[lbo-talk] Ethics of choosing an audience/ was Prose Style, was Time to Get Religion

[ravi]

At around 10/12/06 8:32 am, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> 
> I even agree with Ravi's
> distinctions from what he calls my "critique of obscurantism"
> position.  When using technical language or presenting a theoretical
> explanation of any kind, you have to take into account your audience
> and that is that.  It is perhaps that the pleasure of Derrida or Zizek
> is the pleasure of the cross-word puzzle or the acrostic.  Well and
> good.  These games can be cute and a form of entertainment, but don't
> make them any bigger than they are and don't tell me that the aim is
> to undermine "systems of domination" or "the violence of the word".
> 

I just realised I can put what you write above in a different way to
suit my needs... technical language is obscure other than for intended
audiences. But Derrida or Zizek are no more cute and entertaining than
Weinberg and Dawkins are (well, I take that back: Derrida is more
entertaining than the latter two). And as you correctly point out,
whoever it is that makes bigger claims (such as "truth" as in a previous
thread) has a very heavy burden of proof. Thus far, most truth,
knowledge, undermining of systems of domination etc have been achieved
mostly (I claim) through general human (i.e., non-technical -- yeah its
a weird usage) means and analysis. So yeah, if you want to write
esoteric techno-lingual treatises to one another, you should have all
the power to do so. OTOH, to (as always) repeat myself, if you want to
address or influence a more general audience, learn to talk the talk! If
Chomsky can do it, so can you ;-).

	--ravi