Parker 51

[ANM]

With that I think we have come as close as possible to a consensus of opinion.

[david i]

With that I think we have come as close as possible to a consensus of opinion.

 

Depends how we define, "close"

 

-d

[ANM]

Enough with definitions. You are enjoying this game too much.

 

I will accept your "cherry picked" definition of the word 'new' since you have acknowledged that the adjective in and of itself is "insufficiently specific, for hobby use"

Edited April 12, 2009 by ANM

[david i]

Enough with definitions. You are enjoying this game too much.

 

I will accept your "cherry picked" definition of the word 'new' since you have acknowledged that the adjective in and of itself is "insufficiently specific, for hobby use"

 

I disagree with how you appear to mean "acknowledged", though I s'pose it depends on what you believe you mean by the word.

 

How can I be seen as "acknowledging" that which I've advocated for years? No cherry picking. Rather, taking little for granted.

 

regards

 

David

Edited April 12, 2009 by david i

[grimakis]

Enough with definitions. You are enjoying this game too much.

 

I will accept your "cherry picked" definition of the word 'new' since you have acknowledged that the adjective in and of itself is "insufficiently specific, for hobby use"

 

I disagree with how you appear to mean "acknowledged", though I s'pose it depends on what you believe you mean by the word.

 

How can I be seen as "acknowledging" that which I've advocated for years? No cherry picking. Rather, taking little for granted.

 

regards

 

David

 

Marth 29th - April 12th = More than one week

 

Well this continued longer than either of us expected....

[grimakis]

Day two....

 

I figure a week.

 

We have yet to discuss "new to me / new to you"

 

-d

 

 

BTW, for clarification, what exactly was ment by this post?

[david i]

Day two....

 

I figure a week.

 

We have yet to discuss "new to me / new to you"

 

-d

 

 

BTW, for clarification, what exactly was ment by this post?

 

What is 'ment' ?

 

-d

[david i]

Enough with definitions. You are enjoying this game too much.

 

I will accept your "cherry picked" definition of the word 'new' since you have acknowledged that the adjective in and of itself is "insufficiently specific, for hobby use"

 

I disagree with how you appear to mean "acknowledged", though I s'pose it depends on what you believe you mean by the word.

 

How can I be seen as "acknowledging" that which I've advocated for years? No cherry picking. Rather, taking little for granted.

 

regards

 

David

 

Marth 29th - April 12th = More than one week

 

Well this continued longer than either of us expected....

 

Not necessarily. I tend to present optimistic guesstimates in print.

 

Wonder if we will hit a month.

 

-d

[grimakis]

Day two....

 

I figure a week.

 

We have yet to discuss "new to me / new to you"

 

-d

 

 

BTW, for clarification, what exactly was ment by this post?

 

What is 'ment' ?

 

-d

 

When I looked at that word originally, I saw something was wrong and I couldn't figure it out. I actually spent a good 30 seconds looking at it. Now after looking at it for a split second, I realize that I meant to type "meant"....

 

But anyway, just for clarification, what did you mean by "new to me/new to you"? Was I supposed to be "you", or was it more of a general statement?

[david i]

Day two....

 

I figure a week.

 

We have yet to discuss "new to me / new to you"

 

-d

 

 

BTW, for clarification, what exactly was ment by this post?

 

What is 'ment' ?

 

-d

 

When I looked at that word originally, I saw something was wrong and I couldn't figure it out. I actually spent a good 30 seconds looking at it. Now after looking at it for a split second, I realize that I meant to type "meant"....

 

But anyway, just for clarification, what did you mean by "new to me/new to you"? Was I supposed to be "you", or was it more of a general statement?

 

It was a general statement, part of my implied concern that "new" lends itself to multiple general interpretations.

 

regards

 

d

[grimakis]

Day two....

 

I figure a week.

 

We have yet to discuss "new to me / new to you"

 

-d

 

 

BTW, for clarification, what exactly was meant by this post?

 

What is 'meant' ?

 

-d

 

When I looked at that word originally, I saw something was wrong and I couldn't figure it out. I actually spent a good 30 seconds looking at it. Now after looking at it for a split second, I realize that I meant to type "meant"....

