Concerning Supercalifragilisticexpealideosis

by messenger 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • dunsscot
    dunsscot

    Dear seeker,

    :duns,
    That quote, to someone who is familiar with that list of -isms, is quite clear and precise. It would take many paragraphs to get across the same thoughts without using those words.:

    I agree.

    :To those who are not familiar with those schools of thought, it is so much gibberish and an unnecessary use of "big" words. Those words aren't big, though, just precise.:

    That is my point. I am used to employing those words to express my point. Admittedly, I have somewhat parodied the way that philosophers often express themselves here. But I also know why they choose certain terms.

    This same problem came up in the philosophy of art class I took as an undergrad. I thought the material was fairly straightforward and simple. But I was the only philosophy major in the class. Others thought the professor unnecessarily used "big" words to get the point across. But I thought he tried hard to break matters down to their basic elements.

    This same professor frequently chided me for using technical vocabulary in class. But he grew used to it, and I still have private conversations about epistemological issues with him via email. We even get together sometimes and have steak and beer for lunch as we laugh about certain in-class experiences we enjoyed. The professor I'm speaking of really tried to keep it simple in his class. But at times, one has to express concepts in technical language.

    Sincerely,
    Dan

    Duns the Scot

  • lauralisa
    lauralisa

    Hey larc

    How many boards would the mongrels hoard if the mongrel hords got bored?

    (I quote from Calvin & Hobbes)

    laura, wandering through the moeity of amphigory's otiose tocsin

  • julien
    julien

    Seeker,

    If there is an anti-intellectual bias to this board, why isn't it also directed at other intelligent posters here? Why is it that only Dunscott elicits this response? I think "Hmmmm" hit the nail right on the head.

    It isn't just big words -- it's this continual need to spout obscure references to -isms no one has heard of or cares about, or what some philosopher wrote that is not even remotedly connected to everyday human experience.

    This is not a philosophy bboard.. it is about JW and ex-JW issues. The participants want to discuss them without having to wade thru a lot of so called intellectual drivel.. Also I think people get annoyed because they sometimes perceive Dunscott is using impenetrable (thanks MD) dialogue to avoid answering tough questions.

    Here's an example. I also am a computer professional. When my mom asks me how to send an email attachment, I am not going to start telling her how to write an email system in Common Lisp and explaining the internals of SMTP and TCP/IP to her.. Yet this is exactly how Dunscott seems to approach this forum. I feel sorry for Duns' mom if she ever comes to him with a computer question.

    One last thing, while I agree that certain words my express certain ideas/concepts more precisely (eg interlocutor vs. poster), I feel it is more important to communicate effectively than to communicate precisely.. When you get that precise you are likely to lose your audience (case in point: this board), whereas by using more common, less precise terminology most readers will still get the point and will actually stick around to read the message.

  • reagan_oconnor
    reagan_oconnor

    Dave -- small pencil! HAHAHAHA!!

    I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul.

  • Moxy
    Moxy

    "Let's make litter out of these literati"

    "Heeey, that's too clever. YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"

    Lenny & Carl & anti-intellectualism

    mox

  • Seeker
    Seeker
    If there is an anti-intellectual bias to this board

    I haven't seen it on the board, I saw it in this thread.

    It isn't just big words -- it's this continual need to spout obscure references to -isms no one has heard of or cares about, or what some philosopher wrote that is not even remotedly connected to everyday human experience.

    When people don't cite references, they get lectured. When they do cite references, they get ridiculed. As for philosophy not being remotely connected to everyday human experience, that's simply not true.

    This is not a philosophy bboard.. it is about JW and ex-JW issues. The participants want to discuss them without having to wade thru a lot of so called intellectual drivel.. Also I think people get annoyed because they sometimes perceive Dunscott is using impenetrable (thanks MD) dialogue to avoid answering tough questions.

    It's neither drivel nor impenetrable. Annoying, yes, but to call it drivel is to engage in precisely the sort of anti-intellectualism I was complaining about.

    One last thing, while I agree that certain words my express certain ideas/concepts more precisely (eg interlocutor vs. poster), I feel it is more important to communicate effectively than to communicate precisely.. When you get that precise you are likely to lose your audience (case in point: this board), whereas by using more common, less precise terminology most readers will still get the point and will actually stick around to read the message.

    Precisely why I write the way I do; I agree with you. And you may have noticed that duns has toned down his approach in recent days, so he is bending a little on this issue. Nevertheless, people will continue to make fun of his words no matter what he says now, because of his initial approach. Fair game to make fun of intelligence.

  • julien
    julien
    Fair game to make fun of intelligence.

    No, more accurately we are making fun of the IMHO misuse or inappropriate/excessive use of intelligence. Not the same thing at all.

    Calling it drivel is not anti-intellectual, I am merely likening it to a continuous flow of drool coming from dunscott.

    Forest Gump, now that was anti-intellectual.

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    OK, julien, fair game. In fact, I dislike duns's style as well. I was reacting to a mood I saw developing, and to give credit, after I did so I noticed the thread took off in a different direction. That's all I wanted to do, make sure things didn't turn ugly against duns in an unfair manner. Go ahead and complain in a fair manner all you want; I'll even join you, for I prefer clarity in a message, especially given the audience here.

  • ladonna
    ladonna

    Seeker,

    I can see from what angle you are coming from as I have had a few digs at Duns.

    In being honest I hope that Duns realises I am only having a bit of fun....I have nothing whatsoever against Duns or his intellectual abilities; I can even handle his big words..........let's face it.....he gives us a laugh and extra bits of information too.

    So Duns.....I hope you read this....

    Ana

  • seven006
    seven006

    Seeker,

    I see that your post is a direct shot at me so I guess I am going to have to respond so that I can sleep tonight. I am in no
    way attacking any intellectual prowess that my buddy Duns or anyone else on this board may have. I play with him as much as he plays with me. I have responded to a couple of his posts with an intelligent argument and had not received a reply. So, I resort to messing with him a little in a humorous manner to invoke a response. Just because I don't reply to him with multiple scripture quoting and coded language doesn't mean I am any less intelligent than he. Quite the opposite. He has his style and I have mine. I am secure enough with my intelligence not to have to take it out if it's
    cleverly warped box and put it on display as a vehicle to draw attention to myself on this board.

    I would stack up my IQ up to Mr. Duns any day. The use of my intelligence and the need to show it off is not my purpose for visiting this forum. I could post snippets of my current secular projects that are in progress and developed by my own expertise and original creative talents. These projects have some of the largest fortune 100 companies discussing a joint venture with me and my associates. The point men of each of these companies are contemplating a strategic partnership with the anticipation of investing tens of millions of dollars to get the project up and running. If this business concept (that is my own original idea) is funded and the new company becomes a reality it could very well result in generating income close to the billion dollar mark. I could go on and on dropping names and figures until the average poster here becomes sick of it and begins to poke fun at me much like they have done with my buddy Duns.

    I would be the last person to make fun of a persons purely based on their intelligence. But just as Mr. Duns, I do tend to enjoy a level of entertainment in poking fun at the style in which some try and use their intelligence or lack their of. This forum caters more to Mr. Duns expertise in the written language than it does mine. If I ever got him into a corporate board room which is my playground he wouldn't stand a chance of getting the slightest bit of recognition. He'd pretty much get laughed out of the room. Since this board is more of a social platform and it's communication structure is that of
    written language it is a virtual Disneyland for Mr. Duns. He is taking advantage of that fact he has positioned himself as the king of the hill by intentionally using language that he knows looks impressive and results in some giving him his psychological strokes that he seems to so desperately need. He himself has to put on a third person persona to justify his post's because he knows the level of arrogance he has portrayed is not socially acceptable. He has separated Duns the internet character and Duns the real live human being several times. This I find amusing, this I find a source of entertainment. I believe he recognizes where I am coming from and I recognize the same in him. I am not being sarcastic when I say I like the guy.

    I hope this clears a few things up and I apologize if I offended you.

    Dave

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit