Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > In academic and research writing in the physical and social science, the > use of personal pronouns, " I, you, me, mine, " are, on the whole, > meticulously eschewed and used only when there is no other way to > express an idea or concept or action. Instead the pronouns it, one, and > we ( " the royal we " ) and the passive voice is employed. This of course, > lends an objective, non-personal air to the presentations, whether they > be book length or brief articles or notes. It also may provide an air of > emotional coolness, clarity, and authority. A sort of " in command of the > situation " sense is displayed in the responses and defenses of critiqued > positions, if done well. Those who engage in these activities often > remark on the quality of a presentation from the perspective of its > energy, lucidness, intelligibility and constructive meaning given to a > topic or issue without saying a word about the author, as if the article > wrote itself. > > Academicians and researchers without pretensions, that is, those who > know that what they do is playing with ideas and that theirs is one of > many being presented and debated over, realize that the presenter, > regardless of their pronoun eschewing, have assumptions and opinions > that are purposely hidden and judiciously removed from their clearly > defined and demarcated writings. This is done to insure acceptability > and to ward off anticipated critiques. There is a wish to present > knowledge for knowledge sake, to be persuasive, influential, right or > dominant, to question or critique or some combinations of these. And > always it is not necessarily about what the person subjectively or > personally thinks (so it is imagined), but about the presentation > itself, the issue, the topic, the debate. No one without great risk goes > in for ad hominem attacks in public writing for that violates the canon > of respectability and fair play, though these attacks unceasingly occur > in the offices and departments and faculty clubs everywhere. The > writings are, generally and not completely, " pure " and free of these > back room opinions, condemnations, and other antics and stuff seeps > through and between the lines and we imagine what these are. > > It can be startling to meet the author of works who in no way resemble > what they write. Marxists, structural anthropologists, and other > ideologically committed writers tend to be congruous, but there remain > differences between what is written and what is lived. One can never > tell till an open unreserved meeting is had face to face as to what is > congruous and incongruous and to ask how or why that may be so. > > When first coming to the forum and others like this one, the posts read > seemed to be of four primary kinds. Those with consistent pronoun > dropping, those without, those who with an eclectic display of a little > of both, and those using pseudonyms with a differential use of pronouns. > > To acclimate to this forum, pronouns were dropped at first. Then, later, > identities and pseudonyms (Advanced Trickster Old Pigeon, Lewis, etc.) > were used off and on and then dropped for the old " I. " Of course, there > were different responses to each, though " what or who writes " this has > been the same throughout plus the alterations in conditioning that have > occurred by being a part of the exchanges here. > > Pronoun dropping hides certain aspects of being for it does not easily > allow the expression of the subjective, personal, emotional experiences > and experiences that place one in motion. One can say, I ran to the > store, but one cannot say that in the passive voice without sounding > ridiculous. Of course, one can say " no one ran to the store. " But what > does that mean here? > > It can only means that " I " is empty of any inherent essence which can > ultimately define it. " I ran to the store " and " no one ran to the store " > are conventional and ultimate expressions of the same experience. One > also can say " No one ran to nowhere " if we use " emptiness " as the > defining assumption and it will only make sense to the other in the > context in which it spoken or written. To accept either statement should > be without difficulty unless the conversants are holding different > assumptions, intentionally or not or confusedly or not and going forward > in conversation based on those assumptions, however held. Usually with > both refusing to give them up or one questioning the assumptions of the > other or the changing of assumptions in mid conversation. > > The result are clear: statement > contradiction > counter statement > > counter-contradiction > pointing out > counter pointing out > > exasperation-frustration > pointing out > dismissal > last word. Of > course, one may alter this by assuming the position one or the other > positions and turning tables, playing on either side, taking either > position or holding some totally unrelated assumption. This is nothing > but play. Usually, the one using " I " gets exasperated, frustrated, but > this display does not necessarily indicate anything more than that, > exasperation, frustration. > > Then, this sort of play sometimes transforms into " ego " and " attachment " > detection and pointing out to " zombies " and catatonic personalities very > similar to that made by academics who accuse their peers of being > deluded by their erroneous assumptions, ideas and concepts ( " Big egos " > and the " brain dead " ). Ego detection, as it sometimes occurs here in > public, is akin to a " fundamentalist Christian " pointing out sin in his > brother or sister. " Fundamentalist Buddhists " do not point out sins. > Those who are attached to their beliefs like to point out egos, that are > conveniently resurrected for that purpose, and various attachments and > misunderstandings of what everything is all about. All got it wrong. It > is a pointing out of what is assumed to be (and sometimes is) cloudy > thinking, ego-attached, concept-riddenness. On the other hand, the > " misguided misinformed " point to " zombieism " and " mental catatonia " is > to the unmoved centering on a limited number of thoughts and ideas that > lead to rigidness, dullness, repetitiveness and stubbornness of thinking > and acting, and an unwillingness to change positions or regularly reveal > subjective experiences. Both of these outcomes, and all the variations > possible, are expected given the degree of unwillingness to change > assumptions mid stream in conversation or to change them willy nilly to > gain an advantage. > > Being a pronoun less " zombie " can be exciting if one is not truly a > " zombie " and being a " wild and crazy I " can be exciting, even if at > bottom one is not that at all and all those positions in between can be > exciting as well. Taking on all these positions, whatever way one > manages to do so, does not change what we are. Reluctance to switch may > indicate something that only each appearance understands or not as what > is to be done when experiencing it. So you can call " the what or who > that wrote the above " a zombie, con man, Lewis, Old Pigeon, Advanced > Trickster, or paranoid, flipped, waffle daffle and so on and it is quite > all right. If it is disturbing not to clearly know " who " is writing just > notice that what is written is not harmful and may be useful. The > identity is temporary for the purpose that it serves and ultimately is > of no particular consequence until one makes it so. > > the what or who that wrote this sometimes called Lewis or no one or > whatever suits your fancy. One could also use e-prime: http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-eprime.html /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > One could also use e-prime: > > http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-eprime.html > > /AL Yes. It appears that employing e-prime may be able to clean up a good deal of the essentialism that appears in English language usage, which appears to annoy some. It also seems that it may have an effect on thought processes as well. It may serve to weaken, in its way, the tendency to assert or attain certainty and to prevent reifications of of concepts and appearances in speech, writing and if internalized, thinking. It also appears that one can end the assumption of essentialism with some quick work at trying to completely know any particular appearance that is in front of one. It appears that it cannot be done. The state and amount of our current knowledge and the limitations of language do not allow complete ultimate knowledge of any thing. And so instead of spending time to know what is ultimate, which appears to be an impossibility, we appear to merely label in a practical sense and add a few explanations or stories so that if we are asked or need to say something to someone else about it, it can be done. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > One could also use e-prime: > > > > http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-eprime.html > > > > /AL > > > Yes. It appears that employing e-prime may be able to clean up a good > deal of the essentialism that appears in English language usage, which > appears to annoy some. It also seems that it may have an effect on > thought processes as well. It may serve to weaken, Nope.....any attempt to weaken the self ....only strengthens it..... There is no way out. in its way, the > tendency to assert or attain certainty and to prevent reifications of of > concepts and appearances in speech, writing and if internalized, thinking. > > It also appears that one can end the assumption of essentialism with > some quick work at trying to completely know any particular appearance > that is in front of one. It appears that it cannot be done. The state > and amount of our current knowledge and the limitations of language do > not allow complete ultimate knowledge of any thing. And so instead of > spending time to know what is ultimate, which appears to be an > impossibility, we appear to merely label in a practical sense and add a > few explanations or stories so that if we are asked or need to say > something to someone else about it, it can be done. Nope...It can't, t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > One could also use e-prime: > > > > > > http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-eprime.html > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Yes. It appears that employing e-prime may be able to clean up a good > > deal of the essentialism that appears in English language usage, which > > appears to annoy some. It also seems that it may have an effect on > > thought processes as well. It may serve to weaken, > > > > Nope.....any attempt to weaken the self ....only strengthens it..... > > There is no way out. > > > > > in its way, the > > tendency to assert or attain certainty and to prevent reifications of of > > concepts and appearances in speech, writing and if internalized, > thinking. > > > > It also appears that one can end the assumption of essentialism with > > some quick work at trying to completely know any particular appearance > > that is in front of one. It appears that it cannot be done. The state > > and amount of our current knowledge and the limitations of language do > > not allow complete ultimate knowledge of any thing. And so instead of > > spending time to know what is ultimate, which appears to be an > > impossibility, we appear to merely label in a practical sense and add a > > few explanations or stories so that if we are asked or need to say > > something to someone else about it, it can be done. > > > > Nope...It can't, > > t. Ok Toom. Since Toom's reading skills are hampered by the assumptions Toom wears allowing Toom to jump to conclusions on imagined ideas, Toom did not notice the stuttering use of e-prime. The word " appears " means something does it not sweet Toom? The appearance of doing something is saying to effect that it may appear otherwise and, in that, to an infinite number of other appearances, so that, it, what is being done, is empty of any inherent essence and therefore may be said, crudely, it does not exist. So, please explain why you say it can't, since there is no what present and please make it clear what " Nope...It can't " refers to. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.