 

But anyway, just for clarification, what did you mean by "new to me/new to you"? Was I supposed to be "you", or was it more of a general statement?

 

It was a general statement, part of my implied concern that "new" lends itself to multiple general interpretations.

 

regards

 

d

 

Misinterpretation on my part...

[Miranda]

Yep. My 'job' is to keep the words straight.

 

Welcome to semantics David i

 

For anyone who has studied the philosophy of language, the erroneousness of this claim is apparent. Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use, and it is perfectly valid that multiple shades of meaning to exist. What means 'new' to me may differ from the meaning imbued to 'new' for someone else in the fine details, but we would readily know when it is used inappropriately. Words come to have meaning through what they exclude as much as through what they include.

 

References to this philosophical debate include Saussure from the early C20, Wittgenstein, and Quine's Word and Object [1972, if i remember clearly], and that is before we even get to Post-Modernism, with the writings of Derrida et al

 

The [late] sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the use of particular fixed defintions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'. He is regarded as one of the ten most influential sociologists of the C20.

[jmkeuning]

Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use

 

[david i]

Yep. My 'job' is to keep the words straight.

 

Welcome to semantics David i

 

For anyone who has studied the philosophy of language, the erroneousness of this claim is apparent. Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use, and it is perfectly valid that multiple shades of meaning to exist. What means 'new' to me may differ from the meaning imbued to 'new' for someone else in the fine details, but we would readily know when it is used inappropriately. Words come to have meaning through what they exclude as much as through what they include.

 

References to this philosophical debate include Saussure from the early C20, Wittgenstein, and Quine's Word and Object [1972, if i remember clearly], and that is before we even get to Post-Modernism, with the writings of Derrida et al

 

The [late] sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the use of particular fixed defintions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'. He is regarded as one of the ten most influential sociologists of the C20.

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts.

 

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

 

Allow me to teach you...

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

1. to be desired or approved of
2. having the qualities required for a particular role
3. possessing or displaying moral virtue
4. giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying
5. thorough
6. used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger
7. that which is morally right;
8. benefit or advantage to someone

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

 

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

cheers

 

-d

Edited April 13, 2009 by david i

[grimakis]

Yep. My 'job' is to keep the words straight.

 

Welcome to semantics David i

 

For anyone who has studied the philosophy of language, the erroneousness of this claim is apparent. Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use, and it is perfectly valid that multiple shades of meaning to exist. What means 'new' to me may differ from the meaning imbued to 'new' for someone else in the fine details, but we would readily know when it is used inappropriately. Words come to have meaning through what they exclude as much as through what they include.

 

References to this philosophical debate include Saussure from the early C20, Wittgenstein, and Quine's Word and Object [1972, if i remember clearly], and that is before we even get to Post-Modernism, with the writings of Derrida et al

 

The [late] sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the use of particular fixed defintions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'. He is regarded as one of the ten most influential sociologists of the C20.

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts.

 

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

 

Allow me to teach you...

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

1. to be desired or approved of
2. having the qualities required for a particular role
3. possessing or displaying moral virtue
4. giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying
5. thorough
6. used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger
7. that which is morally right;
8. benefit or advantage to someone

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

 

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

cheers

 

-d

 

So if good = bad, does "really good" = "really bad"?

[david i]

Yep. My 'job' is to keep the words straight.

 

Welcome to semantics David i

 

For anyone who has studied the philosophy of language, the erroneousness of this claim is apparent. Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use, and it is perfectly valid that multiple shades of meaning to exist. What means 'new' to me may differ from the meaning imbued to 'new' for someone else in the fine details, but we would readily know when it is used inappropriately. Words come to have meaning through what they exclude as much as through what they include.

 

References to this philosophical debate include Saussure from the early C20, Wittgenstein, and Quine's Word and Object [1972, if i remember clearly], and that is before we even get to Post-Modernism, with the writings of Derrida et al

 

The [late] sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the use of particular fixed defintions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'. He is regarded as one of the ten most influential sociologists of the C20.

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts.

 

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

 

Allow me to teach you...

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

1. to be desired or approved of
2. having the qualities required for a particular role
3. possessing or displaying moral virtue
4. giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying
5. thorough
6. used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger
7. that which is morally right;
8. benefit or advantage to someone

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

 

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

cheers

 

-d

 

So if good = bad, does "really good" = "really bad"?

