[lbo-talk] clarity

[bitch at pulpculture.org]

i don't know, i just think it's funny that, with today's way of conceiving 
of Web architecture, the very same people who might sneer at philosophical 
lingo such as the word "ontology" or guffaw at the word "instantiate" if 
used in conversation, think it's perfectly a-ok to use them when talking 
about PHP, CFM, databases, and web architecture. :) There are reasons why 
people use those words in Web architecture these days and they make sense 
(in the context of their philosophical use as well), it's just that users 
are taught to see a 25 cent word and whine about how it is unecessary and 
people should use 'easier' words. whatev.

on a related note, I had to chuckle when my Indian friend, V, noted that 
people respect people with educations. Might be true in India, dunno, but 
it's certainly not so straightforward in the u.s. Theere is both respect 
and disrespect, nicely detailed I think in the old classic, "Hidden Injries 
of Class," a book which, among other things, attempts to show how the 
social status conferred on the working class turns into inury and then 
defense against the injuries and wounds in a satisfaction taken in dissing 
those with educations. I don't have the book on hand and its been a long 
time, so take that gloss with a large round of salt.

b - Outdoor World: where white people fantasize about hunting big game 
while entertaining the brood, overbreeders that they are -- l

At 06:34 PM 3/28/2007, you wrote:
>May I respond to a nine year old post?
>
>I was taking to an editor today and he was bemoaning architectural
>lingo. He's expressed, at great length, his hatred of 'jargon' before.
>I agree - at least I would if he was talking about actual jargon,
>which *some* architetcure-speak is. I'm all for clarity in expressing
>ideas but sometimes concepts are just complicated. Rumsfeld's famoud
>'known-unknowns', for example, makes perfect sense to me. That he's
>wrong about so very much doesn't mean that that argument is spurious.
>
>Sometimes I think the desire for simple language relfelcts a desire
>for simple people. Many years ago I read the list's own Mr.
>Heartfield's booklet, 'Need and Desire in the Post-Material Economy',
>and it very nearly gave me a headache. Older and wiser as I now like
>to think I am, it reads perfectly well. Zizek, on the other hand, I
>still wonder about... If I didn't know better I'd think that Dirty
>Slavoj was who Martin Amis had in mind in 'The Infomation' - a book
>that makes people's noses bleed.
>
>For the recond, I myself once spoke fluent art-speak but, alas, it's
>mostly gone the way of my knowedge of Irish.
>
>Jason.

Bitch | Lab
http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)