Lingua Pynchon

[David Morris]

--- Paul Nightingale <isread at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> 
> David Morris wrote:
>
> > But I'd like to say that PN is very defensive, thus his focus on my
implying that he is elitist in his use of jargon.  As I said, elitism is not
the focus of my question, despite my challenging tone.  The value of his
language choice was my question: JARGON.
>
> More shiftiness. The question as it first appeared differs from the revised
version that has appeared subsequently. Whatever I said in reply would be a
tacit admission on my part that the use of jargon (your word, not mine) was
'wrong'. You admitted that had been its purpose. Hence, initially, your
question wasn't designed to open a dialogue. If we now have a dialogue, and it
remains a big 'if', it's because I called your bluff.

Well, again like in my first response to your challenge, my response is "duh." 
That's because of course I was challenging the value of jargon.  Of course I
was criticizing it, and that criticism wasn't hidden.  It was right on the
surface.  But you turned the focus on you, you the purported "elitist," and
wouldn't even address the subject of JARGON.  If our dialogue now is the result
of you challenging my bluff that only means that I've admitted my lack of skill
with your jargon, but have repeated in a less challenging tone and in another
form the same question, now stated thus:  "Can these ideas you are
communicating survive without the jargon?"

But now you address my question:

>[...]
> Does the use of jargon name the namer. "Signifiers sliding all over the
> place" was an attempt to colloquialise the original, from Lacan. Six
> words instead of, say, twenty that (let's agree) might do the same job
> without using the word "signifier". But "signifier" doesn't just mean
> the same thing as "something that stands in for/refers to something
> else". It also signifies the use of a critical language. This is when it
> becomes jargon, allegedly, because it asks the reader if they're
> acquainted with the ideas of, eg, poststructuralism. If they're not,
> they're excluded from the discussion, it seems. But this, so far as it
> goes, is a pretty flimsy argument, like saying the non-French speaker is
> excluded from a conversation in French.

Yeah, well if you started posting here exclusively in French you'd have a
pretty small audience, and that is a valid criticism, thus my original question
of how remote do you want your audience to be.

> One can easily argue that critical language (jargon) is necessary if it
> states, with clarity, where that argument is coming from. The language
> evolves because of a need to be precise. That the writer hides behind
> obscurity is often heard; indeed, this is what David has accused me of
> doing. To defend myself against such a charge is to acknowledge the
> validity of the charge, which I don't (leading to further charges of
> defensiveness).

You keep on repeating that logic, which is crap IMHO.  You've finally started
to answer the question regarding the value of your jargon, and that doesn't
"validate" the charge.  It is to engage in dialogue.

> More to the point, perhaps - it's a question of will, as I've said
> before. Over the past week or so, several people have contributed to a
> discussion of the Foreword, a discussion in which the use of critical
> theory featured. If I were talking to myself, that discussion couldn't
> take place. If one wishes to participate, one can. There's no law saying
> you can't acquaint yourself with the ideas/arguments being used, if you
> want to make the effort.

Of couse not.  You can talk to the small number of people conversant with
critical theory here until the cows come home.  I was asking you to open up the
conversation if possible.

> There are 'guides' galore, so you don't need to read the original texts to be
able to follow the discussion. A lot easier than learning a foreign language,
David.

Sure, but the only ones needing to learn a foreign language to participate here
are those who can't speak English, because that's the predominate language
here.  Of course I miss out when Otto or kai send German texts our way, but I'm
not going to go out and learn Greman anytime soon.  My loss, I know.

And that "guide" on Lacan I mentioned, The Unconcious Structured Like a
Language is no easy read, but I did enjoy as far as I got through it.

> Of course, if you wish, you can go on insisting everyone everywhere speaks
your language. Morrisese as the new lingua franca. Now there's a prospect.

It's not "my" language, any more than the jargn you use is "your" language.

David Morris

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com