what's in a word?

[ish mailian]

Not a very optimistic way at looking at communication, but it still beats
the tar out of war.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:54 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:

> And, if you are not there, and even if you are and are not an intimate,
> knowledgeable of the nearly infinite meanings that are conveyed through
> intimate associations and histories, you have little chance of nailing down
> the meaning of most words. Writing only makes it more difficult and the
> internet and the globalization of usage compounds the problem.
>
> But we know what is meant. Right?
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Logical. But American English is not. The meaning of a word, as LW taught
>> us, is embedded in the act of using it in context. This is what Laura and
>> Joseph are trying to pin down, not the meaning of the word, but the use of
>> it by a particular person or person, in a specific context. Good Luck.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:38 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think a clear understanding of the valid use of the term is the best
>>> first defense against its misuse.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Laura is onto the key factor in what is going on now with the
>>>> use of this word ’Terrorism’. It is needed, wanted, and used not as a word
>>>> which might apply to a  range of circumstances, and be used variously with
>>>> seriousness, with political precision, in apolitical context, even with
>>>> humor etc., though all of those uses will appear in literature. It now
>>>> fills a role as a political term which is directed almost exclusively at
>>>> acts of violence by Muslims not aligned with theUS and to the extent it
>>>> applies to anyone else it will be non-state groups or individuals with
>>>> political messages or goals clearly at odds with Western media and cultural
>>>> values.  It is purposely undefined as a legal term, because then it could
>>>> be logically applied to state as well as non-state instances of immoral
>>>> violence against non-combatants.
>>>>   This current use comfortably allows and legitimizes state violence,
>>>> targeted abuse,  and the suspension of laws and imposition of intrusive
>>>> surveillance, while expressing abhorrence for certain non-state uses
>>>> against those we care about. That should make us wary of its use and wary
>>>> of trying to agree with the media appropriation as a  narrow and purely
>>>> pejorative term that can only apply on their unstated but implied terms.
>>>>        NON-STATE HYPOCRISY
>>>> Most  mass shootings by individuals have been by white men but there is
>>>> no widespread fear or investigation of white men. Many Cops operate in
>>>> dangerous and lawless affinity groups and have chalked up a lot of dead
>>>> bodies that look like unjustified racist violence. Where is the media call
>>>> for accountability and investigation there? Terrorism? The term certainly
>>>> applied to the Ku Klux Klan, or the Brownshirts. Why not in this case?
>>>>
>>>> I remember the  global appearance of the word in its current
>>>> application to be under Ronald Reagan with the fall of Soviet Communism and
>>>> the need for new enemies. It was applied to THE Nicaraguan Government but
>>>> not the contras and to Salvadoran rebels but not to the right wing
>>>> para-military groupsIN El Salvador or their CIA helpers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:35 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > And adding to the confusion are the gray areas, such as the Colorado
>>>> Springs shooting, where mental illness and ideology overlap, or, as the San
>>>> Bernardino shooting seems to be developing into, a mixture of ideological
>>>> inspiration and going postal. If there's some ideology in the mix (how
>>>> about hatred of women, as in that Montreal shooting?), how much is needed
>>>> before it becomes terrorism? What's the difference between inspiration
>>>> (from ISIS, from Trump)and a direct order? In the present climate the
>>>> answer seems to be: the Muslim factor. Muslim shooters are most, or even
>>>> always likely to be labelled terrorists, while the rest get shunted into
>>>> the mentally ill category. To the dead and wounded, it's a pretty arcane
>>>> distinction.
>>>> >
>>>> > Laura
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> >> Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
>>>> >> To: Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
>>>> >> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> >> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> yes, I fell back on my first 'studies'....Nechaev....and Laquer's
>>>> >> definition a bit later.
>>>> >> You are right, and I remember reading it in what you sent, about
>>>> REIGN
>>>> >> OF TERROR.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Danny Weltman <
>>>> danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> If "traditional" actually means "original," the "traditional"
>>>> meaning of the
>>>> >>> term is the intimidation undertaken by the government during the
>>>> Reign of
>>>> >>> Terror in the French Revolution. If by "traditional" we just mean
>>>> "what it
>>>> >>> has meant up until recently," then the "traditional" meaning has
>>>> changed
>>>> >>> over time, as is the case with most politically charged words (and
>>>> with a
>>>> >>> good chunk of less politically charged words, too). A good summary
>>>> can be
>>>> >>> found in section 1 of this article:
>>>> >>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I always thought the core 'traditional' meaning of the word was to
>>>> >>>> kill/attack citizens when not at war.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> This is the traditional meaning of the word, I always thought.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Non-terrorist gun killing may be the greater threat in one sense,
>>>> but a
>>>> >>>>> lesser one in another.  Fear can change people in bad ways, but
>>>> THAT
>>>> >>>>> ship
>>>> >>>>> has sailed.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines whether
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151205/e0e48da5/attachment.html>