all wishy-washy about correct words, terminology
and all that high-falutin' academic jazz you pride yourself on, but that's
really not the case, dave.  I like accuracy in definitions and clearness in
meanings as much as the next guy and more than most on the street.   I have
some issues with YOU, because you have demonstrated over and over that you
think your definitions are definitive.  I mean, just today I was reading,
and Steve trotted out about six or seven or I don't know how many
definitions of the word secular, and you still said he was using it wrong
because it has like, militant connotations for you.

See, your subjective connotations are valuable in the comparative
conversation, dave, but they're not definitive.  And you consistently treat
them like they are.

You construe unfairly.

Constantly.

So when you pick on my use of definitions (which nobody else does, btw) I
sorta just roll my eyes and consider the source and treat it like your other
ignorant disparagements of my thinking/writings.


These forms of common currency only work because they have a common meaning.
> That doesn't mean the value of a dollar is fixed forever but if the value
> fluctuated from person to person it would soon be worth nothing at all.
> Nobody could trust them. Nobody would trade in them.



John:

I got a skinful of sarcastic plattitude attitude here.  I mean who do you l
think builds the foundations of trust in the dollar in the first place?
 Such a thing can only stem from static social patterns of morality,  whose
genesis and instantiation, liberal academics denigrate and deride.

You seem to talk like it's all just given.  Like there's a trust fairy, that
waves his magic wand over piles of paper and hands out stacks to the good
and deserving (determined by civil servants and politicians of like ilk).

dmb:


> Words are like that too. There's plenty of room to be artful and expressive
> about what you want to say, of course, but if you want to be understood by
> other speakers of english then you have to  ... um ... be normal.


John:

Right.

I can see the formation of "normal" in your head.  But for some reason I
don't have a strong urge to conform to it.  What can we possibly do about
this?  How can we possibly reconcile my stubborn independence with your
absolute certitude?

It's quite a conundrum indeed.




> Why is this even an issue? It just seems so bloody obvious to me.
> Communication of ideas is the whole game here, no? That means using the
> language properly, as it was so carefully explained in the Journal "Duh!".
> Perhaps you saw their wildly controversial article titled, "Please Say What
> You Mean"? I've only read the abstract, but this audacious author claims
> that words have r
>  ecognizable meanings or definitions and he even says this is an important
> thing to notice about words. Can you imagine!? Where does he get the balls!
> I don't who this guy thinks he is, but that's just blatant fascism. He's
> just a freakin nord wazi, if you ska me.
>


John:

Well, I wasn't ska'ing you, but I'd like to, if you're willing.  But you
see, even simple and clear messages such as you sent right there, need some
generous construing, if we're gonna have communication.  A "nord wazi" dave?
 I mean, you do have speel chek, doncha?  But beyond that, to your real
point, yeah.  I agree completely.  duh.  Words mean things, and we should be
as accurate and clear as possible.  But...

like I said, you got issues.  I mean, I remember clearly way back when I
first found out about your problem, you objected to my use of "reactionary"
because in your book, it only applies to right wing types.  But wiki
contradicted your understanding, as both Platt and I pointed out to you, and
you still refused to accept that common definition and understanding,
because it wasn't common to the crowd YOU ran with, the people who talk to
you.  They're your world, and so that is the world's definition.  ipso facto
:.  whatever.




>
> I wish I had a huge pile of words, ten million words - in small bills. I'd
> take my clothes off and roll around in them. I'd spend a few thousand on
> naughty librarians and then pay my taxes with four-letter words. Yea, then
> I'd be happy.



Words come easy as dollars to me.  one after the other, one after the other.
 Stop when you're done.  Keep goin' when you want more.  tap.  tap.  tap.

No problem.


Take your clothes off.  Roll around.  Be my guest.

There.  That wasn't so painful.

John