 

Which is why it's good t' get this stuff straight

 

(Typed on my not really new computer after perusing a new old 51).

 

-d

[grimakis]

Yep. My 'job' is to keep the words straight.

 

Welcome to semantics David i

 

For anyone who has studied the philosophy of language, the erroneousness of this claim is apparent. Words cannot be kept straight: words gain their meaning through communal use, and it is perfectly valid that multiple shades of meaning to exist. What means 'new' to me may differ from the meaning imbued to 'new' for someone else in the fine details, but we would readily know when it is used inappropriately. Words come to have meaning through what they exclude as much as through what they include.

 

References to this philosophical debate include Saussure from the early C20, Wittgenstein, and Quine's Word and Object [1972, if i remember clearly], and that is before we even get to Post-Modernism, with the writings of Derrida et al

 

The [late] sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the use of particular fixed defintions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'. He is regarded as one of the ten most influential sociologists of the C20.

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts.

 

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

 

Allow me to teach you...

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

1. to be desired or approved of
2. having the qualities required for a particular role
3. possessing or displaying moral virtue
4. giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying
5. thorough
6. used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger
7. that which is morally right;
8. benefit or advantage to someone

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

 

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

cheers

 

-d

 

So if good = bad, does "really good" = "really bad"?

 

Which is why it's good t' get this stuff straight

 

(Typed on my not really new computer after perusing a new old 51).

 

-d

 

I couldn't agree more...

[Miranda]

I am sorry to take so long to respond to your opinions, David, but both my internet connection and I have been ill. And whilst I am reluctant to reopen the discussion, I feel I have to respond to your last post that commented on mine, otherwise you may feel that this ‘newbie’ has been’ brought up to speed’ by you. Which is not the case.

 

I apologise for introducing Bourdieu’s phrase ‘strategies of symbolic violence’ as it may not have been helpful unless one is familiar with theories about social power and control. But FPN, as you know better than me, is filled to its back teeth with intelligent people who are open to new ideas and willing to debate all types of issues.

 

So, here I will deconstruct your case against my little contribution. This is not an ad hominen argument, David, so I know you won’t take it personally.

 

One of the things that Bourdieu’s phrase ‘the strategies of symbolic violence’ refers to is the way that people with power attempt to put down those with less power, less social cachet, by using their words, their definitions, to exclude people from the discussion. Feminists will know all to well how this argument plays out in the ‘real’ world. I shall try to illustrate what this means by critiquing your response to my post.

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

A wink is ambiguous in meaning, by definition. It is also used by those in the elite group to indicate that they are enjoying fooling those they wish to exclude. To refer to us all as a ‘concrete crowd’ establishes oneself as in a superior position to be able to judge what is or is not of value

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

‘Newbie’ is one of those ugly words that have crept into the language. To me, it reeks of frat boy bullying and a desire to dominate based on power rather than treating each other with adult respect. Being described as a ‘newbie’ puts me in an inferior place where I have no authority to speak, not only about pens, but, it appears, anything. A strategy of symbolic violence. For the record, I only joined FPN in January, but I have been using fountain pens all my life, including 35 years of use of my grandfather’s Parker 51. I grew up in a family that collected way too much of anything. I have a respectable knowledge about fountain pens, inks and paper, though not enough to warrant my own personal listing in the DSMIV [yet…]!

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts. [my emphasis added]

The philosophy of language contributes to the way we are able to discuss the ambiguity of words. Just because a direct connection is next to impossible to trace does not mean it doesn’t exist.

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so. [my emphasis added]

There appears to be a contradiction here between ‘whether or not my 50 year old new Parker ‘51’ really is new’, and the ‘general ambiguity of certain words’. On the one hand, there is a need for a yes it is/no it isn’t decision, yet on the other hand, an acknowledgement that no such decision can be made.

 

References were provided because previous posters had been criticised for not providing them.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

This is unnecessary as it can be quickly solved within a meta–analytical framework.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

Really, hobby jargon is scarcely a sophisticated language. It is readily understood even by primary school children when they trade their collectables.

 

Allow me to teach you...

