It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[twelveoone]

This is, of course, Zen or Tao
It applies to everything
Lao Tzu wrote about it in the 6th century BC

I knew I liked you for a number of reasons
I've added another.

Once you learn all the rules and why they exsist...you move beyond rules and whatever you do is "correct" if you will.

There is a huge difference between being simple and being " correct"
so to get past complex you have to first understand and be able to use complex.
If you don't have the vocabulary you can't express complex ideas...
Not that you don't have them..you just can't communicate the " oneness" if you will.

I shudder when I see and hear some of todays " role models" being interviewed
" and it's like, you know, my thing you know? It's what I do you know what I'm sayin'. My art ,like"

Now he/she is talking about what Pat just expressed..
but the whole soul is missing because he/ she doesn't have the words to express the complexity of the thoughts.
How sad is it to sum up your life, your art, with " It's my thing ya know?"

Eventually the use of simpler language reduces everything to a one dimensional world where nothing is special because the ways to describe it and communicate it are so limited

I shudder more when I hear Condolezza Rice, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay. et al.
The person who say's "It's my thing ya know?" generally is talking about"his thing" and doesn't really affect me.

Q. what kind of words are most often used in zen?

 

[twelveoone]

Do you really think the problem with that second version is "bigger vocabulary" or meaningless words?

Don't you think that the main problem with that bureau-speak snippet is not the individual words themselves (which are, regardless of syllable count, frankly accessible), but its structure: redundant, tautological, artificially inflated. You said before "Instictively we know its bullshit" - of course it is! And it's painfully transparent to anyone with a whit of critical rationale.

But the problem doesn't lie with the words. The problem lies with people - emitters and receptors - whose grasp on the language is deteriorating to a point where they can't even make sense of their own thought process.

Insticitively, I'd rather talk to Pat.
What are you trying for here, Lauren? A sense of irony? What are you selling? You know everyone is going to agree with this.

The problem lies with people - emitters and receptors - this statement here, this assignment of value, possiblity the language has slipped, to the point where we have become emitters and receptors.

People should have an instictive reaction to certain uses of the language.
Neo-con; what the fuck?
creative accounting; what the fuck?
the process (in regards to Iraq); what the fuck?
Ratzinger to continue reforms; what the fuck?
anything that comes out of a human resources office, what the fuck, no, that one is too obvious.
They don't, why?
The employment of critical thinking, in ones on thoughts, in an analysis of what is said, Orwell suggests we employ, or in his terms "facing it" .

 

[Angeline]

Insticitively, I'd rather talk to Pat.
What are you trying for here, Lauren? A sense of irony? What are you selling? You know everyone is going to agree with this.

The problem lies with people - emitters and receptors - this statement here, this assignment of value, possiblity the language has slipped, to the point where we have become emitters and receptors.

People should have an instictive reaction to certain uses of the language.
Neo-con; what the fuck?
creative accounting; what the fuck?
the process (in regards to Iraq); what the fuck?
Ratzinger to continue reforms; what the fuck?
anything that comes out of a human resources office, what the fuck, no, that one is too obvious.
They don't, why?
The employment of critical thinking, in ones on thoughts, in an analysis of what is said, Orwell suggests we employ, or in his terms "facing it" .

People don't have instinctive reactions to these terms because they lack the literacy to realize it's doublespeak, like in the novel 1984. They don't have literacy because they don't read. Reading is an act that encourages people to be thoughtful; if you're not thoughtful any soundbite or craftily phrased slogan can sound ok or even good. And the next thing you know the world changes and not for the better.

 

[twelveoone]

People don't have instinctive reactions to these terms because they lack the literacy to realize it's doublespeak, like in the novel 1984. They don't have literacy because they don't read. Reading is an act that encourages people to be thoughtful; if you're not thoughtful any soundbite or craftily phrased slogan can sound ok or even good. And the next thing you know the world changes and not for the better.

exactly,
and yet, I suspect more "reading" is being done now, then ever before.

