Isn't it awfully ...

[Max]

I do apologise Tessa. If you could explicitly write up your standards for intellectual posturing and what constitutes "pants" in your eyes, I'll try harder to avoid it ;) (I'm sure everyone else will too).

[Tessa K]

My earlier post was a pretty fair example of my criteria. It's mostly about showing off how clever you and your cronies are (or think you are) rather than actually saying anything. Sokal blew the whistle on this kind of thinking and writing in Intellectual Impostures.

[Nettles]

I know not this Sokal. Who is Sokal?

{quick google}

Oh, THAT Sokal!

A really old friend of mine worked at PMLA then, and she was very LitCrit and had a complete sense of humour failure over the article in Social Text.

I must get Amazon to send her a copy of the book.

[Max]

I think suggesting people here show off and imposters could be a good way to keep it quiet?

[Tessa K]

I think suggesting people here show off and imposters could be a good way to keep it quiet?

I was talking about one idea from one academic, not about anyone here. This is generally a haven of rationality.

[Max]

Sokal argues that there is a right common sense way to do things and a wrong way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal

I firmly believe that language and thought influence share a reciprocal relationship and that therefore it worth understanding the meaning of words as they are used.

So personally, I find Sokal a bit restricting. Others may not.

This does not mean I advocate the use of different meanings for words every day. But I do think it is valid and even vital to question the meaning of oft accepted terms, especially those with moral implications like "evil". For example, I've noticed that few people label themselves as evil. Does this mean no one is evil? No - it's a judgment and more than likely one effected by a majority.

[Tessa K]

This does not mean I advocate the use of different meanings for words every day. But I do think it is valid and even vital to question the meaning of oft accepted terms, especially those with moral implications like "evil". For example, I've noticed that few people label themselves as evil. Does this mean no one is evil? No - it's a judgment and more than likely one effected by a majority.

You're right, the meaning and use of words should be examined. The Surrealists were big on this; they wanted to renew language, making new connections. Their aim was (partly) to build a bridge between the conscious and unconscious, and to find the 'merveilleux' (marvellous, wonderful) in the everyday.

That's not quite the same as re-evaluating moral terms but it interesting to look at how poets (etc) play with language compared with how academics or moral authorities do it.

[Jules Grimm]

Yes, we need a big-mouthed opinionated South African to keep things moving around here.

I know i'm late, but i have arrived now - loud mouthed , opinionated and South African as requested : :twisted:

[Max]

Oh god, comic book guy is back ;)

[Jules Grimm]

Comic Book guy??? Is that referring to my name or something else entirely?

[Nettles]

Never mind, Jules. It's wonderful to see you here!

[Max]

I thought it was someone else! :) Sorry!

[Jules Grimm]

Thanks for the welcome Nettles and glad to hear i am not the person you thought i was Max (I think)