> The example of UNIX is to show you that it's a professional language, not
> just a
> computer language. I did more than infer how a language talks to a
> computer; my
> example concerns how people use a language to communicate. Yes, people can
> even
> communicate in terms of a computer language. In UNIX, if you don't
> understand
> what the language does, then you won't be able to understand UNIX
> Administrators
> when they say, "cat et cee services and grep for informix lowercase: cat
> /etc/services|grep informix.

        D: The analogy with a computer language is annoying as is the
prevalence of technical terminology
        generally - the use of the word 'system' in theory I always found
revealing of its pseudo-scientific pretensions.
        Keep in mind your talking about film and art - not about computers.


> Textbooks often translate UNIX commands to DOS analogs, but DOS analogs
> only
> help one understand what some commands are like, not necessarily how to
> use
> them. More importantly, a person usually has to understand the analog
> before hor she can understand the translation
>
        D: Really there is no need for translation. That was just my game.
Obviously when the academic writes
        he chooses at the outset not to use overly technical language. A
rule might be: never use jargon when
        a more common word can be used.
>
> Translation only brings a person so close to understanding.
>
        D: Of course. But its better to read Dostoevsky in translation than
not at all. Are you really suggesting
        that your critical film philosophy is more complicated than
Dostoevsky which is translated from a completely
        different language and that 'I'm sorry it can't be translated into
common words'. That's nonsense.

> Language: if you don't bother to learn it, then you're not a member of the
> language community that speaks it.
>
        D: This sounds like a truism to me.

> Sprechen Sie Deutsch? Gehen Sie ins Kino gern? Is this gibberish or
> German?
>
        D: A language is not a specialisation though is it. Cause a lot of
people speak it. Exclusion isn't an issue
        if I go to Germany and want some bread, or even want to express
love.

> Speaking of the Germans and the French, to speak Freud is to know das Ich,
> das
> Es, and das Uberich or the ego, the id, and the superego. To speak
> Heidegger is
> to know how he means Sein and Zeit. To understand Hegel is to understand
> Aufhebung.
>
        D: In some sense of course it is, but not only these terms surely.
From another angle such coinages are useful career benchmarks as in oh he
was the one who came up with blah blah. Why did you feel the need to quote
these in the original languages ? But I'm sure your also aware of the
confusion they've caused.

> To understand Deleuze and Gutarri is to understand rhizome.
>
        D: Explain to me what rhizome is, I've forgotten again. Only
kidding.

> And
> speaking of American English, to understand _Huckleberry Finn_ is to
> understand
> Jim when he speaks of Sollurman.
>
> Not everybody reads philosophy or critical theory or literature or poetry
> and
> not everybody watches film critically. Too, it's an effort to come to
> terms with
> the terminology (gibberish) a given writer uses, and Edward O'Neill has
> once
> again given a great deal of explanation to the technical language of
> philosophy/critical theory; so read his posts.
>
        D: I don't find terminology 'difficult'. Don;t need Edward O'Niell
to explain anything to me. Just as I don;t find difficult looking up a new
word in a dictionary. Its all very straightforward. But it does exclude.
Ever diminishing specialisation what is that? Everybody in private coverts
suspiciously eyeing the other group ?

        And I sometimes wonder that if I, educated at University (whatever
that is) cannot understand, what hope for the rest. There is none. If you
want to feel special and part of private coterie that's fine, and its not
that we're saying that everybody will want to read about rhizome's, but
philosophy can be much more widely desseminated without losing its
complexity. It would be great if some film academics attempted to come up
with a 'media course' for eleven year olds, which didn't dilute, where the
ideas were put across, that you are obviously so passionate about. There's a
        need for broad critical media education (currently non-existent) and
those who could give it are worrying that the kids will have to learn too
much technical vocabulary ? Not saying its easy...


> Daniel, you say, "Had a conversation with a girl who'd left school at
> fifteen
> who started going crazy at the word 'aesthetics' "that's a word that
> people use
> to exclude other people from the debate."
>
> I think you missed the point the girl made Daniel.
>
        D: !

> The term "aesthetics" became
> a point of inclusion or exclusion, and the girl rejected it as such. You,
> however, take it that there's some form of simplification available
>
        D: I find that usually there is. Or if not, you might get the same
idea from another medium.
        When I ask somebody to explain something and all they can say is
well you need to read this, oh and you'll need to know all these terms
before - its usually because they really haven't got it clear in their head,
their just swimming in a sea of learnt symbols. Lets not get carried away
though, of course, coinages may be necessary if you;ve come up with a new
concept that is better encapsulated in a coinage - Teilhard de Chardin's
books on biology might
        be a case in point, but this is rare. Is their anything to be gained
from a discussion of Bresson by calling it
        parametric narration ? (not that Bordwell didn;t say interesting
things) Its as much about the sterility of the language...

> , some fundamental ground available for discussion, but there isn't
>
        D: I'm tempted to say that's just your lack.

        D: Hmmm. Words are only ever an invitation to meaning. A good
conversation occurs when both parties
        are straining through the 'translation' of 'what's in their head' to
a further meaning which in conversation and
        also in good writing resides not so much in the words but in an
effort to meaning, if further barriers are put up to this already tortuous
process, what hope then...?

> Politics became the arbitrator of the language as it usually does.
>
        D: Don't really understand this. Politics was never the 'arbitrator'
of poetic language. Indeed, ideally vice versa.

> Now, politics can be put
> aside somewhat, language differences can be translated, but still there's
> no
> fundamental ground.
>
        D: No fundamental ground. There's not only language though. There's
images, and music, and wind through a
        tree, and emotion, and ecstacy...I think your worrying too much
here...

> Indeed, where's meaning to be found in language outside
> social interaction?
>
        D: A hermit, conversing with himself and God ?
        Meaning that if nobody uses a language it has no meaning ? Or that
meaning is created in utterance ?
        Don't really get this last bit...please elaborate.

        D: Hope this moves the debate forward a bit...back to the plodding,
plodding, plodding...

        DAN