A classic strategy of symbolic violence. It puts the recipient into a powerless position unable to make a response based on equality, and portrays me as in need of being taught. To say ‘no, I don’t want to be taught!’ sounds like an immature tantrum. But I was not asking to be taught. I was participating in a discussion.

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

to be desired or approved of

having the qualities required for a particular role

possessing or displaying moral virtue

giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying

thorough

used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger

that which is morally right;

benefit or advantage to someone

As I used to tell my students, dictionary definitions are good for filling out the word count in essays, but they do nothing in developing a philosophical argument.

 

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

To come to this conclusion shows a flawed logic. Good doesn’t mean bad or poor: bad or poor means bad or poor. Good means less desirable, less pricey.

 

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

There are many ways of being violent that do not involve molestation, which typically involves men using their power against women. Why is this word used? Especially in response to a woman.

 

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

As a woman, I find this a disturbing and aggressive metaphor. Again, a strategy of symbolic violence. ‘Deflowering’ like molesting has strong connotations of a man’s power over a woman.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

A new hobbyist. Another patronising strategy to remove any credibility from my position as a contributor to this discussion

I note many vintage pen sellers describe their pens as in ‘good condition’ and clearly they mean that they are workable pens. In fact, they define that meaning for good.

A good pen is expected to be good. It makes no sense otherwise.

 

I have responded earnestly with my analysis, but rest assured, I don’t spend my time trawling posts to see if I can beef up some sort of ‘oh! I’m offended stance’. That’s not what I’m about. But, I will argue in my defence if I feel it is warranted.

 

edited to clarify who is saying what.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Miranda

[david i]

I am sorry to take so long to respond to your opinions, David, but both my internet connection and I have been ill. And whilst I am reluctant to reopen the discussion, I feel I have to respond to your last post that commented on mine, otherwise you may feel that this 'newbie' has been' brought up to speed' by you. Which is not the case.

 

That would appear to be your insecurity. I really do not care whether you are a newbie or engage in speed.

 

 

I apologise for introducing Bourdieu's phrase 'strategies of symbolic violence' as it may not have been helpful unless one is familiar with theories about social power and control. But FPN, as you know better than me, is filled to its back teeth with intelligent people who are open to new ideas and willing to debate all types of issues.

 

Don't apologize. The breathaking irrelevance of your approach to this chat was entertaining.

 

So, here I will deconstruct your case against my little contribution.

 

You cannot. But, I'll well enjoy the chat. You are well caught in seeing trees not forests and thus are lost.

 

This is not an ad hominen argument, David, so I know you won't take it personally.

 

Ahhh, ad hominem and masked ad hominem arguments agains my stance entertain me quite well, so either of your approaches will be fine.

 

One of the things that Bourdieu's phrase 'the strategies of symbolic violence' refers to is the way that people with power attempt to put down those with less power, less social cachet, by using their words, their definitions, to exclude people from the discussion. Feminists will know all to well how this argument plays out in the 'real' world. I shall try to illustrate what this means by critiquing your response to my post.

 

It's moot.

 

Retrospective redefinitions of academic and pseudoacademic persspectives do nothing to help the newbies keep from being skewered when they buy a good pen expecting it to be a good pen. We are in reality now, you know.

 

 

Oh golly, this is a concrete crowd.

 

My first line in this entire thread carried a wink " "

 

A wink is ambiguous in meaning, by definition. It is also used by those in the elite group to indicate that they are enjoying fooling those they wish to exclude. To refer to us all as a 'concrete crowd' establishes oneself as in a superior position to be able to judge what is or is not of value

 

If you see that, I can imagine it contributed well to your expressed stress response to this matter. Buy any good pens lately?

 

That should have been enough warning. But... noooOOOOoooo.... Always gotta bring the newbies up to speed.

'Newbie' is one of those ugly words that have crept into the language.

 

Amazing, and here I am, chief of the Hack Amateur Newbie guild (ask around, by all means). Ohhh, the irony the irony the irony. Heh.

 

To me, it reeks of frat boy bullying and a desire to dominate based on power rather than treating each other with adult respect. Being described as a 'newbie' puts me in an inferior place where I have no authority to speak, not only about pens, but, it appears, anything. A strategy of symbolic violence. For the record, I only joined FPN in January, but I have been using fountain pens all my life, including 35 years of use of my grandfather's Parker 51.

 

To repeat, I am chief and founder of the Hack Amateur Newbie guild, and I have never felt "frat boy bullied" for all my years as its chief representative. Your choice of "issue" now has me ROFLMAO. I am grateful you take this approach. To paraphrase a grand movie, I love the smell of sophistry in the morning.

 

My strategy of symbolic violence.... keeping me as its chief target. Funny, I and most here quite reasonably believe I do not target my self for symbolic violence.

 

 

I grew up in a family that collected way too much of anything. I have a respectable knowledge about fountain pens, inks and paper, though not enough to warrant my own personal listing in the DSMIV [yet…]!

 

Which is why you would have your philosophers buy wrecked pens, ignorantly believing they are nice, because our attempts to educate them about hobby jargon would constitute molestation?

 

Indeed, I note that so far the philosophy of language has utterly failed to help any actual live pen collector here who is not already up on hobby jargon gain handle on whether or not my 50 year old new Parker "51" really is new , which seems to be the roiling argument hereabouts. [my emphasis added]

The philosophy of language contributes to the way we are able to discuss the ambiguity of words. Just because a direct connection is next to impossible to trace does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

So you recognize the irrelevance of your earlier assertions in this matter. Good.

 

I am impressed that some reference the philosophy of language seemingly in order to argue with my views, when in fact the citation utterly supports my point through this thread, the general ambiguity of certain words. Some would assert we would readily know when a word is used inappropriately, but the very nature of discussion in this thread indicates this simply is not so. [my emphasis added]

There appears to be a contradiction here between 'whether or not my 50 year old new Parker '51' really is new', and the 'general ambiguity of certain words'. On the one hand, there is a need for a yes it is/no it isn't decision, yet on the other hand, an acknowledgement that no such decision can be made.

 

Indeed, the real world, vs toe dip in sophistry of academe or pseudo-academe offers its own challenges.

 

References were provided because previous posters had been criticised for not providing them.

 

Pertinence might be tried, too.

 

Words cannot be kept straight? Depends I guess on what one means by "words", "cannot be", "kept", or "straight", any or all of which I'd be happy to explore.

This is unnecessary as it can be quickly solved within a meta–analytical framework.

 

Verily. Most who worry about THAT are the prime victims of buying bad pens as good. Adds to the charm.

 

But, hobby jargon indeed sets words straight in the hobby context.

Really, hobby jargon is scarcely a sophisticated language. It is readily understood even by primary school children when they trade their collectables.

 

Straw man at best. I love the smell of straw man in the morning. I know of none who asserted hobby jargon carries any particular sophistication, so what is the point of positing a lack of the unclaimed sophistication. Rather I see the sophistry of pseudo-academe using the violence of niche language such as "meta-analytical framework" to wage symbolic violence on those who already have nuked their real-world stance, attempting to map claims of sophistication where none are present. Go figure.

 

Allow me to teach you...

A classic strategy of symbolic violence. It puts the recipient into a powerless position unable to make a response based on equality, and portrays me as in need of being taught. To say 'no, I don't want to be taught!' sounds like an immature tantrum. But I was not asking to be taught. I was participating in a discussion.

 

So, when you say you don't want to be taught, you are engaging in an immature tantrum. You want only to be the teacher, not the teachee? Fascinating.

 

Hmmm. sort of like citing grand philosophers of verbal techno-babble to "teach" us? Charming.

 

More ironic it seems that those philosophers would end up buying a bad pen thinking it is good???

 

And, when one engages in a dialogue one often receives that which he did not request. Thus, that you were not asking to be taught, but rather were presuming only to teach, also is irrelevant.

 

One dictionary provides the following definitions for "Good"

 

to be desired or approved of

having the qualities required for a particular role

possessing or displaying moral virtue

giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying

thorough

used in conjunction with the name of G-d or a related expression as an exclamation of extreme surprise or anger

that which is morally right;

benefit or advantage to someone

As I used to tell my students, dictionary definitions are good for filling out the word count in essays, but they do nothing in developing a philosophical argument.

 

Yes, but since that attempt at philosophical argument already has been well invalidated, we are left with the real world, which was rather the point of this original thread.

