What's in a word? Life and death in this case. So nothing to worry about.

[ish mailian]

Should I complain that you are prone to misreading what I write?

You might accuse me of fuzzy logic, of sloppy writing. Of laziness.

Why all this putting, pulling, pushing, bending, blending, beating words
and dead horses?

Chomsky is OK with me, but he's far from a goddess. Orwell is better but
he's dead.

Language is often used to make and maintain, structures and systems of
control and policies of authority, to perpetuate and sustain systems of
domination.

We don't need Orwell or Chomsky or Pynchon to explain this to us. We live
it. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't read O, C, P, we should if we
want to and we should read P especially, since  P is a better maker of
fictions  than either O or C.

Chomsky warns against the media's use of soundbite, of concise language.
But the media is what it is and it's not going to listen to Chomsky. One
reason I don't pay much attention to the media.




On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 11, 2015, at 1:58 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We've all always agreed with Joseph's defense of the environment, the
> victims of American wars, his attack on Capitals greed etc., but the word,
> the word, the word. Sticks and stones and words can harm us, but I can't
> quite accept that poisoning the water supply of a village, town, or city is
> as toxic as refusing to use the T word, or using it.
> I never said that. You are a bit too prone to put words in others mouths.
> The discussion is about the use and abuse of language. Chomsky and Orwell
> are not concerned that false words themselves will injure but with the way
> language can be used to facilitate and disguise very real injuries, and the
> way they can be used to misdirect the public.
> >
> > Language is important and powerful. Why sometimes the pen may be
> mightier than the sword. But most times, especially for those on the
> receiving end, sticks in the eye and stones on the head and toxic waste in
> the water supply, hurt a lot more than the names we give these offenses.
> >
> > Why should the offended care what one calls it as long as it stops.
> Calling it an act of terror, given the overuse and abuse of the word,
> probably does more harm than good.
> >
> > The reversal in the use of the term that Chomsky notes is worth thinking
> about, but not for long. As Chomsky admits, he critiques the mainstream
> media's use and abuse of language because it's easy.
> >
> > The hard part is changing what governments do or getting them to do what
> is just or right. And, of course, language will be, must be right in the
> middle of that hard part, but it shouldn't be such a sticking point, such a
> a debate. We can solve problems and communicate without such controversial
> and inflammatory words. Getting stuck on a word. What a drag. I recall
> reading about how George Mitchell had to sneak a night's sleep in peole's
> houses in Ireland because if anyone knew where he was spending the night or
> with what family it would endanger his mission of peace.  How absurd. Words
> didn't make the peace, but they often prevented it. What made the peace was
> the will, the will to give future generations peace, or at least a better
> world, not one bogged down in the old language and the old hatred and
> disputes. The battle of the books is an intellectual exercise one that is
> quite remote from the reality of ordinary people the books purport to
> defend and define. T
> > However, the legal use of language that puts words like terrorism and
> genocide on the books so that people can be compensated, protected, others
> punished, is not mere sophistry, but important because of the consequences,
> that may or not be addressed unless a legal definition is applied. The
> legal use will protect the weak and punish the abusers, but again, it's not
> the word or words that matter but that something is done.
> >
> > Well, I'm done with this one too, Joseph, Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wholehearted agreement.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > I have one final paragraph that I hope will be my last on this topic. It
> again resorts to that old trick of presenting an actual example of common
> usage, then asking a few questions.
> >
> > One common use of the word terrorism by the US government which has
> taken on quasi-legal status is eco-terrorism. This is a particularly
> orwellian and  clearly political use of language. Who and what are the
> great threats to the ecosystem?  Why are species disappearing, why is the
> ocean getting more acidic, where are the oil spills, groundwater pollution
> and nuclear waste contamination originating. Is this the result of those
> designated eco-terrorists, or is it mining companies, oil drillers,
> industrial clearcutting, addiction to fossil fuels supported by massive
> bribery that is devastating the planet? Did eco-terrorists kill Ken
> Sarawiwa, are they responsible for the hundreds of environmental activists
> killed every year. How does terror result when people are filmed beating
> animals, or when they are released  from captivity? This is a good example
> of what happens when you give a word to the FBI and corrupt politicians.
> Who are the conservatives who actually want to conserve  an intact
> ecosystem?  As far as I am concerned this corrupt use of language is as
> toxic as the frack juice being poured into the deep aquifers of holy mother
> earth.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.innergroovemusic.com
> >
> >
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151212/be890d8d/attachment.html>