U
Uncle Steve
Guest
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:31:14PM -0500, John Fields wrote:
fashion today to place everything in neat categories with easily
recognized labels: Democrat, Republican, Christian, White, Leftist,
etc. These identifiers mean nothing and everything simultaneously.
But if someone is identified as a Christian, what does that mean?
What kind of Christian? So we do have a few more categories in such
cases: Catholic, Protestant, Born Again Christian, Christian
Scientist, Coptic Christian. These identifiers differentiate sects,
but the taxonomy of Christianity stops there. We have no identifiers
to differentiate according to the variations in ontology that occur
within such groups, excepting administrative roles and such. Yet, the
ontological variance occurring within any arbitrary sect may be
considerably larger than the official ontological differences between
sects.
The language and Lexicon has been structured to conceal a large amount
of detail that pertains to the realpolitik of politics, religion, and
sociology. To wit: it is my impression that there is a rather large
hidden subculture of heroin within Western society, with its own
rituals, politics, and norms. I am not speaking of gutter addicts,
but of a functional group that spans the middle-class to the political
elite. In practice a secret society (or several secret societies),
who live and work among mere mortals largely undetected because they
seem to be adept at concealing their addiction and mores in so
far as they are different from those of the average Joe and Jane.
Even their use of language has numerous defining characteristics which
differentiate their speech from accepted use.
Consider if some non-trivial segment of Federal political office was
occupied by individuals who have an interest in securing and
perpetuating the conditions that give them access to the drug. Would
that not constitute something of an Orwellian threat?
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
There should be a special word in the English language to identify
people who create problems and then turn around and offer up their own
tailor-made bogus non-solutions designed to completely avoid the root
causes of the situation under consideration. 'Traitor' might be a
good choice, but lacks the requisite specificity. One of the problems
with contemporary English is it lacks many such words that would
otherwise categorically identify certain kinds of person, place, or
thing -- making it difficult or impossible to think analytically about
such objects. These shortcomings of the English lexicon are
representative of Orwellian linguistics at work in the real world.
It's dark amusement.
While that is technically correct, you should consider that it is the
fashion today to place everything in neat categories with easily
recognized labels: Democrat, Republican, Christian, White, Leftist,
etc. These identifiers mean nothing and everything simultaneously.
But if someone is identified as a Christian, what does that mean?
What kind of Christian? So we do have a few more categories in such
cases: Catholic, Protestant, Born Again Christian, Christian
Scientist, Coptic Christian. These identifiers differentiate sects,
but the taxonomy of Christianity stops there. We have no identifiers
to differentiate according to the variations in ontology that occur
within such groups, excepting administrative roles and such. Yet, the
ontological variance occurring within any arbitrary sect may be
considerably larger than the official ontological differences between
sects.
The language and Lexicon has been structured to conceal a large amount
of detail that pertains to the realpolitik of politics, religion, and
sociology. To wit: it is my impression that there is a rather large
hidden subculture of heroin within Western society, with its own
rituals, politics, and norms. I am not speaking of gutter addicts,
but of a functional group that spans the middle-class to the political
elite. In practice a secret society (or several secret societies),
who live and work among mere mortals largely undetected because they
seem to be adept at concealing their addiction and mores in so
far as they are different from those of the average Joe and Jane.
Even their use of language has numerous defining characteristics which
differentiate their speech from accepted use.
Consider if some non-trivial segment of Federal political office was
occupied by individuals who have an interest in securing and
perpetuating the conditions that give them access to the drug. Would
that not constitute something of an Orwellian threat?
Let's try that again, shall we?
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
There should be a special word in the English language to identify
people who create problems and then turn around and offer up their own
tailor-made bogus non-solutions designed to completely avoid the root
causes of the situation under consideration. 'Traitor' might be a
good choice, but lacks the requisite specificity. One of the problems
with contemporary English is it lacks many such words that would
otherwise categorically identify certain kinds of person, place, or
thing -- making it difficult or impossible to think analytically about
such objects. These shortcomings of the English lexicon are
representative of Orwellian linguistics at work in the real world.