how to talk like a situationist

"There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word "damn" than in
the word "degeneration."

When i hear the words "metaphysical subtly" i reach for my ACDC shirt,
NASCAR hat, six pack of PBR and an essay by Craig Owens.
Sorry, i'm just not getting the attack on vocabulary? What makes
monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct? The current
administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
As Stan Greenly wrote in "The Spook Who Sat By The Door," "There's a
difference between elite and elitism."
(if you haven't read the book or seen the movie which came out in late
60s/early 70s respectively, i totally recommend either.)



On Sep 7, 2004, at 2:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/274
>
> this excerpt seems particularly applicable for RAW regulars:
> Keep your group very small and exclusive – but take it for granted
> that every man, woman, and child in the Western Hemisphere is
> intimately familiar with your work, even if no more than ten people
> actually are.
>
> regarding tip #2, cf:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/14178.html

ryan:
What makes
> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct?

curt:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/28606.html

ryan:
The current
> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.

curt:
and Hitler was adept at using microphones and posters to mislead. Your logic here is faulty.

The attack is not on vocabulary; it's on those who have mindlessly
accepted the academic party line that you need to use a massive
vocabulary to be intelligent. Most truths can be said with plain words.
If somebody out there refuses to be moved by your booksmarts, you may
be tempted to ascribe it to their laziness or ignorance–but it could
just be that they value their own time more than you do.

"I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time
to make it shorter." – Blaise Pascal

On Sep 8, 2004, at 1:08 AM, ryan griffis wrote:

> "There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word "damn" than in
> the word "degeneration."
>
> When i hear the words "metaphysical subtly" i reach for my ACDC shirt,
> NASCAR hat, six pack of PBR and an essay by Craig Owens.
> Sorry, i'm just not getting the attack on vocabulary? What makes
> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct? The current
> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
> As Stan Greenly wrote in "The Spook Who Sat By The Door," "There's a
> difference between elite and elitism."
> (if you haven't read the book or seen the movie which came out in late
> 60s/early 70s respectively, i totally recommend either.)
>
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2004, at 2:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
>> http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/274
>>
>> this excerpt seems particularly applicable for RAW regulars:
>> Keep your group very small and exclusive – but take it for granted
>> that every man, woman, and child in the Western Hemisphere is
>> intimately familiar with your work, even if no more than ten people
>> actually are.
>>
>> regarding tip #2, cf:
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/14178.html
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

Less is MORE.

On 9/8/04 12:33 PM, "Francis Hwang" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The attack is not on vocabulary; it's on those who have mindlessly
> accepted the academic party line that you need to use a massive
> vocabulary to be intelligent. Most truths can be said with plain words.
> If somebody out there refuses to be moved by your booksmarts, you may
> be tempted to ascribe it to their laziness or ignorance–but it could
> just be that they value their own time more than you do.
>
> "I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time
> to make it shorter." – Blaise Pascal
>
> On Sep 8, 2004, at 1:08 AM, ryan griffis wrote:
>
>> "There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word "damn" than in
>> the word "degeneration."
>>
>> When i hear the words "metaphysical subtly" i reach for my ACDC shirt,
>> NASCAR hat, six pack of PBR and an essay by Craig Owens.
>> Sorry, i'm just not getting the attack on vocabulary? What makes
>> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct? The current
>> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
>> As Stan Greenly wrote in "The Spook Who Sat By The Door," "There's a
>> difference between elite and elitism."
>> (if you haven't read the book or seen the movie which came out in late
>> 60s/early 70s respectively, i totally recommend either.)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2004, at 2:21 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/274
>>>
>>> this excerpt seems particularly applicable for RAW regulars:
>>> Keep your group very small and exclusive – but take it for granted
>>> that every man, woman, and child in the Western Hemisphere is
>>> intimately familiar with your work, even if no more than ten people
>>> actually are.
>>>
>>> regarding tip #2, cf:
>>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/14178.html
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
> Francis Hwang
> Director of Technology
> Rhizome.org
> phone: 212-219-1288x202
> AIM: francisrhizome
> + + +
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> ryan:
> What makes
>> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct?
>
> curt:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/28606.html

really? the response is "simple"? i don't get the equation of small
with simple. this is a bit 1 to 1 and universalist, no? the minimalists
were into simple too. yet find an aesthetics celebrated more for its
ability to be esoteric.
>
> ryan:
> The current
>> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
>
> curt:
> and Hitler was adept at using microphones and posters to mislead.
> Your logic here is faulty.

my logic? how does using Hitler as a response actually respond to my
comment? though, i'll give you the analogies rhetorical power. Hitler's
speeches and posters used "common" language as well. what's the point?
my point was simply a question of the inherent value given to "small"
words in your first post re situationists. i still don't get the desire
to assign political agency to vocabulary itself rather than its users.
do all polysyllabic words have a monosyllabic other that's being
repressed?

i don't know how i got stuck defending academic language…
but to play the devil's advocate, it seems that this line of
argumentation dismisses form altogether from language. what are "plain"
words? they're all learned - we aren't born with a "simple" vocabulary.
and some may say that using "dense" writing, one could pack in more
meaning with fewer words (hence the term dense) - thus making the
letter shorter. that would be the point of more complex words, wouldn't
it?
if the attack is on a deliberate use of language to oppress or
subjugate, i'm with you. and if someone wants to accuse others of
laziness because they don't understand academic language, well that's
not very, well, academic.
anyway, just some thoughts.

