[microsound] 'that's edutainment'

[guiver ben]

yes, Jason, i think you are making sense also. 

forgive my perhaps gobshitey earlier contribution, but while i was away from my laptop i was thinking about george orwell, in that he said in an essay (politics and the english language?) that ideas should be expressed as simply as possible - i guess this is not always possible - as they're easier to take it, and dont isolate people so much.

politics in england have always been marked by a (variable) split between the working class and the middle class. i think someone said once that punk was a middle class idea with working class actors. language has, and does, play its part in this division.   

i like your sentence  

it is often helpful to simplify and de-jargonize our language, and focus on descriptive terms that are easy to relate to because they directly reference the experience of our senses.

it does make me angry when people seem to use language to polish their egos, rather than communicate. i liked hunter s. thompson for this reason, as he often cut through the crap like very few others. 

best

ben 
http:thefaithofgraffiti.blogspot.com


--- On Tue, 1/20/09, CraqueMat <craque at craque.net> wrote:

> From: CraqueMat <craque at craque.net>
> Subject: Re: [microsound] 'that's edutainment'
> To: microsound at microsound.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 8:33 PM
> Yes, this paragraph especially. I definitely relate to the
> "theoretical 
> shorthand" and like how you compare it to relative
> experience from a 
> wide range of participants.
> 
> Jason Wehmhoener wrote:
> > Theory and 'isms, as well as less complex forms of
> communication, can 
> > often be a form of shared shorthand. This can make
> communication between 
> > a small number of people more efficient in some
> settings, but when you 
> > start looking at communicating with a networked world
> where individual 
> > frames of reference can have wide variance, it is
> often helpful to 
> > simplify and de-jargonize our language, and focus on
> descriptive terms 
> > that are easy to relate to because they directly
> reference the 
> > experience of our senses.
> > 
> > Am I making any sense?
> > 
> > -Jason
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM, CraqueMat
> <craque at craque.net 
> > <mailto:craque at craque.net>> wrote:
> > 
> >     Is there a way to talk about music without using
> ism's?
> > 
> >     I'm not being an ass, this is genuine
> curiosity.
> > 
> >     Sometimes I'm bothered by the way I can't
> be a part of a conversation
> >     just because I haven't had time to read a book
> (and I read a lot).
> > 
> >     Damian Stewart wrote:
> >      > Stephen Hastings-King wrote:
> >      >
> >      >> 2. these days, everyone's a
> situationist.
> >      >
> >      > could you explain this a little? i only came
> across the
> >     situationists quite
> >      > recently...
> >      >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     microsound mailing list
> >     microsound at microsound.org
> <mailto:microsound at microsound.org>
> >     http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > microsound mailing list
> > microsound at microsound.org
> > http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
> _______________________________________________
> microsound mailing list
> microsound at microsound.org
> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound