what's in a word?
Paul Mackin
mackin.paul at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 15:36:33 CST 2015
I've got an idea. To overcome the quandary, why not start calling them
RETALIATORY attacks? Justly or unjustly, that's the way THEY think of
them. Trying to think back, what did Pirate call the V-2 attacks. . Did he
acknowledge Hitler's meaning--retaliation for Allied bombing of German
cities. I know he called them incoming mail, but did use the V designation?
Anyway, it's a thought.
P
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm not saying that it's desirable for the word to be defined by context.
> But it's the reality.
>
> LK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> >Sent: Dec 6, 2015 2:37 PM
> >To: kelber <kelber at mindspring.com>
> >Cc: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>,
> P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >Subject: Re: what's in a word?
> >
> >I would grant the truth of defined by context---as long as that does
> >not mean anyone's contextual use...
> >Right is using it to mean almost anything they want it to mean.....and
> >some of the left want it to apply to
> >just about every aggressive retort.
> >
> >On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, <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>
> >>>Sent: Dec 6, 2015 9:02 AM
> >>>To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> >>>Cc: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>, P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >>>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>
> 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> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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
> >>>>> > > >>>>>> 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>
> >>>>> > > >>>>>> 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
> >>
> >-
> >Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151206/e3e2b8fc/attachment.html>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list