Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA01352 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 15 May 2001 19:21:59 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:23:42 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: jabberwocky Message-ID: <3B012DDE.16943.1A7373@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010515184214.B901@ii01.org> References: <20010515131911.AAA16065@email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:19:11AM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 15 May 2001, at 18:42, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:19:11AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > On 05/15/01 03:51, Robin Faichney said this-
> > >I'd say, there's at least one example of a word that is used
> > >unusually, where that use conveys exactly what the writer intended.
> > Not to put too much of a point on it, but, yeah, that's what
> > creative writing is all about- making something understood on an
> > emotional/intellectual level, and yeah, poetry is sometimes putting
> > things in previously wrong places or using it in a new way to make
> > this understanding possible.
> That's common in literary prose as well as poetry.
> > And, yes, in these instances, 'the best use of a word' might well be
> > one at odds with common definitions or idiosyncratically.
> Thank you.
> > But this is poetry, and that particular use of that particular word
> > in that particular way _will not be repeated_ (usually) in other
> > places or times, and certainly not for understanding things of a
> > different nature.
> So you deny that words change their meanings?
> > Language is an ever-changing, shifting landfall of human expression.
> Don't you see any conflict there?
> > And when science becomes poetry (which I dearly desire, BTW) then
> > even technical journals can look like Finnegan's Wake.
> I don't know what you mean by "science becomes poetry", but to me many
> technical journals already look like Finnegan's Wake.
> > But until then, plodding learners that we are, we need stepping
> > stones of permanent fixture on the landscape of facts.
> > And the unchanging symbols of science to mark them.
> Granted, science is unlike ordinary language and requires greater
> consistency, but, as I said, my use of "information" is consensual in
> scientific and technical contexts. It only conflicts with
> arts&humanities usage (and it doesn't even conflict there if we're
> conscious of context and recognise we're dealing with different
Your usage is only consistent with that of some people (such as
naive physicists - the brighter ones, such as Heisenberg and
Wheeler, do not make such mistakes) committing semantic errors
by attempting to define terms outside their discipline; my usage
applies in communication theory, systems theory, semiotics,
linguistics, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and in philosophy
generally, and should by all logic, rationality and reason, apply in
memetics as well.
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 19:25:44 BST