We don’t need fancy terms like “salience landscape”. If we understand simple words like “seeing” properly. We are searching for what we have in new places, and we are just cluttering the language.
-
-
Replying to @DGozli
It’s almost like we all fanaticize about our own ability to say something important.This is beautiful and prescient for some. It’s lexicon for elitism.Not that I mind that but let’s be real about common language it’s importance to the understanding of the many instead of the few.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @ashlee_shoaff
This has a special root in social sciences and psychology, where (because we don’t have the same technical innovations and discoveries that natural sciences have) we try to compensate with new terms—playing with SIGNS of discoveries and breakthroughs.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DGozli @ashlee_shoaff
This creates the illusion of progress and, as you said, offers a way to distinguish the expert elite class from the rest of people who use ordinary words.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DGozli @ashlee_shoaff
I agree with both of you, but...I am a fan of the creative use of language, words in novel combinations to change the structure of perception. But how to do that without it becoming an elitist signaling device
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @ashlee_shoaff
I think we can be mindful of the difference between (1) adding a term to our toolbox permanently, presenting it as indispensable vs. (2) showing a term for clarification (temporarily) and then putting it aside, i.e., using it to add meaning to our simple, “ordinary” words.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DGozli @ashlee_shoaff
Even "ordinary" words were fancy words at some point. But I'm more in favor of novel word combinations that are more accessible then new complicated words
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Indeed. ALL present ordinary words were innovations, & SOME past innovations survived to become ordinary. Thus we have a wealth of words & concepts already proven useful. When we innovate against this background, we ought to embrace the low chance of a useful contribution #Lindy
-
-
Replying to @DGozli @ashlee_shoaff
Does poetry have a low chance of being useful?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cognazor @ashlee_shoaff
Poetry doesn’t present itself as useful. It’s probably in its nature to under-promise.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.