atw: Re: The Queen's English?
- From: "Chris Lofting" <lofting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:40:47 +1000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 4:07 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: The Queen's English?
>
> Philosophical difference here - the point I was making is that you can't
> change the meaning by changing the word.
>
All metaphors are interchangeable, it is the context that is the constant.
Thus changing labels will reflect a need to re-invent within some context.
We habituate to sameness, are over-sensitive to difference such that
difference will attract attention and that is the intent on changing words
for the same thing.
Thus the complaint is sort of valid and yet is not in that it does not
recognise the need for re-invention that ensures keeping attention.
Hollywood demands this, as does capitalism; the old in new boxes.
Is that what you seek, true change over façade change?
Façade change is fun, it is all showbiz and some facades can do better jobs
than the original in drawing attention, as can rewording a paragraph of text
to elicit emotion in the reader; same context, different words, different
emotions, different interpretations and so a play with nuances of meaning.
It is interesting that many do not like façade change since they need
consistency and want to conserve energy and so don?t want to have to see
behind the façade all of the time to see the 'real'.
This gets into mental states and those who like pattern matching/mismatching
and those who want it all 'straight'. The straight bias is an attraction to
precision, perfection, no alternatives. The pattern bias is less crisp, more
vague, but also more organic, less mechanistic.
As a species we mix the mechanistic/organic dichotomy, we self-reference it,
to give as a spectrum of possible states/patterns to use in some context and
so bring out aspects of the whole we are trying to communicate. We can map
out the emotional biases possible to bring out aspects of a
word/phrase/discipline. The more precise focus will limit emotion to that of
'true', 'correct', and so all meaning at this level is in the position of
the word/phrase/discipline, its relation in some hierarchy. As such the
focus is on syntax. But the more social the focus so the more symmetric the
communication and so the more use of metaphor/analogies and so the more
flexible the communication and so the need to introduce an attention drawer
- to reinvent text for some meaning. BUT the WHOLE of that meaning will
contain the full spectrum of emotion and so can be exploited as such to add
nuances to meaning - unless you want to be rigid and stick to the syntax
perspective - the issue there being on too mechanical and so can often not
be remembered.
Chris.
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
