Author: mylar (---.telus.net)
Date: 12-19-2002 11:57
The meta-heuristics of the Gygax/Wick episteme stands in contrast to the self reflexive irony that such an episteme is by definition a formalized catch all "solution" to individual, non-formalizable heuristic resolutions of the imaginary world which the system seeks to represent. This, while perhaps sounding vaguely insightful or fascinating, doesn't really tell the reader what the heck I was trying to say.(1)
From reading your articles I have already gleaned a number of thought provoking observations, no doubt born of a keen intellect. But as I read more of entries, I'm finding it harder and harder to comprehend the results of that intellect due to the degree that those ideas have become surrounded by a shell of postmodern jargon and form.
While postmodernism, deconstruction and all the subcategories they've spawned and mingled with do have aspects of intellectual value, too often it is overshadowed by the omnipresent conventions of style. Unfortunately, in order to be both provocative and postmodern on the page, obsession with the trivial and obscure has become the rule, instead of the exception.
This all reminds me of the metaphor Paul Collins used to describe the then mad Delia Bacon's use of language in her attempt to wrestle with what started out as a coherent idea. "It's like light trying to pass through several panes of cracked glass" he said, "bent through layer after layer, until it is refracted into a wraith of reason." My thought on postmodern jargon in a nutshell. But I think what's worse, the distorted light that does shine through starts out superficially fascinating, in the sense that anything appearing so indecipherable and complex can at least initially dazzle the mind.
While I'm hardly someone to tell you how you should and should not write. Being someone who has to interact with the whole postmodern word out of necessity, I feel obliged to share a little bit of common sense that was given to me before I became incomprehensible to the rest of the world. Using more simple words to express an idea is usually better than a little bit of jargon, if that jargon is so dense few people can comprehend. Avoid delineating to obfuscation, such is my credo.
Anything put through the distorting pane of postmodern/deconstruction jargon can appear fascinating, regardless of its actual content. Likewise, anything that does come through, even if once profound or insightful, will be reduced to something that only seems "fascinating", but cannot be further deciphered and therefore understood. Pop sociology it might be, yet you've already shown us you have eyes to spot the insightful for yourself, don't deny the rest of us from those insights.
---
(1) Figuring out what I was trying to say shall be left as an exercise for the reader. Sufficient to say, I did have an on topic idea when I write that sentence, but it's not a particularly profound one. So don't bother unless you really have nothing better to do.
|
|
