From: "roger" <diogenes.jones-AT-attbi.com>
Subject: Re: moorish temple
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:45:42 -0700


Shawn said a bunch of good shit among which was:

>
> That's nice, gr3g. It's also a non-sequitor, since *nobody* here has
made the
> "'the way it's always been' argument." (Roger, will you take two
the's as a
> down payment on four thats?)
>

sorry, but no chance.  even an american prez could manage that.
recall the now-infamous "well it depends on what the meaning of is
is."

>
> People are the source of meaning, and they seldom arrive at uniform
meanings
> of *any* word. If you want to talk about "anti-progressive" moves -
and
> apparently you do - you might think about how "anarchistic" a
tendency to
> reduce individual's meanings down to some forced consensus is.
> --------------

yeah, i think the dilemma starts when language is seen as having
'content' that's divorced from the relational.  there's is certainly
an agenda at times to 'harden' the meaning of a word to further a
particular political agenda (the word *terrorism* is a recent example)
and also an occasional counterattack as Scott referenced when he
brought up how the term *queer* has been de-stigmatized to some
extent.

but these are deep waters and my self-medication has advanced to a
degree that the connections between words and meaning are seeming to
appear ever MORE arbitrary.   wasn't that the word that somebody got
their underwear all in a wad about?  what the hell is worng, er i mean
wrong with the damn word MORE.  seems like a nice little word to me
right now.  but hey, maybe i'm all turned around on the subject.

roger