 |
 |
Two snips from wikipedia the mole and its molarity, followed by an observation of mine: 1)A mole is much like "a dozen" in that both are absolute numbers (having no units) and can describe any type of elementary object (object made up of atoms). The mole's use, however, is usually limited to measurement of subatomic, atomic, and molecular structures; tradition and its magnitude compared to more common units make it impractical for other uses. 2)Following the SI system of units, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States authority on measurement, considers the term molarity and the unit symbol M to be obsolete, and suggests instead the 'amount-of-substance concentration' (c) with units mol/m3 or other units used alongside the SI such as mol/L[1]. This recommendation has not been universally implemented in academia yet. What this highlights to me is a problem of discourse. If, in the context of non-scientific language, the language of scientific specialism is introduced, there is the constant problem of obsolescence and the practicalities of linguistic tact. As no-one now can possibly master all ranges of knowledge the reader is permanently placed in a position of disadvantage, this is what happens in Jeremy Prynne's poems, for not only is terminology being used out of context of specialisms that are not likely to be known, but also, as science does not stand still, it is inevitably with the passage of time going to become out-of-date specialist terminology. In the context of literary criticism, which is what Theory in the literary sense really is, it allows the constant multiplication of obfuscation wherein both the literary text and the reader become subordinate to the critic/ theorist. 2008/5/27 Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]>: > <snip> > wot's _molar_ intended to mean in THIS context? [Judy P] > <snip> > > Molar? Think of dispersion, as of an infusion in a liquid: so many moles of > such-and-such dispersed within a litre of whatever. Whereas molecular > behaviour is discrete and combinatory (we're all members of this particular > List) molar behaviour is continuous and massive (fear of Vile Boris, now > he's on a diet, runs quite high within this List). *Molecular v molar*, in > other words, is one of those useful pairs, like *wave v particle*, > *synchronic v diachronic* and so forth. > > At some point, Guattari got hold of this notion and mentioned it to Deleuze. > Or possibly vice versa. > > CW > _______________________________________________ > > 'Does God want you to be unemployed?' > (Question posed by Danilo Dolci to precarious workers in > Palermo as part of his *Inchiesta a Palermo*, 1957) > -- David Bircumshaw Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/ The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk