to be

This is the place to post questions and discussions on usage and style. The members of the Wordwizard Clubhouse will also often be able to help you to formulate that difficult letter.

to be

Post by coxie » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:49 am

NogaNote, I've never quite understood what it is 'to be', either. A half-statement? A non-statement? It's not a nil-statement albeit 'to be' has no meaning! It seems 'to be' one of those things that an OxCam don or a HarPrince has set down to obfuscate the plebs of the world, engineers particularly. Where do I sign up to join the expulsion brigade.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

to be

Post by gdwdwrkr » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:23 am

'I am depressed', implies that

I always feel sad,
will always feel sad, and
I can do nothing about it,

Swallow that, and you'll be 'primed'.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

to be

Post by NogaNote » Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:45 pm

I searched a bit further into the mysteries of the verb "to be" and look what I found:

According to Derrida all discourse is originally violent, whereby "a speech produced without the least violence would determine nothing, would say nothing, would offer nothing to the other […] it would be speech without phrase" (1978: 147). For Levinas, Derrida tells us, "nonviolent language would be a language which would do without the verb to be, that is without predica-tion. Predication is the first violence", whereby "violence appears with articulation" (ibid: 147f.). This raises the question of whether a non-violent responsiveness to that which remains irreducibly 'other' to any structure of representation is possible? Or is violence inscribed in the very mode of discourse as assimilation of alterity? To open the possibility of a non-violent relation to the other demands responsibility.

"[…] by the ethical relation I mean to indicate the aspiration to a nonviolent relation to the Other, and to otherness more generally, that assumes responsibility to guard the Other [sic] against the appropriation that would deny her difference and singularity" (Cornell 1992: 62)


http://www.atopia.tk/index.php?option=c ... &Itemid=54
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

to be

Post by Erik_Kowal » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:55 pm

Imagine trying to read not just a couple of paragraphs of this tortuous drivel, but a whole book of it.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

to be

Post by gdwdwrkr » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:27 pm

Substitute BS for violence. It makes much more sense.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

to be

Post by Bobinwales » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:08 pm

I don't know how you found this site Noga, but not only is it tortuous, it is unreadable. The fact that the picture appears to be that of a bloke sitting on the lav seems to say more than the discourse somehow.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: All those years gone to waist!
Bob in Wales

to be

Post by Erik_Kowal » Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:28 pm

That ties in rather neatly with James's comment.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

to be

Post by NogaNote » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:18 pm

I find these kinds of convoluted thinking about language useful. It makes me think in clear patterns. For example, if what Derrida says, that "nonviolent language would be a language which would do without the verb to be, that is without predica-tion. Predication is the first violence", then how would he explain the way language still conveys violent images in the short poem I posted in another thread:

"The father. The predicate.
The family.
Sometimes, the shambles."

There are no verbs here, certainly no verbs "to be". All nouns and still, we get power struggles and butchery.

Of course it is entirely possible and even likely that I completely misunderstand what he says and my example has nothing to do with his thought.

I did not look at the picture btw. Maybe it is what BobinWales says it is. So what? Excrement seems to be very fashionable in Art today:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/c ... donna.html
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

to be

Post by coxie » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:27 pm

At last we're getting back to the point, phew!

May be it was just a tawdry, tautological, tortious, tortuous tour that had 'to be'.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply