> Again, I turn back to my original claim. When language,
> policies, or standards (like canons) are used intentionally to exclude,
> they are elitist. This is not a good thing.
>
> cheers,
> jrg
Jeff, I really do not understand this statement/claim, perhaps because I
know of not a single language (or symbolic) that does not make meaning by
way of excluding. This is the predisposition from which I work and play.
What is your predisposition that warrants your claim? (This is all very
relevant to the CFP.)
I understand what you mean in terms of intentionality, but not in terms of
the previous condition of language itelf. It sounds as if you are making a
moral judgment about good intentions. If so, then, Is language basically
immoral since finally deceptive (cf. Burke, *Attitudes...* and Nietzsche,
"Truth and Lying in the Extramoral....")
Cents and $$$ are earned always at some other's expense and at all of our
indebtedness. Particular modernists and postmodernists are aware of
this expense and try to write in such a variety of ways/waves so
as to bring as much to view as possible.
Would you please explain what your predisposition is in order to make
such a claim?
Victor