On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:58:48 Tom wrote,
>I seem to constantly be reminded daily that indeed communication is a
>fascinating process - I use ALL words while always fully aware that ALL
>words are ONLY MAPS of a deeper TRUTH - all words are abstract to the
>point of di-straction andde-struction) are using a particular map (or
>more to the point - a set of maps) and are currently running amok and
>taking the rest with them
Tom,
Maps and words. It is right to have a common understanding of
words. A while ago someone was looking for a clear definition of 'core'
in terms of World Systems, the one I have is G7, the semi-periphery is
the 'second world', etc. However, there are one or two words that come to
mind that might require clearer definitions and I hope there will be some
response.
To illustrate this, some years ago I was with an acquaintance,
having some considerable wealth, and asked me along to his place of
refreshment. Since it was obvious this was of the 'upper class', he
suggested he should introduce me as perhaps more of that class, and
decided that I was a 'developer'. I'm not sure if this has the same
meaning on the other side of the Atlantic, but here it means brass, and a
lot of it. Oh yes, what a difference a lie makes . . .
Then, about two years later, in the same place with the same
person, I said it was my turn to experiment, so I introduced myself as an
inventor. This had the effect of clearing the immediate area, to the
extent that Mine Host drifted over and wondered if there had possibly
been some small indiscretion on my part.
This is the point, think inventor and what comes to mind?
Eccentric, head-case, garden shed, mad-scientist, bampot, Heath Robinson,
loner, devious, etc., etc.
What is the accepted or dictionary definition of the word, well,
here it is from the OED, together with the word invention.
Invent v.t. Create by thought, originate, (new method,
instrument etc.); concoct (false story etc.); so ~ or n. (esp. in Law,
patentee of invention), ~ress. n. [ME.=discover, f. L in (venire vent-
come) find, contrive]
Invention. n. Inventing; thing invented, contrivance,
esp. one for which patent is granted; fictitious story; (Mus.) short
piece developing simple idea; inventiveness; I~ of the Cross, (festival
on 3 May commemorating) reputed finding of the Cross by Helena mother of
Constantine, A D 326. [ME, f. L. inventio (as prec.; see ~ion)]
More or less, what comes over from this is the word false,
fictitious, contrivance suggests Heath Robinson, something that might
work at some later time.
Another word close to this is innovate, and here is the
definition.
Innovate v. i. Bring in novelties; make changes in; hence
or cogn. ~ation, ~ator, ns., ~ative, ~atory, adjs. [f. L. in (novare
make new, alter, L. novus new) + -ate]
I tried out a word association test, again a few years ago, not
under laboratory conditions I must add, to see what sort of response I'd
get from asking the phrase - to bring in novelty. No one said innovation
or innovate, the reply's given were Santa Claus, something with bells on
it, nick knack, and others similar. This was carried out a week or two
before Christmas so maybe this time of year could be better to try it
out.
The point of this is, and when I say people generally perceive
the world just now, in their new cars, going to Bangkok and so on, they
completely believe the transformation is entirely due to capitalist
economics, capitalists and the World System of capitalism. But for this,
we'd all be living in the days of black smoke, warm beer, Monday washing
and listening to the radio.
The capitalist and their hired hands are trained to take every
opportunity to 'prove' that whatever is new and better is a direct result
of capitalism. For example, I can remember in a talk show on
privatisation a member of the House of Lords, pretending to be
disinterested on the question of privatisation, said that since the
telephone service had been privatised he was getting an instant reply to
calls, whereas, in the days of the nationalised organisation, known as
the General Post Office, or GPO, calls could take forever to get through.
Alright, most know that electronic exchanges have made the difference,
but this isn't said in the context of the overall improvement.
Long before that, I think it might have been during the past
labour administration, 1974-79, the Trades Union Congress, or one of the
officials, was asked about the role of research and development in
society and in general, he said this was best left to big business,
meaning the multinational or the monopoly industries.
Therefore, if I were to suggest an alternative definition for the
word inventor, would this be acceptable at all?
Invent. v.t. Create by thought, originate, (new method,
instrument etc.); to reduce the energy needed for a process, or to create
another resource from an existing one: so ~ or n. someone who initiates a
process that creates wealth, and ultimately increases or maintains the
economic well-being of a nation: i.e., creates employment, more taxable
revenue etc.
Is there any definition in any other language that has anything
like this?
I'm going off at a tangent here, I've just realised, if
Constantine's mother was searching about in east Africa, and his father
was in York, he was, I believe, buried there, did Constantine come from a
broken home?
Now, to the words that bother me right now, slave and enslave.
Both are given, and the definition given is - Person who is the legal
property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human
chattel, etc. To enslave is to bring someone into slavery. There is also
a colloquial definition - Maid-servant, esp. hard-worked one.
In all definitions there is the distinct quantum approach, you
are a slave or you are not. Thus, enslavement is brought about in an
instant, when the hammer falls and you then become the legal property of
another. There does not appear to be any definition suggesting a gradual
process, or that anyone might be a part-time 'slave'. Thus, if a person
is say given to or bound to absolute obedience for six hours of the
twenty four hour day, they are twenty five per cent slave. If this is
increased to eight hours per day, then they have undergone a process of
enslavement. This of course does not apply to those who work for no
money, many people 'slave' away doing things but are not bound to
another, neither are they subjected to absolute obedience. Those who are
in the process of enslavement are there because they have no choice, they
have no resource and are obedient by coercion. Perhaps all of this is
arguable? There is a reason for asking this.
William Kirk.