 

[PatCarrington]

cause i didn't feel like it then, you bastard.

is that better?

much.....

i wish i had seen this last night. my dreams would have been much more pleasant.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Insticitively, I'd rather talk to Pat.

Oh, now you hurt my feelings...

 

[PatCarrington]

Oh, now you hurt my feelings...

i'd rather talk to you.

does that help a wee bit?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

i'd rather talk to you.

does that help a wee bit?

Well, now he's going to be offended.

 

[PatCarrington]

Well, now he's going to be offended.

insult me then, and we'll make it a menage a trois of injury.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

insult me then, and we'll make it a menage a trois of injury.

That's no fun. Tell me instead what are your thoughts on that thing I mentioned before. Would you subscribe to the idea of spreading the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of changing the language in the direction of the all-absorbing utilitarianism of technical reasoning?

 

[Tathagata]

insult me then, and we'll make it a menage a trois of injury.

Oh you'll never get out of this alive..........

Pardon me I need to go hide my glee

 

[PatCarrington]

That's no fun. Tell me instead what are your thoughts on that thing I mentioned before. Would you subscribe to the idea of spreading the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of changing the language in the direction of the all-absorbing utilitarianism of technical reasoning?

i suppose i would subscribe....to the ATTEMPT.

i think such an attempt would fail.....is failing, if already underway, whereas your question seems to leave open the probability, or possibility, of success.

but i do not subscribe to 1201's thoughts that English is a "dying" language, just an ever-changing one (which i assume all are, though i am not multi-lingual as you are, so that is only an educated guess). i think the changes of the last generation have been in the form of a downward spiral -- whether intentional due to an effort to reach down to the masses at the expense of a less crowded upper tier, or due to a deterioration of writing skills, i'm not sure.

and i also leave open the possibility that every generation looks at the coming one in that light, and has forever (i can see Shakespeare and Ben Johnson trembling with the same thoughts back when)-- which would make it part of the 'human condition', and even more complex a question.

 

[PatCarrington]

Oh you'll never get out of this alive..........

Pardon me I need to go hide my glee

are you passing out party hats?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

i suppose i would subscribe....to the ATTEMPT.

i think such an attempt would fail.....is failing, if already underway, whereas your question seems to leave open the probability, or possibility, of success.

Well, would you subscribe to the idea that such an attempt, regardless of it being ultimately destined to failure over time or not, could (should?) be one of the incumbencies of the poet? Could that attempt be one of the things that distinguishes poetry (and literary prose) from all other prosaic communicative writing?

 

[Tathagata]

are you passing out party hats?

would you wear one?

 

[PatCarrington]

Well, would you subscribe to the idea that such an attempt, regardless of it being ultimately destined to failure over time or not, could (should?) be one of the incumbencies of the poet? Could that attempt be one of the things that distinguishes poetry (and literary prose) from all other prosaic communicative writing?

no, i do not think it incumbent on a poet to give a hoot about the overall state of the language. to me, poetry is more personal than that. when i write, i try to say what i have to say in the best and most effective way i know how. the other question is too large for me to deal with or even consider when i write.

i don't know how many poets think of such large issues when writing. i can't conceive that it is a large number, so i do not think poets in general are making any such attempts, at least not consciously. i have enough trouble getting a girl's eyes right, never mind attempting to help foster a change in the language.

i suppose i missed the word "subscribe" in your last question -- i wouldn't take part, but i would give it my blessing, and watch with wide eyes.

 

[PatCarrington]

would you wear one?

to my own funeral?

....what the fuck....strap it on.

 

[Tathagata]

Well, would you subscribe to the idea that such an attempt, regardless of it being ultimately destined to failure over time or not, could (should?) be one of the incumbencies of the poet? Could that attempt be one of the things that distinguishes poetry (and literary prose) from all other prosaic communicative writing?

