This Might Interest You

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm reading THE STUFF OF THOUGHT by Steven Pinker. Its around 500 pages of info about parts of speech. Its not light reading. Its heavy going but features interesting claims about verbs, nouns, etc., and asserts the idea that most of us use the wrong words for the wrong job much of the time. What we do is try and build a Cadillac from sundry car parts that dont fit well together.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Non exampling of meaningfulness difficults understandably comprehensive Pinker wasdid sucktion theorizing of mind him theoretical "computer". Embodied Cognition. Noam Chomsky. Sarah Leeness. Goodness of Thingness.

 

[TxRad]

Non exampling of meaningfulness difficults understandably comprehensive Pinker wasdid sucktion theorizing of mind him theoretical "computer". Embodied Cognition. Noam Chomsky. Sarah Leeness. Goodness of Thingness.

Excellent observations there, Doc.

How did you come up with that with such limited, Like none, information?

Was it classic insight or loads of mastu... uh, meditation?

 

[PayDay]

I'm reading THE STUFF OF THOUGHT by Steven Pinker. Its around 500 pages of info about parts of speech. Its not light reading. Its heavy going but features interesting claims about verbs, nouns, etc., and asserts the idea that most of us use the wrong words for the wrong job much of the time. What we do is try and build a Cadillac from sundry car parts that dont fit well together.

Sounds like fun reading, I might actually snag this one, but I assert that a word only has the meaning that is implied.

The problem, I think anyways, comes along when the implied meaning conflicts with the actual meaning of a word with multiple definitions: Case in point - vulgar

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sounds like fun reading, I might actually snag this one, but I assert that a word only has the meaning that is implied.

The problem, I think anyways, comes along when the implied meaning conflicts with the actual meaning of a word with multiple definitions: Case in point - vulgar

Its not easy reading as Pinker is mostly an accomplished navel-gazer who fails Feynman's Expert Rule: If you cant explain what you know in one paragraph, you likely dont know what youre taking about. And Pinker wanders all over Hell to make a translucent point, tho he has occasional, accidental clarity.

As Doc illustrates above, madness exists outside the reservation of clear language.

 

[PayDay]

Feynman's Expert Rule: If you cant explain what you know in one paragraph, you likely dont know what youre taking about.

Nice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pinker needs to learn how to stop the navel gazing and learn about metaphors and analogies and modelling. But occasionally there's a small bit of gold to be had, and its usually profound enough to be worth some contemplation. At least I'm thinking about a few concepts of his.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

George V. Higgins recommended reading AN ARTIST IS HIS OWN FAULT by John O'Hara, so I bought a used copy of it and read it. Its a collection of lectures, speeches, interviews, essays etc about fiction writing.

From what I can see there isnt much fiction writing info in the book. O'Hara offers several broad generalizations about writing and writers: GOOD WRITERS GET PUBLISHED; NO ONE LEARNS TO WRITE, YOU CAN DO IT OR YOU CANT; THE ONLY WAY TO WRITE BETTER IS TO WRITE MORE! Sigh. But the book includes oodles of personal information about O'Hara, and oodles of info about the famous writers he knew, especially F.Scott Fitzgerald.

Higgins said O'Hara was the best dialog writer of all time. O'Hara agreed. O'Hara added his conviction that he's the best character creator of all time. He hated plots and sermonized that good characters create the tale.

I'm a fool for HOW TO WRITE books but theyre rarely helpful.