On Sep 8, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Francis Hwang wrote:

> The attack is not on vocabulary; it's on those who have mindlessly
> accepted the academic party line that you need to use a massive
> vocabulary to be intelligent. Most truths can be said with plain
> words. If somebody out there refuses to be moved by your booksmarts,
> you may be tempted to ascribe it to their laziness or ignorance–but
> it could just be that they value their own time more than you do.
>
> "I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time
> to make it shorter." – Blaise Pascal

Hi Ryan,

The Sacks excerpt is based on his work with "retarded" or "mentally underdeveloped" people. When he says "simple," he's referring to that group of people. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

My Hitler response was meant to illustrate the following – Just because someone uses small words to a bad end, that doesn't mean small words always lead to a bad end. Similarly, just because someone uses microphones and posters to a bad end, that doesn't mean microphones and posters always lead to a bad end.

You're fixating on chesterton's "one syllable" hyperbole and missing his point. He is critiquing overly academic/specialized language.

_

ryan griffis wrote:

> > ryan:
> > What makes
> >> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct?
> >
> > curt:
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/28606.html
>
> really? the response is "simple"? i don't get the equation of small
> with simple. this is a bit 1 to 1 and universalist, no? the
> minimalists
> were into simple too. yet find an aesthetics celebrated more for its
> ability to be esoteric.
> >
> > ryan:
> > The current
> >> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
> >
> > curt:
> > and Hitler was adept at using microphones and posters to mislead.
> > Your logic here is faulty.
>
> my logic? how does using Hitler as a response actually respond to my
> comment? though, i'll give you the analogies rhetorical power.
> Hitler's
> speeches and posters used "common" language as well. what's the
> point?
> my point was simply a question of the inherent value given to "small"
> words in your first post re situationists. i still don't get the
> desire
> to assign political agency to vocabulary itself rather than its users.
> do all polysyllabic words have a monosyllabic other that's being
> repressed?
>

Hi Curt,

> The Sacks excerpt is based on his work with "retarded" or "mentally
> underdeveloped" people. When he says "simple," he's referring to that
> group of people. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

probably should have been clear, but i've been hasty and half minded
with things lately. this certainly provides a different context than
the one i was projecting…
>
> My Hitler response was meant to illustrate the following – Just
> because someone uses small words to a bad end, that doesn't mean small
> words always lead to a bad end. Similarly, just because someone uses
> microphones and posters to a bad end, that doesn't mean microphones
> and posters always lead to a bad end.
>
that's what i thought… i guess my point/question wasn't clear - as
this is basically what i was saying (trying to get at), only about
complex language.

there is no "simple" language, there is no "complex" language, there is no "language"…

there is only mind…

ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Curt,

> The Sacks excerpt is based on his work with "retarded" or "mentally
> underdeveloped" people. When he says "simple," he's referring to that
> group of people. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

probably should have been clear, but i've been hasty and half minded
with things lately. this certainly provides a different context than
the one i was projecting…
>
> My Hitler response was meant to illustrate the following – Just
> because someone uses small words to a bad end, that doesn't mean small
> words always lead to a bad end. Similarly, just because someone uses
> microphones and posters to a bad end, that doesn't mean microphones
> and posters always lead to a bad end.
>
that's what i thought… i guess my point/question wasn't clear - as
this is basically what i was saying (trying to get at), only about
complex language.

+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/



XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/





———————————
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

I think you all really need to dig into Situ theory.
That article on Nothingness would not be considered truly part of the
discourse.

On 9/8/04 2:57 PM, "curt cloninger" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> The Sacks excerpt is based on his work with "retarded" or "mentally
> underdeveloped" people. When he says "simple," he's referring to that group
> of people. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
>
> My Hitler response was meant to illustrate the following – Just because
> someone uses small words to a bad end, that doesn't mean small words always
> lead to a bad end. Similarly, just because someone uses microphones and
> posters to a bad end, that doesn't mean microphones and posters always lead to
> a bad end.
>
> You're fixating on chesterton's "one syllable" hyperbole and missing his
> point. He is critiquing overly academic/specialized language.
>
> _
>
> ryan griffis wrote:
>
>>> ryan:
>>> What makes
>>>> monosyllabic communication more valuable and direct?
>>>
>>> curt:
>>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/28606.html
>>
>> really? the response is "simple"? i don't get the equation of small
>> with simple. this is a bit 1 to 1 and universalist, no? the
>> minimalists
>> were into simple too. yet find an aesthetics celebrated more for its
>> ability to be esoteric.
>>>
>>> ryan:
>>> The current
>>>> administration seems pretty adept at using small words to mislead.
>>>
>>> curt:
>>> and Hitler was adept at using microphones and posters to mislead.
>>> Your logic here is faulty.
>>
>> my logic? how does using Hitler as a response actually respond to my
>> comment? though, i'll give you the analogies rhetorical power.
>> Hitler's
>> speeches and posters used "common" language as well. what's the
>> point?
>> my point was simply a question of the inherent value given to "small"
>> words in your first post re situationists. i still don't get the
>> desire
>> to assign political agency to vocabulary itself rather than its users.
>> do all polysyllabic words have a monosyllabic other that's being
>> repressed?
>>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Granted. It's a pop meta-critique of the discourse.

"The specialization of images of the world is completed in the world
of the autonomous image."
- g.d.

"In order to learn my teachings I must first teach you how to learn."
- the Sphinx (aka Captian Conundrum) from Mystery Men

_

At 11:16 AM -0400 9/10/04, Lee Wells wrote:
>I think you all really need to dig into Situ theory.
>That article on Nothingness would not be considered truly part of the
>discourse.