RoR: Forum

Addendum: Andre's post was in the moderator que at the time I wrote my last post, so I was unaware of his status as a person who finds noncapitalized posts harder to read. Even with his notation, I still maintain that difficulty reading noncapitalized posts is a rarity.

Post 21

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 1:07am

Lindsay,

I absolutely agree with you. I am sick to death of sloppy writing. Sloppy language equals sloppy thinking. People who continue to abuse the English language in such a way should be put under moderation.

Post 22

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:52am

Put under moderation? Put to death, more like it. But they're under moderation now. I guess that'll have to do.

I'm rather startled by the furore my editor's post engendered. You'd think, from the spluttering indignation of the slobs, that I had no right to insist on certain standards of presentation - that I was under an obligation to let them come on here & present themselves in any old slovenly travesty of a manner that they pleased. On reflection, though, I'm *not* startled. I get the same reaction when I mention headbanging caterwauling. God forbid that anyone should call the bluff of those who pretend that such garbage is music. My, does *that* send the slobs into a frenzy!!

Linz

Post 23

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:27am

Speaking of sloppy language... it's "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here" - which I've seen twice in this thread. Call me a pedant, but it grates!

Great post, Linz. I'm sure your new policy will improve the site.

Phil

Post 24

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:21am

Philip wrote:
"Speaking of sloppy language... it's "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here" - which I've seen twice in this thread. Call me a pedant, but it grates!"

Yes, Philip you're a pedant. But you're also a pedant in the right, so I have corrected my error - apologies for the grating. :)

Post 25

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:49am

Hi everybody,
if Linz as founder, principal, moderator of this forum insist on more 'literacy' (however you want to define that term), he has the right to do so. Anyone who does not like it can post elsewhere. Like on s.o.l.o. (slobs of lazy objectivism?).
Which sidetracks me to another controversy of this kind called 'oob vs. OOB' - oob is a feminist journal called 'off our backs' and OOB is a lesbian pornography jounal called 'On Our Backs' - try having that (decade-old) confrontation without capitalisation :-)
From the point of view of my personal 'laziness' I'd still argue in favour of eschewing certain semantic constraints, if the purpose is to facilitate the process of getting thought to print (not just laziness to hit that one extra key). As my ten fingers are still slower in typing than my one brain, I often go without capitalisation or dot and comma for whole pages - and especially in electronic media like forums or mails, this is the fastest and easiest way to keep up with the ideas flying about in my (non-semantic) mind.
The compromise I practice in this case, is to 'edit' this conundrum afterwards and hit the convenient 'Preview with Spell Check' on the right. Especially after such an emphatic 'Order from On High' :-)
That still does not take away from my preferred way of writing 'stream-of-consciousness' which btw. is a recognised literary form of writing that has a certain 'libertarian' quality of not compartmentalising my thoughts into the pigeon-holes of grammar and semantics. Would that qualify as an 'objectivist' argument against Linz's 'New Law'?
And I'm not talking about the lazy slobs whose thoughts are sometimes as unedited as their language, but the perfection of language to suit one's thoughts and express them freely without constraint.

VSD

Language is a form of communication - of getting the idea across ...
Literature is a form of art - of making it beautiful ...

Post 26

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:03pm

Regi wrote: Ayn Rand said the first purpose of language is to enable us to think. Communication is a secondary purpose of language. We first have to know and think something before we can communicate it.

Regi is right, as always. I did write in haste. Thank you for the correction.

Post 27

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:02pm

But Linz...how do you ~really~ feel?

Post 28

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:09pm

"Ayn Rand said the first purpose of language is to enable us to think. Communication is a secondary purpose of language. We first have to know and think something before we can communicate it."

Language is first a differentiating tool and tool for unit reduction. Imagine having no easy label for any concept or a means by which to easily identify similarities and differences between things. Language lets us do this easily, so it first allows communication with oneself, which allows higher-order thinking. We dont need language to think and know something. But any higher levels of abstraction require a systematic way of categorizing stuff (language) so we can draw finer distinctions and conclusions. And record them for all posterity. With caps and punctuation.

Post 29

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:24pm

Hi, Vera. You write (re: stream of conciousness): "a certain 'libertarian' quality of not compartmentalising my thoughts into the pigeon-holes of grammar and semantics."

Compartmentalizing thoughts is the way the brain functions in order to make sense of the world--its why rules of communication were developed in the first place. My impression is that stream of conciousness is a series of half-digested thoughts expelled onto a page. Art requires craft and skill. Or in case of Linz's favorite musical form, rap, that would be 'mad skilz.'

Unless you are a'itchin fer a fight, I'd try to fly under the Mt. St. Perigo radar with praise of stream of conciousness. I think there is an argument to be made that it's explicitly anti-intellectual nature makes it an art form worse than "modern caterwauling" (non-Classical, non-Lanza music).

Post 30

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:06pm

Scott said:

...stream of conciousness (sic) is a series of half-digested thoughts expelled onto a page. Art requires craft and skill

Precisely.

Vera Doerr said:

That still does not take away from my preferred way of writing 'stream-of-consciousness' which btw. is a recognised literary form of writing that has a certain 'libertarian' quality of not compartmentalising my thoughts into the pigeon-holes of grammar and semantics.