I think poetry is the attempt to express the inexpressible.
I think that requires a certain mind-set and a certain knowledge of language to come even close to getting it right.

it is not the same language that is used to tell you how to assemble a gas grill, or why this trade will make the Red Sox a better team, or why you should vote Schwarzenegger in '08.
The words may be the same in many cases, but the language is much different.


I have no idea if this has anything to do with the question but it did in my head

 

[Angeline]

exactly,
and yet, I suspect more "reading" is being done now, then ever before.

Yeah, but the problem is it's stuff like our posts here and People Magazine.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

no, i do not think it incumbent on a poet to give a hoot about the overall state of the language. to me, poetry is more personal than that. when i write, i try to say what i have to say in the best and most effective way i know how. the other question is too large for me to deal with or even consider when i write.

i don't know how many poets think of such large issues when writing. i can't conceive that it is a large number, so i do not think poets in general are making any such attempts, at least not consciously. i have enough trouble getting a girl's eyes right, never mind attempting to help foster a change in the language.

i suppose i missed the word "subscribe" in your last question -- i wouldn't take part, but i would give it my blessing, and watch with wide eyes.

I wasn't actually thinking of that attempt being directed at changing the overall state of the language. That, as you said, would be futile. Language will (d)evolve as it will. But shouldn't it be one of the concerns, objectives, conscious or not - of a poet when it comes to his or her own approach to poetry?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think poetry is the attempt to express the inexpressible.
I think that requires a certain mind-set and a certain knowledge of language to come even close to getting it right.

it is not the same language that is used to tell you how to assemble a gas grill, or why this trade will make the Red Sox a better team, or why you should vote Schwarzenegger in '08.
The words may be the same in many cases, but the language is much different.


I have no idea if this has anything to do with the question but it did in my head

Mine too. Thanks.

 

[Tathagata]

....what the fuck....strap it on.

You have me confused with Eve I think...

 

[PatCarrington]

I wasn't actually thinking of that attempt being directed at changing the overall state of the language. That, as you said, would be futile. Language will (d)evolve as it will. But shouldn't it be one of the concerns, objectives, conscious or not - of a poet when it comes to his or her own approach to poetry?

no, i don't think so.

naturally, i try to use language, both technically and figuratively, as best i can. but in doing so, i do not aim to address any concerns i have about language in general. i just try to write well, as i understand it.

but i'm sure others would feel differently, and i can see why.

i take a personal approach, hoping it touches the universality of feeling and experience necessary to make writing good.

i usually try to write about old aprons, and swirled gravestones, and boots, and attractive eyes, not politics or injustice or the state of language and larger things. it is my opinion that concern with the larger things leads to preaching or judgement, or trying to save or alter the world, and have no place in good poetry. that are automatic weakeners, i think. nor does the state of the language have a place in one's writing, to me. not in mine, anyway.

poetry with those larger aims makes me cringe. i find most of it downright sophomoric.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

no, i don't think so.

naturally, i try to use language, both technically and figuratively, as best i can. but in doing so, i do not aim to address any concerns i have about language in general. i just try to write well, as i understand it.

but i'm sure others would feel differently, and i can see why.

i take a personal approach, hoping it touches the universality of feeling and experience necessary to make writing good.

i usually try to write about old aprons, and swirled gravestones, and boots, and attractive eyes, not politics or injustice or the state of language and larger things. it is my opinion that concern with the larger things leads to preaching or judgement, or trying to save or alter the world, and have no place in good poetry. that are automatic weakeners, i think. nor does the state of the language have a place in one's writing, to me. not in mine, anyway.

poetry with those larger aims makes me cringe. i find most of it downright sophomoric.

LOL

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'd not advocating poetry with higher concerns, about politics or injustice or the state of language, preaching or judgements. I am asking your thoughts on the use of those new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings while writing about old aprons, and swirled gravestones, and boots, and attractive eyes.

 

[PatCarrington]

You have me confused with Eve I think...

i had a vision of a rubber band under the chin and a pointy cardboard cap as i lay down in pine, hands folded.

eve's strap-ons might tend to be a bit more hearty and vigorous, i would think.