[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[John Carl]

John:

Hey, it all sounds good and reasonable.  Now can you actually live up to
these ideals?

dmb:


> 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.
>
>

dmb:

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"?
>

John:

Oops!  Guess not.  Oh well, try again later.






>
> 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.



John:

Well, I got news for you dave.  Bad news, I'm sure.  But  OUR language, IS
my personal plaything.  So neener, neener, big fat weiner to you.  I can do
whatever I want with the words I make.  Just like you can construe as
unfairly as you want to, even if I post six different dictionary definitions
behind every single word I write.  That's just the nature of it.  Words
don't get their meanings from dictionaries.  Words get their meaning from a
writer's mind.

Now if the writer has in mind, the goal of communicating an idea to another,
he better make a good solid effort at using commonly understood definite
meanings.  But if the other is so virulently opposed to be taken in or
captured by the words of another, that he resists with all the whining
obtusosity he can muster (hey, I know "obtusosity" isn't a word, but it does
convey a meaning, eh?) Then obviously there's no hope for dialogue.



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.



John:

Yeah, I know what you mean by "slippery"... ever since that little trick you
pulled where you sorta figuratively stuck your finger in your dimple and
acted all innocent, "who me???" and said you were making a point about
"projection".  Yeah.  I know slippery.

And I know about projection too.  It's where a pattern of evil persists so
strongly in your own brain, that you see it in the words and actions of
others.  Pathological narcissists are always slippery bullshitters, btw, so
that's a redundancy right there.

To be perfectly frank.

Which I pretty much always am.

You oughta try it more often and then you wouldn't feel the need to hang it
as a label upon any particular bit of writing.



> 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.



John:

Well, not to be purposely mean, dave, but to make the point which needs to
be made, that's a fairly execrable bit of writing right there.  Try and not
include anything that is "completely irrelevant in this case" because such
things are not really helpful in quality discourse.

But it's especially pathetic because not only was the point you called
irrelevant, actually irrelevant, it was also woefully wrong.  No chess
player feels hampered by the rules of the game, and especially not geniuses.
 You know who feels hampered by the rules of chess?  Little kids imbued with
that immature stage of mental development called "wishful thinking".  They
wish the horsey could fly more than two squares.

But anyway the main point that needs to be said is, if you're gonna call for
the most basic standards, you really oughta start by following them.



> 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.



John:

Oh.  This is one of those "slippery" projection things again, isn't it dave.
 Well, don't worry.  I won't tell anyone.  Your secret is safe with me.