Kathy McDonald on mon 29 dec 03
and Misinterpreting Posts..
Hi again, and best wishes to all for a Happy New Year!
I find myself with a bit of down time and was doing my " when I have time
I'll read Clayart again" thing when I stumbled upon this thread.
Vince says....
Jargon-based specialist language? As I said before, the development
of an elaborate vocabulary which evolves among academics is a perfectly
healthy and natural thing, and it is absurd to think of it as some kind of
intellectual masterbation.
Vince I agree...
All "specialist" fields have their own jargon,,it's what differentiates
the insiders form those looking in. It seems to be a necessary evil in
the evolution of a *field of study* and when used in context helps to define
the parameters for ongoing dialogue and the study of a particular set of
ideas.
Jargon is typically "invented language" that allows communication and helps
to
minimize the chance of miscommunication and misinterpretation. [my
definition..
perhaps there are theorists that agree..any academics in the crowd..?)
iIt's like any field where there are varying levels of expertise
and professionalism...........
learning the language is a critical rite of pasasage. Acceptance into..what
I
describe as the inner sanctum..... involves becoming proficient at using
the words
in the right place at the right time . Is this too simplistic?
A good example of this for me is the generation old debate about what is
"art"
and what is "craft"....have we ever really decided? (I know this has been
debated
ad nauseum on this list because I've been a participant since Richard
Burkett first
introduced the list, however....we've never figured it out in practical
terms.)
Do we even have a commonly accepted set of words
and commonly agreed on terms to debate the above issue effectively?
Now what was my point.? duh,,,
We need a common language,,,jargon...whaddever you wnat to call it.....
as long as it does not become a way to exclude others from the discourse.
In many areas outside the arts this jargon becomes a tactic of exclusion.
I resent that aspect of a specialized set of rules and language.
h
Individuals who are proficient with the language (the insiders)
often don't know they have excluded others who are less
proficient (the outsiders) because they've become so enmeshed or enamoured
with their descriptors.
There is a big difference between "talkin' the talk" and "walkin' the walk"
Nuff said,,
kathy McDonald (who is not sure whether I can talk or walk yet....)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 12/23/2003
Lee Love on wed 31 dec 03
and Misinterpreting Posts..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy McDonald"
> Jargon-based specialist language? As I said before, the development
> of an elaborate vocabulary which evolves among academics is a perfectly
> healthy and natural thing, and it is absurd to think of it as some kind of
> intellectual masterbation.
Not that anybody can get a word in edgewise in this
conversation... ;^)
But I don't know. Wendell Berry talks about technocratic jargon in
his book "Standing By Words." Sometimes, it is used by the high priest of
technology, to lord themselves over the masses. There is something called
"social understanding." How it works is, that socially, an individual
doesn't know a particular thing, if he cannot explain it to a moderately
educated person (let's say someone with an associates degree), in commonly
understandable words.
Words can be used to increase understanding, but they can also be
used to separate, confound and to confuse people who are "outside of the
annointed."
--
Lee In Mashiko, Japan
http://Mashiko.us
Web Log (click on recent date):
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
Lee Love on thu 1 jan 04
and Misinterpreting Posts..
----- Original Message -----
Kathy wrote:
>
> > Jargon-based specialist language? As I said before, the
development
> > of an elaborate vocabulary which evolves among academics is a perfectly
> > healthy and natural thing, and it is absurd to think of it as some kind
of
> > intellectual masterbation.
And I replied (no clue that she read it):
> Words can be used to increase understanding, but they can also be
> used to separate, confound and to confuse people who are "outside of the
> annointed."
And she wrote again:
>Jargon is typically "invented language" that allows communication and
>helps to minimize the chance of miscommunication and
>misinterpretation.
Of course, all language is invented. Really, the use of
specialized language and its ability to promote communication depends upon
the intent of the user.
Part of the reason latin was used by the priest was to keep power
and to be able to use their protected knowledge to control the
"unannonited."
So, the usefulness of specialized language has nothing to do with
the language used, but rather, on the users desire or lack of desire to
communicate.
When you are speaking "outside your field" to folks who do not share
your expertise, it is good to speak a common language, or be prepared to
explain and educate about the language you use.
In talking about zen philosphy, specialized language is helpful,
because english often lacks the exact word to substitute for the original
Sanskrit. They are far advanced in "mind studies" in the East. But when
talking to someone unfamiliar with the terms it is not helpful to use them
unless you are ready to provide diffenitions.
Two examples I can think of are the concepts of shunyata
(often translated as emptiness) and dukkha (often translated as suffering.)
But neither are very good translations because the meanings are much more
subtle. Emptiness doesn't work well in english because we tend to think
of it as a physical lack of material in space, or a vacume. One of the
positive ways to explain shunyata is "that everything exists because of the
support of everything else in existence." That really sounds totally
different than "emptiness." Dukkha might be better explained as
"dis-ease, like when a wheel is not centered on its axel."
--
Lee In Mashiko, Japan
http://Mashiko.us
"The discarded language, oddly phrased tough it is, comes close to a kind of
accountability: the internal (family) and the external (cow) are joined by a
moral connection (companionship). A proof of its accountability that this
statement can be the basis of moral behavior: 'Be good to the cow, for she
is our companion."
Standing By Words
--Wendell Berry
| |
|
