Posted on 07/16/2002 3:21:27 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Let me know if I need to phrase something more clearly.
Boy I guess that could be taken as needling, but seriously, I know I tend to go off on tangents at times. I do this to try and provide illustrations of the concepts I am trying to communicate. I understand that that is not clear to some people and I would like to know what I can do to make it more understandable.
The test is whether or not my exposition is so clear, orderly, and detailed that someone else can follow what I have written, and repeat the procedure without ever needing to ask me a question to clarify anything, all without knowing a thing about me or my procedures beforehand. That does't sound very silly, does it? It sounds very pragmatic and economical of the use of everyone's time and effort.
A very honorable approach. If you are writing a technical manual. It also assumes a certain level of comprehension from the reader. But here we are having a philosophical discussion which sometimes requires a slightly different approach. A screwdriver as opposed to a hammer, if you will (I know you hate those old cliches... but hey, I avoided saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail" didn't I?)
In addition, it seems to me that your approach would require that you never, or at least very rarely, use metaphor. So it would bug you when someone else's approach *does* use metaphor.
I would be interested in reading a bit of your fiction. Seriously. With your approach I have no doubt that you could write technically, or factually, but I wonder what your stories would come across like, and whether you depart from this approach, when writing about a "story" or "ideas" as opposed to facts.
You speak Prole, do you?
On occasion. It depends on who I am speaking to. I also try to understand people instead of demanding that they make themselves understandable first. Then I can help them better to that end. There is a couple in our church that I immediately pinned as "lower IQ" type people. Both blue collar workers, both having outward appearances that aren't screaming "attractive" to the world. Both having a limited vocabulary and education. However they are some of my favorite people because they have great hearts, they love kids, live life enthusiastically, love people, have problems like everyone else and are still always cheerful. I find them completely refreshing, wonderful people to be around. I know I could learn things from them even though I have more education and can speak and write far better than they.
“If there is hope... it lies in the proles” --George Orwell
[ASIDE:] Wow that sounds positively 'grassroots.'[END ASIDE}
See, my hubby used to do that to me. Now I do have some responsibility for being as clear as I can. But in the meantime, if he knows what I mean, it is his responsibility to help me rephrase in a way that he finds more understandable... so that I can use it next time.
I will say that my hubby is a great GREAT teacher, manager, and team player. Everyone that has worked for and with him loves to work for or with him. In all that, he doesn't ever sacrifice his individuality or his own standards for communication. This is a guy who can pick up anything you ask him to do and learn how to do it in record time. He has spent his entire childhood and adult life translating everything he thinks into "prole." If he didn't, he would be isolated, like the typical geek. However he values love and human relationships more than excellence in anything. (Don't get me wrong... he is excellent in many things anyway.) I have no doubt that he could carry on a deeply esoteric debate with someone like Stephen Hawking and keep Hawking on his toes (so to speak... a sadly ironic metaphor there but oh well). He seems to have eternal patience, and empathy for people in general, most of whom come close to his IQ. His ability only makes him more responsible. He also knows there are people out there as smart as or smarter than him... (although I haven't met but maybe one or two. And most of them were so caught up in their own intellect that they couldn't relate to anyone.)
Gosh now where did I get going on that...he's probably going to be embarrassed that I said all that.
Anyway I guess when I see someone like you poking fun at something like Diamond's post, which really wasn't unintelligible, it makes me yearn to change you into someone as personally perceptive as my husband. I also long for someone to come along and show you the log in your own eye. But I suppose if every guy were as wonderful as he is I might have some trouble keeping perspective. ;-) Part of his wonderful qualities is that he *doesnt* go around putting people in their place when they step out of it, even though he so very easily could.
Anyway hubby started out being like you. He would play deliberately obtuse if I didn't phrase something correctly. A joke his mom and dad tell is when he was 9 or ten and they told him to put the soda in the icebox... so he put it in the freezer (that's where the ice is, isn't it??) of course it exploded all over... He constantly tried to take people literally, thinking that would motivate them to be more clear. The truth is what he ends up doing is being passively controlling and irritating more than anything else. Communication isn't solely about using the words, as valuable as that is. It's about relating to people, seeking to understand as well as to be understood, and teaching others to better their communication skills instead of making fun of their mistakes.
You know what an idiom is. Yet they can be very useful in communication.
made use of the sawing the branch
I hate very little, but I loathe cliches. They are an indication of lazy, unoriginal thought.
I think that some old object lessons are the best ones. Just because you didn't think of them first doesn't mean they aren't worth telling. There *is* nothing new under the sun anyway. You're just as original as the next guy.
In any case you used your personal grudge against the use of cliche metaphors to completely dodge the argument. (Perhaps that's why you couldn't follow his post? Someone did suggest that when things get heated up it's not uncommon to misunderstand.) Which most of us who discuss things view as a sign of running out of ammo... or being unable to follow a logical discussion to it's conclusion.
I would imagine if you did that to your coworkers your yearly review would be kind of lacking in the "plays well with others" column.
But of course, you would never descend to any personal comments, would you?
I enjoy the occasional needling back and forth with someone who I perceive can handle it. And yep sometimes I make personal slams. But I try not to at least until the person really demonstrates they aren't interested in actually discussing anything.
Was that a personal slam? It was in reference to an observation I made of your behavior here.
Bizarro. Most people have no idea whether or not their writing stinks, because they don't read much that's written well, and the culture is generally so fraught with misspellings and misuse of words that they never get a hint that perhaps they could do better.
I do agree, it's annoying. But I don't see that as applying to Diamond's post. I would wager that when you speak you don't sound like a technical manual. (Of course nowadays that's not saying much either! Many of them sound like they were written in Japanese and run through babel fish...)
I once knew a mechanical engineer who had written a formal letter asking that he be "enumerated" for his expenses. Informed that "remunerated" was what he should have used, he said "enumerated" was close enough. And so civilization slides into twilight.
ROFL! Now, see, that kind of "Oh who cares" I don't care for either. He would better have said "Oh ok, I'm sorry, thank you for the correction." and just shut up. I don't mind that people are found to be in ignorance, it's when they are nicely offered something they need to learn and shrug it off as unimportant that bothers me.
You poked fun at CS Lewis' when Diamond or RobRoy referred to Mere Christianity. Lewis was a great writer. He is typically British in style which is different than American prose and which turns some people off. I for one love the British way of speaking and writing. He can go on with all kinds of dry facts for quite a long while and then stick one emotional line in there which will bring me to tears. Just out of the blue.
Anyway, Lewis lamented himself about the death of language (verbicide).
"In terms of volume, this is surely an information age. But in terms of understanding, wisdom, spiritual clarity, and civility, we have entered a darker age. We are committing what C.S. Lewis once called "verbicide." The volume of words is inversely related to our capacity to use them well, and to think clearly about what they mean." - David Orr
I wish I could find the article on it by Lewis... at least I'm pretty sure I skimmed one that he wrote at one time. argh.
That figures. I prefer baloney with mustard:^) I assert that by reducing human beings to the level of animals, you destroy the foundation of your own moral condemnation of savagery, rendering your moral condemnations self-refuting
You deny the charge. Alrighty, let us demonstrate with a proposed reply as exhibit "A". What is your principled moral basis for saying that a man [an ape with a scarcity of hair, large brains, and speech] ought not to roast a kitten over hot coals for amusement?
Why the insistence upon declaring yourself (i.e., humans) so special on a supernatural basis instead of seeing yourself on a spectrum of intelligence and ability?
Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?
I'm not shamed or embarrassed by my kinship to critters
Why in the world would you be? Naturalism as a philosophy does not provide a coherent explantion for shame or embarrassment because there is no real evil or guilt in an impersonal universe is nothing but the result of a gigantic, cosmic accident of purely physical forces.
Cordially,
Granted, but what sets us apart from animals is not our human form. "Image of God" cannot be physical, since God is spirit. Most Christians understand that.
And I suspect that the God of the sapient lizards is not impressed with needless cruelty.
No one ever said that God was impressed with cruelty of any kind, I am sure. Inserting that into the discussion is a non-sequitur, whether or not you did it intentionally. (Gasp... can professional, clear, concise writers even *do* non-sequiturs???) God who owns the cattle on a thousand hills and uses gold for paving stones is not too worried about replacing animal life on this planet. Animals are not created for fellowship with Him, however WE are, and what cruelty to animals does to US on the inside is what He is concerned about.
But... I don't understand how you can make this statement about inevitable human fallibility in communication, and then turn around say that anything *you* cannot understand must be poorly written. That begs the idea that anything *you* write must therefore be perfectly understandable... that leaves only one choice: are you saying that you are not human? I'm a little unclear on what you mean here.
What's worse... intellectual laziness, or relational laziness?
Incidentally I don't mind listening to people rhapsodize about how they love someone. I find that the people who are bored are those who can't identify.
I've never played games with people and taken what they said literally to annoy them,
Then if that is true I'll have to go on thinking you're just not as talented as you believe you are.
if my supervisor wants to write 1000 words of obtuse rant which makes him look like a bombastic fool, I let him jump off that cliff. Which he does frequently
Is your supervisor open to learning? Perhaps your approach closes that door. If he is open to learning, then you come off as extremely selfish, wishing to keep your niche instead of helping your fellow man improve.
I seriously would like to see some of your fiction so I can judge your "music of language" for myself. Your opinion of writing rings hollower and hollower as we go along.
There is some very old, tired material rotting under the sun, however, and the stink of it in text is penetrating and stifling.
You miss the point once again. There is NOTHING new under the sun. Including YOUR stuff. So if you wish to apply "stink" to that, I will concede that point.
Every beginning piece of advice about writing warns against reliance upon cliches...
So if someone chooses to use one on occasion (especially in the context of a paragraph refuting your argument) *that*constitutes reliance? Speaking of verbicide...
