tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post8461720271494076499..comments2023-12-23T19:04:18.739-05:00Comments on The Crow's Eye: From Beneath A Cowled EyeJack Crowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-9119426805834329332011-01-24T23:08:18.497-05:002011-01-24T23:08:18.497-05:00The very fact that the puffed-up polysyllabic pros...The very fact that the puffed-up polysyllabic prose of the "professional" poseur rankles me --and not in a good way, as it turns my attention elsewhere-- indicates it doesn't aim to connect. Nor to inform.<br /><br />It could seek to rankle as would a gadfly, but then that'd be clear evidence that it wasn't coming from Progressives, Liberals, or other Democrats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-47640158465398161062011-01-18T15:50:16.237-05:002011-01-18T15:50:16.237-05:00Errands and chores; wife to free from work and sno...Errands and chores; wife to free from work and snow.<br /><br />More later. Thanks for the patience.<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-29980810210893649622011-01-18T15:46:09.270-05:002011-01-18T15:46:09.270-05:00Will, Michael -
Sorry for the delay. Holiday, fo...Will, Michael - <br /><br />Sorry for the delay. Holiday, followed by a snow day. Kids home, and all that.<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />I'm really inflexible on this subject. If it's jargon, I assume someone is trying to snow me and everyone else. <br /><br />I'm not referring to the mathematically precise language which is useful for planning and building bridges, or distribution networks, or the undertaking of cooperative material labor. I'm not taking aim at whatever it is trained physicists, chemists and engineers do with symbols in order to map and predict complex physical events.<br /><br />I'm just wary of the idea of "precision" in an allegedly "scientific" language describing ordinary human interaction, since it tends to serve as a cover for very imprecise, mushy and ultimately informal musings about social realities which are themselves difficult to define as strictly social, or strictly personal.<br /><br />And I'm just going to repeat my fondness for Rose L's rejection of most theory and all philosophy. "Philosophy" is a ruling class past time, for which I have zero tolerance, and considerable animosity. Since most "theory" falls under philosophy, that sort of takes care of it for me. <br /><br />To wit, if it cannot be said in ordinary language, to persons doing ordinary labor, I don't trust it. Theory doesn't get us a revolution. It gets people who want to lead revolutions, and then take over afterward, excited about their own place in an imagined vanguard. It allows people who have isolated themselves as professional revolutionaries to communicate with each other in a special, secretive idiom - in short, a priestly tongue. <br /><br />That doesn't mean I have any animosity towards those who prefer that sort of discourse. I just don't trust the words themselves. I had a ruling class education, before I bottomed out and went homeless in Boston - and when I finally decided to "grow up" and give up on being a writer, I put in the better part of several decades as a managerial mercenary for the ruling class, and its political castes. The language employed in those environments (campaign politics, business) resembles the academic language of theory and philosophy, because it serves a similar purpose - to elevate its users above those they intend to rule, or continue to rule...Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-41131537043419165332011-01-17T17:52:07.760-05:002011-01-17T17:52:07.760-05:00I think 'embracing the vernacular' is a go...I think 'embracing the vernacular' is a good strategy in some contexts, but I also think more rigorous (formal, technical) theory is also important. If we fall into taking common words and semantic associations only at face value, or only in terms of how they are deployed in wider culture circumstances, we risk the chance of becoming slaves to colloquialisms, ideology and dominant rhetorics. We must carefully analyze language and sometimes become highly technical in our descriptions. Specificity matters, especially with academic claims to adequately describe reality. <br /><br />I think there is time and space for both forms of discourse/practice. Jack's comments were less technical but more accessible, more contentious (and thus more politically useful), whereas Cameron's comments were more technical and formal (and perhaps more ‘scientifically’ useful).<br /><br />besides anti-intellectualism leads to Pol Pot and Stalin. There is room for a lot of different kinds of language in a world deprived of critical thinking.Michael-https://www.blogger.com/profile/17137291506357159071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-61087155675043340872011-01-17T12:18:51.912-05:002011-01-17T12:18:51.912-05:00I've been thinking about this a lot. The reds ...I've been thinking about this a lot. The reds who were effective for a while in the US, Debs and the Wobblies, understood that folks needed to be talked with as folks. Private school grads love terms that sound like they're badly translated from German or French, and it just puts people off. I've been toying with the notion of translating the Communist Manifesto into American, into something like the Sharing Declaration, and talking about workers instead of proletariat and marketers or corporatists instead of capitalists.<br /><br />I also think it's a mistake to give up the language of Christianity in a country that considers itself primarily Christian, even though its leaders happily ignore everything Jesus said about sharing and war.<br /><br />Anyway, I do think we need a lot more redneck reds if we're going to get anywhere good. I'm finally reading Baigent's Deer Hunting With Jesus, which just makes me madder and madder at the rich liberals who gave up on the working class.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-47525776658612430282011-01-17T10:57:53.410-05:002011-01-17T10:57:53.410-05:00michael,
Of course. Thanks for asking.
Peter,
I...michael,<br /><br />Of course. Thanks for asking.<br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />In certain circumstances, maybe. Although I'm personally wary of the equation of ordinary language with anti-intellectualism.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-72547996940850678252011-01-17T10:43:09.998-05:002011-01-17T10:43:09.998-05:00Hey Jack, can I post this response in the original...Hey Jack, can I post this response in the original thread at Archive Fire? I think you make very important points.Michael-https://www.blogger.com/profile/17137291506357159071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-57509877019767862072011-01-17T10:27:03.800-05:002011-01-17T10:27:03.800-05:00In light of this, I'd say our famous redneck a...In light of this, I'd say our famous redneck antiintellectualism is a virtue.peter wardnoreply@blogger.com