Greetings Economists, On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Autoplectic wrote: What does using the word pomo in a sweeping, pejorative manner add to anything with regard to the problems of language-world dynamics.
Doyle, I see the language needs emotion in it for me. I think you would like me to have a different feelings about Post Modernism as the acronym POMO. I think for language to work it has to be structured by feeling. And that the rigidities in emotion structure we see like a pejorative use of word we both would like to see become plastic in ways they aren't now. Autoplectic writes, It looks/reads more and more as just not much more than an esoteric version of machismo one-upmanship about having the final word on various issues. Doyle, LP pointed out an embarrassing error about me conflating Post Modernist and Post Structuralists, so I guess my machismo has been sliced and diced. I think list discussions like this are in the form of conversation that is not cooperative, but giving opinion. I don't think you are making a proposal here, but saying that's what wrong with my side of the conversation is one-upmanship. I also see the value of these discussions as mainly in the conversation and not in the individual opinion. I not sure that cleaning up the conversation would yield much more content. The informal character is ok with me because I'm testing ideas against clever people and that helps me to better understand things. I have over time complained about pejorative language in various lists and blogs and have begun to develop a view of the emotion structure that is involved in this sort of work. Some day I think I can advocate something much more comprehensive than now, but perhaps aimed at what you are complaining about above. I don't think you want to address any more depth about this, but were feeling frustrated with me. I'm not really mad at you about POMO and you. take care, Doyle
