Aug 21
While on the topic of language, as recently brought up by Nick, I have spent some time reflecting on how it shapes our perception of the very concepts it attempts to describe. For one, consider the title of this blog. While we claim to be advocating evolved thought, are we really making any headway in doing so? Or, as the skeptics would likely prefer, are we just cloaking our feeble attempts with a hubristic title? If a change is in order, what should it entail? I invite comments from our readers on this particular linguistic dilemma.
On a more general note, improper use of language, whether intentional or not, can easily bias commonly held beliefs. This is, of course, an age old debating technique, especially in the context of controversial issues. Now I’m sure there are vast volumes of literature on the subject which I am yet to read but here is one amusing anecdote:
A few blocks from my apartment in Cambridge is the headquarters of a small high-tech firm named ‘Predictive Networks’. At first glance, one would falsely assume, as I did, that they develop technology that responds retroactively to some phenomenon. In academic circles, the concept of a predictive network or the ‘predictor’ in a neural network has a well-defined meaning.
However, a cursory look at the website of the company reveals that they, in fact, make devices that snoop on people’s TV watching habits! One can only hazard a guess as to what they proceed to use this information for.
Furthermore, and sadly, a quick web search of the phrase ‘predictive network’ yields an interminable slew of links to the business-related activities of this firm and its various cronies in the cable TV industry. One has to go to the third page of results to find something that even remotely approaches what a predictive network actually is. For the more curious reader, a good introductory reference on the subject can be found here:
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html
In any case, enjoy your respective evenings.
Aug 18
This latest missive from me comes shortly after my successful romp through history, modernity and chaos. Or: just a pretentious way of saying I recently took a trip to the US. Though I spent but just over a week south of the 49th, mine eyes were indeed opened.
Opened to the preponderance of language that permeates in Boston and New York.
Mine ears were opened to the idioms and dialects of “Valley Girl,” “Frat Boy” and every other conceivable form of human species.
Prashant was “shocked” to hear me quickly pick up the language of the Bostonian mass transit system, quaintly called the “T” by locals. When I merely uttered, “Let’s T it,” the look of dismay on his face clearly showed that I had fully assimilated some semblence of local slang.
Likewise, after a few short days in New York, I quickly talked about riding the 6 uptown to the Met, and taking the 7 express to Main Street. To the uninitiated, this language may seem foreign, but makes perfect sense to those in the know.
All of this verbal spewage was sparked in part by an article I read in the New York Times Magazine (Sunday August 15) here: Mouthfuls, by William Grimes. (Viewing this piece requires FREE registration to the New York Times…and if you aren’t already subscribed, do so now!)
Language is an important concept; it allows us to communicate the describable and attempt to decipher the indescribable. How many times have you floundered for a certain word, reduced to flubbering your tongue? How many times have you erased or crossed out a certain word because it’s just not “right”?
Yet at the same time, language involves two of the most important senses we possess: sight and hearing. One unit of language has to be represented in both media; visually and aurally. Without one, the other is merely a whisper in the wind, merely the organization of curiously shaped objects.
Next time you read something, stop, take a step back, and marvel at the wonder that is language. The first step towards evolved thought is to recognize the power of language.
Class dismissed!
Jul 07
By the exponential decline in comments from our readers of late, I can infer one of two things. Either the content of our posts is breaking new ground in the area of soporific writing, or as Nick has suggested, you’re all a bunch of apathetic lackies.
Frankly, it may well be that this blog has temporarily lost its momentum. After all, there’s only so much self-important ranting that one can indulge in. But the overwhelming lack of enthusiasm hasn’t helped either. Nevertheless, we continue undeterred.
Last night I had the pleasure of watching an interesting piece of avant-garde film: ’24 hour party people’, a pseudo-documentary chronicling the rise of post-modern culture a la Manchester. While it can be hard to empathize with the scenes of people licking liquid methadone off an airport floor, or for that matter, feeding rat-poison laced bread to pigeons and proceeding to watch them drop out of the sky, its a film of sheer genius.
At the same time, it reveals one of the recurring flaws that seems to plague all progressive cultural movements: flakiness. The film poignantly depicts the decay of The Hacienda, a uniquely innovative nightclub, from counter-culture hub to gang-war battleground to abandoned warehouse. In the mean time, everyone is too fucked up on (insert drug of choice here) to care.
Now, if only these wankers were to get their acts together from time to time, our generation might not have been held hostage by vapid pop-culture for so long.
Older Entries Newer Entries