Have you ever tried reading William Faulkner? He'll drive you nuts with his ramblings and contradictory descriptions. Stream of consciousness might be O.K. for your personal diary but for others to read its not worth the time. By its nature the writer insults you by not bothering to make an effort to be concise and explicit. Early computers users will know what a 'core dump' is. Libertarians might accept this mode of writing but anyone who has regard for Rand will not. Can you imagine Galt's speech presented as 'stream of consciousness'? Get real.

Sam

Post 31

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:35pm

Scott,

Language is first a differentiating tool and tool for unit reduction.

Ayn Rand attributed those functions (together with integration) to concept formation; a word is only a symbol for a concept, but it is true she said a concept was not fully formed until a word had been formed to designate the concept. It is not language itself that does the differentiating, words are our method of giving concepts a concrete form. But this is only a quibble about your quibble.

Regi

Post 32

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 6:11pm

Microsoft Word has a wonderful tool called AutoCorrect, and two things it can do for you is capitalize the first letter of any sentence and expand any abbreviation you specify. From the Help file:

---

To use AutoCorrect, first turn on or off the following AutoCorrect options:

Capitalization options For example, AutoCorrect can capitalize the first word in a sentence or the names of days of the week.
AutoCorrect entries AutoCorrect can use a list of built-in corrections, called AutoCorrect entries, to detect and correct typos, misspelled words, grammatical errors, and common symbols. You can easily add your own AutoCorrect entries or remove unwanted ones.
Spelling checker corrections For enhanced spelling correction, AutoCorrect can use corrections that are generated by the spelling checker's main dictionary (in addition to the built-in list of spelling corrections).

Once you�ve set the AutoCorrect options, type the text that you want to correct, followed by a space or other punctuation.

---

Rodney

Post 33

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 4:06am

Seems some people can't go without their crutches of ordered life ... pity though: what do you think poetry is?
Without capitalisation, punctuation, or even semantics of any kind - yet it is a most concise way of communication, expressing whole worlds of thoughts and even emotions in a few single words ...
Of course if you absolutely NEED your pidgeon-holes I'll continue writing in this forum in nice little compartments :-))
VSD

Post 34

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 7:43am

Vera said:

"...[W]hat do you think poetry is? [It has no] capitalisation, punctuation, or even semantics of any kind...."

What poetry are you reading, may I ask? Poetry with proper sentence structure, punctuation, and capitalization exists in droves (see, for instance, Shakespeare).

Post 35

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 9:08am

Of course we have 'poetry in pidgeon-holes', so don't bother making a list of 'good grammar poems' vs. 'bad non-grammar poems'.
What I'm trying to get at is that the random arbitrary structures of language which have grown over centuries are no guarantee for content. Just as stream-of-consciousness is no indication of a rambling mind.
Why do you think we often have such trouble understanding each other? Precisely because language is not as fixed and objective as your rules would like to make it appear.
Both sides of language have their pros and cons and it is up to the intelligent user of language to chose the vehicle best suited to his communication. Just as it is up to an intelligent reader not to dismiss a communication, simply because it does not fit his preferred rules.
The old split issue of 'form vs. content'.
I can give you an unedited stream of writing packed with ideas and concepts, the fluid form best suited to a mind that contrary to Sam is not compartmentalised, but makes instant connections to myriad other data (related and unrelated) via dozens of synapses connecting each brain-cell.
(Sam: Try some Virginia Woolf if you don't like Faulkner.)
Just like you can give me a perfect sonnet by Shakespear that you really get ecstatic about for it's use of language and form and I may start yawning at it's content.
Get past the split issue and denouce rambling for it's content and not for it's form!
VSD
Rules don't create content - content doesn't conform to rules!

Post 36

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 1:30pm

Regi:

How ~dare~ you quibble with my quibble without a signed consent first! ;>)

Yeah, you make a finer point, per usual. I do not disagree. I guess it would be more accurate to say that laguage allows us to retain and more easily use our mental shorthand, which opens the door to higher order thought.

I enjoy your posts and contributions immensely, btw.

Post 37

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 1:38pm

Vera: "Seems some people can't go without their crutches of ordered life ..."

Don't get offended, gumdrop. And do not use poetry as an example of a structureless mass of thought--I am a fan of sonnets, which require a heck of alot of structure, and, when they are best done, skill. Expressing a beautful thought or thoughts, artfully within a structure, is the stuff of genius.

But the ~COOL~ thing about Objectivism is that you can think I am full of beans, and go on expressing yourself however you wish, and any Objectivist would support your right to do so--especially in the realm of esthetics. Just don't expect us to ~agree~ with the moral superiority of the esthetics of stream of conciousness writing. In particular, I find personal preferences in esthetics to be much less metaphysically significant than, say, a Linz. (I wouldn't put anyone to death over capitalization, stream of conciousness or their love of Metal (shout out to Matt G.)).

Post 38

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:31pm

Scott - Matt G can't hear you. I had him shot.

And *you* had better watch out!

:-)

(Don't you hate it when you have to spoil humor with a smiley face because there's a very good chance someone will think you're serious if you don't? Remember the Prodos drama?)

Linz

Post 39

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:58pm