Yo (haha), dude, .....that's is what we are afraid of, languages of apparent
intimacy that often are not really so. Unfortunately, many of us have to acquire
language to argue cogently with each other. Taking language as a performance is
interesting. We sort out our knowledge of language and often stick to a space
where we are most competent. There's nothing really new about that. We want are
arguments and we are looking for those arguments. This is the essence of logic
to offer them, and rhetoric to do it successfully (though we need not isolate
our attention to just words, like "successfully", or "effectively", but there
you have it). We have exceeded the competence of our rhetoric to offer logical
arguments (this one for example). Jeez, I should be writing a book. Hint, hint.
Orpheus wrote:
> J-- its because pppl. are uptight and terrified of the intimate spa ce
> email can provide
intimacy that often are not really so. Unfortunately, many of us have to acquire
language to argue cogently with each other. Taking language as a performance is
interesting. We sort out our knowledge of language and often stick to a space
where we are most competent. There's nothing really new about that. We want are
arguments and we are looking for those arguments. This is the essence of logic
to offer them, and rhetoric to do it successfully (though we need not isolate
our attention to just words, like "successfully", or "effectively", but there
you have it). We have exceeded the competence of our rhetoric to offer logical
arguments (this one for example). Jeez, I should be writing a book. Hint, hint.
Orpheus wrote:
> J-- its because pppl. are uptight and terrified of the intimate spa ce
> email can provide