what's in a word?

Sun Dec 6 13:36:12 CST 2015

When the world is engaged in a perpetual War on Terror, then I think it is
important to reign in the dialogue to avoid propaganda. An amorphous
definition of the Enemy isn't a good idea. Clarity is desirable, but all
language is an art, not ever really locked down.

David Morris

On Sunday, December 6, 2015, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> David, you seem to be taking a very rigid view of language, as if there's
> some universal, unchanging definition of the word "terrorism" that, if
> used, would guide foreign and domestic policy. Not every word, but most
> certainly this word, is entirely defined by context.
>
> Laura
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >Sent: Dec 6, 2015 9:02 AM
> >To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >Cc: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>>, P-list List <
> pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >Subject: Re: what's in a word?
> >
> >I ask related questions here on the plist so we might come together on
> >a "valid use of certain words"....there are uses that
> >are valid, albeit sometimes real tricky and nuanced to explicate, right?
> >And I see part of our conversation as pointing out when such as
> >mainstream media is using....with extended i.e. metaphoric meanings at
> >the moment.....even as the meanings are and do change. Right?
> >
> >On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> The valid use of a word would normally be one in harmony with its
> >> definition, unless one was being purposely perverse.
> >>
> >> David Morris
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I’m just wondering if you could answer the question as to what is the
> >>> valid use of the term ’terrorism’.
> >>> > On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:36 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > English is not Chineese. Context doesn't overrule everything, unless
> we
> >>> > let it.
> >>> >
> >>> > David Morris
> >>> >
> >>> > On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> > so what then is the valid use of the term? I would like to hear a bit
> >>> > more.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Consider a reasonably parallel word: plagiarism.  It is derived from
> the
> >>> > verb plagiarize as terrorism is derived from terrorize. Anyone can
> >>> > plagiarize. You just rip off another writer’s words and claim them
> as yours.
> >>> > There is no gender restriction, no age limits, no ethnic
> consideration. I
> >>> > would say terrorizing is quite similar, there is no inherent limit
> implied
> >>> > in the word on who can terrorize. Groups can do it, individuals can
> do it,
> >>> > even animals can do it to other animals.  Terrorism is just the noun
> form.
> >>> >
> >>> > To my mind if a writer wants to further target or narrow the meaning
> of
> >>> > the term, then an adjective should be added like political
> terrorism, racial
> >>> > terrorism, intellectual terrorism.
> >>> >
> >>> > One has to be a little careful when it comes to the ism ending but
> this
> >>> > is clearly not a belief like communism or pacifism.
> >>> > > On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:38 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>
> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >> Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
> >>> > > >> To: Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines
> whether
> >>> > > >>>>>> the
> >>> > > >>>>>> violence is an act of terrorism.  Only if the intent is to
> >>> > > >>>>>> instill a
> >>> > > >>>>>> sense
> >>> > > >>>>>> of danger/terror in the surviving populace would the act be
> >>> > > >>>>>> properly
> >>> > > >>>>>> called
> >>> > > >>>>>> terroeism.
> >>> > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>> David Morris
> >>> > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Paul Mackin
> >>> > > >>>>>> <mackin.paul at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>> "
> >>> > > >>>>>>> As one friend pointed out, Paris is not actually any more
> >>> > > >>>>>>> dangerous
> >>> > > >>>>>>> than
> >>> > > >>>>>>> before Nov. 13. What's changed, dramatically, is our
> >>> > > >>>>>>> perception of
> >>> > > >>>>>>> imminent
> >>> > > >>>>>>> danger. And that makes all the psychological difference."
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>> And that's what makes it TERRORISM.
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>>
> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-mass-shootings-like-the-one-in-san-bernadino/even-in-paris-guns-look-like-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism
> >>> > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > >>>>>
> >>> > > >>>> -
> >>> > > >>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >> -
> >>> > > >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > -
> >>> > > > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -
> >>> > > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >>> >
> >>> > -
> >>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >-
> >Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151206/46032666/attachment.html>