In context, it seemed reasonable to interpret the use of the word
"newspeak" as a point against the use of some jargon ("insurgency") as
an invocation of the theory of newspeak that Orwell puts forth and as
an assumption that the theory is true. I don't see why the theory has
to be true in all contexts.
You seemed to be appealing to the authority of not only Orwell, but
also Wittgenstein, Austin, and Lakoff. Maybe I was wrong in my
interpretation, but why bring them up at all if not to invoke their
authority?
I wrote:
> > I thought people might be interested in a perspective on Orwell,
> > getting beyond the appeal to his authority.
Ian wrote:
> Gee, I was simply referring to him as an author, not appealing to his
> so-called authority. Confound the indeterminacy of meanings and ascription
> of intentions :-)<
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