 

However, In pen grading, Good means.... bad/poor.

Very easy to keep straight, and easy to teach folks to keep straight though one I s'pose in doing so can be viewed in poor light by some philosopher who... describes the use of particular fixed definitions of words by one group to establish power over another group as a 'strategy of symbolic violence'

 

To come to this conclusion shows a flawed logic. Good doesn't mean bad or poor: bad or poor means bad or poor. Good means less desirable, less pricey.

 

What I see is that someone is having a cranky response and lack of insight to a real world situation.

 

Good indeed means bad or poor in... hobby jargon. Your lack of insight after all this is appalling.

 

Again, feel free to buy some of my good pens. They always are the last ones taken since pen collectors seek pens that are good, not good pens. Where is charlie the tuna, anyway?

 

 

 

 

I see then. Teaching the newbies how not to get scalped constitutes some sort of molestation? Charming.

 

There are many ways of being violent that do not involve molestation, which typically involves men using their power against women. Why is this word used? Especially in response to a woman.

 

Why don't you tell us why your round table believes that word was used? Are you suffering from man-woman issues? Quite the diversion from pen grading, it seems. When argument fails, divert divert divert.

 

 

 

You are welcome to bring your philosophers to the round table for further discussion. In fact if they will buy a bunch of my good condition pens at good (to whom?) prices, that would be... good. But, barring their ability to keep those words straight, they might be unhappy with what they get.

 

I will be writing my notes for that chat with my new 1953 Parker "51", which no longer will be- i s'pose- new afterward. Sigh, I so hate deflowering pens.

 

As a woman, I find this a disturbing and aggressive metaphor. Again, a strategy of symbolic violence. 'Deflowering' like molesting has strong connotations of a man's power over a woman.

 

As a man I am wholly entertained that my correction of your entirely erroneous thread leads you to defend your weak thesis by invoking sexual issues. So liberal. So irrelevant. So desirous of symbolic power.

 

Remember, teaching that "good" means "bad" is keeping things straight in hobby jargon. I'd hate for a new hobbyist to buy

a good pen expecting it to be good. That would be bad. I am saddened that Bourdieu sees it otherwise, but- hey- i'll get over it.

 

A new hobbyist. Another patronising strategy to remove any credibility from my position as a contributor to this discussion

I note many vintage pen sellers describe their pens as in 'good condition' and clearly they mean that they are workable pens. In fact, they define that meaning for good.

A good pen is expected to be good. It makes no sense otherwise.

 

It is unfortunately when one would deny reality because he sees it as patronizing. It is a shame one ducks recognition of truth , by labelling the context as patronizing. Although folks of that ilk are truly loved by the promulgators of problem pens.

 

And, I say that as the chief Hack Amateur Newbie, so golly, I guess I claim no credibility to begin with. Heh.

 

If something that is real makes no sense to you, that indicates you are not yet educated about that reality. Perhaps you can philosophise about it around a table at class.

 

I have responded earnestly with my analysis, but rest assured, I don't spend my time trawling posts to see if I can beef up some sort of 'oh! I'm offended stance'. That's not what I'm about. But, I will argue in my defence if I feel it is warranted.

 

edited to clarify who is saying what.

 

Argue away.

 

This one's a hoot.

 

-david

Edited May 9, 2009 by david i

[Miranda]

David.

My response to your comments [not worthy of the word ‘argument’] was sincere and not once did I personally attack you. I only critiqued what was written.

 

In reply, I get a viscous, mean personal attack that projects your own anxieties onto me.

 

Additionally, you show that you clearly have no understanding of philosophy and social theory. Not only do you seem unable to conduct a discussion from that theoretical stance, but you also appear to be incapable of attempting to do so in a civil manner.

 

I have no need to continue this. I’m off to other posts where people are nice to each other.

Miranda

 

PS. I note the Lehrer Vintage Pen Catalogue defines their “Good” pens as: Well used, imprints may be almost gone, plating wear”, and have a further category of ‘Fair’ for ‘A parts pen’.

Vintage Pens defines good as wear is significant but even, metal may show light dings or appreciable brassing’, whilst ‘Fair’ is ‘heavily worn though fundamentally sound’.