BritSpeak is less than amusing with Brit coworkers who toss in BritObscenities, and think they're not understood by the hapless Americans.
I think they're hilarious. People told me that Brits were rude. I think they're great... in an idiosyncratic way. British humor is so cerebral, very little of this toilet humor we have in the US. I wish I could have spent more time there than my brief 2 days in London.
If your amusing stories about your cats tied into the conversation it would be worth bringing them up.
My point about my husband was that he has all the same frustrations about language that you have, and yet he doesn't come off the way you do, even with the limitations of a text medium. He must be doing something different.
For one thing, he doesn't make it his job to correct everyone he runs into or make fun of their way of phrasing things. If he is unclear, he asks. I didn't see you asking for clarification, just making fun, which to me means you're not interested in understanding what he's saying at all, and only interested in being understood yourself. If your work is communication you have got to realize it's a two way street. Not everyone may be as gifted as you, but you could be more gracious about the fact. You could encourage rather than beat people down, regardless of whether or not you disagree on the subject at hand. It would be a great indicator of character for you to help your ideological opposition to formulate his arguments more clearly.
I don't believe the original poster believed that.
The original poster sounded like he was just brainstorming and having fun, trying to lighten the mood.
Despite your staggering cleverness and wit,
Despite your harping on accuracy and clarity in writing, I have a hard time believing that is what you *really* meant.
no small number of Christians are convinced that not only is the human form the mirror of God's own,
I have not run into those. If they do, they are mistaken and haven't read the Bible very carefully (all too common, sadly). Where are you finding these Christians?
but that only the male form is the proper mirror, which justifies setting male humans above everything else on the planet.
Boy... this is a new one to me. I have no problem with a patriarchal view, which requires men to be more responsible, not less. But based on God resembling a human male? I think I heard M.Scott Peck put it best. God is male not in the physical sense, but in the relational sense. Where typically we see the male pursuing and wooing the female. We refer to God as male, then, because in relation to Him, all of us are female.
Perhaps in acquiring your breathtaking erudition
Once again, inaccurate use of the language...
you may have come across the discussions of Christian theologians just a few hundred years ago whether or not women had souls.
You might want to read this then: http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/women-souls.txt
The people who believe in God the Puppeteer actually believe in a God who routinely inflicts assorted cruelties.
This is new to me as a Christian teaching. If they believe that they are mistaken.
No one ever said that God was impressed with cruelty of any kind, I am sure.
The people who believe in God the Puppeteer actually believe in a God who routinely inflicts assorted cruelties.
What has that to do with this discussion? I'm looking back in the thread and not finding where you might have thought this tied in to what the person was saying. RobRoy and others were saying that humans are valued by God above animals and you made the leap to... that?
The comment must have been too far beneath you to grasp.
Oh, golly gee, there's another one... keep a diggin'
Weird. I have no interest in a God who furnishes gold paving stones while making soulless animals.
That's fine with me. Well not totally fine because one day I believe you'll regret your lack of interest. Because if you're wrong, and that *is* what he is, you have no choice but to make your peace with Him on his terms, (which are darn good) and believe that whatever he has in store is far better than animals with souls, or choose to live with the consequences.
The Bible says that the whole of Creation waits to be redeemed from its bondage to death. I have to believe that means there is a plan for animals as well. But in the meantime he has given us permission to use them responsibly... and that is for OUR sake, not theirs.
If I am wrong, neither of us has much to worry about.
"Which is why I am not a Christian. My goal is a good and honorable life, not just admitting I've been a slimeball and I feel really badly about all the wrongs I've committed for the last 8 decades..."
Dark Mirage apparently already has it all figured out - there's no sense in trying to convince her otherwise.
What I find so unusual is why someone who says they're not a Christian is so concerned about those who are. Or maybe she's just trying to prove them wrong - since she knows for a fact that she's right.
Ah well, go figure.
So why do you continue to stir it up? If it bothers you so badly, why do you continue to read it? Are you some sort of electronic masochist? Or do you get your kick from kicking the pile and then complaining about the stench?
No - wait - I think I get it. This is how you get your self-esteem. You go around attempting to convince those around you how much better you are than they.
If I say you're smart, will you go away?
Thanks for pointing out his/her post about not being a Christian. The last bit of my last post still applies. I didn't check the profile. Rarely do unless someone really strikes me as out of the ordinary in either a positive or negative way.
"Which is why I am not a Christian. My goal is a good and honorable life, not just admitting I've been a slimeball and I feel really badly about all the wrongs I've committed for the last 8 decades..."
That kind of reminds me of a time when my stepsister visited home and she was having a discussion with our dad, rhapsodizing about spirituality (she, one of the most carnal, selfish old ladies I have known.) She talked about "learning to forgive herself" but of course made no move to ask others to forgive her for the very deep pain she had wrought in their lives. She remained blissfully unaware of her own shortcomings. Well, none of us will remain in ignorance forever.
Yet you're still here. Is it because the dialogue is riveting, or witty, or deep? Or is it because it's free?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.