Esoteric Speech

I thiiink… maaaaybe…. this miiight be true. Buuut, I dunno.

Either I don’t understand what you are saying, or you are getting ready to set up another of your attribute comparison charts. He who hath ears to hear let him hear.

Yes, mostly.

But I recall how, in Eastern Bloc Czecheslovakia, Vaclav Havel described how his plays would be written in a ‘code’ (i.e. esoterically) which was understood by the dissidents (who were en-couraged), but not the authorities. And it was deniable – and the Czech govt. was at that time mostly law abiding.

However, that doesn’t work any more, because Our leftist authorities (govt, public admin, HR depts, mass media) are Not law abiding; and anyway leftists already do so much of this esoteric talk among themselves that they project the usage of esoteric codes onto their enemies (e.g. onto us)

They call it ‘dog whistles’, or suchlike – and even an proveable (and indeed false) suspicion of dog-whistling against this week’s party line is regarded as evidence of ‘implicit’ bias/-ism; and sufficient to bring the full weight of punishment down.

So, we may as well speak plainly, since even Silence on certain subjects (as we know – from events of a coupla months ago) is regarded as demonstrable guilt! Nothing less than explicit, enthusiastic and active support is acceptable; and the unacceptable is punished with no limit to the penalty. (Being killed, eg by a violent rioter, for being on the ‘other side’ is now ‘a good thing’, admirable, celebrated.)

But on the other-other hand (and I have been doing it here, you may have noticed! – or elsewhere in my talk of the ‘birdemic’ or ‘the sexual revolution’) by Not using certain easily searchable-words, we do make thing that bit harder for Them: which is a worthwhile goal in itself.

Presented for consideration.

cockiness distorts confidence.
cockiness contradicts humility.
timidity distorts humility.
timidity contracticts confidence.

100%

Give me the humility that is not fear.
Give me the confidence that is not ignorance of the odds.

The predeterministic yet hegemonic discourse alluded to in the gnomic though laconic colloquial-esque pseudo-proverb given here by the pseudonymous, monolexical wordsmith transgress yet also progresses while silently reinforcing the binary dialectical model of monochromatic patriarchal heternormativity.

My goodness, Mormon Academic, you’re totally fluent! I wish I had the gift of interpretation of tongues.

@MA,

Yes

Affirmative statements that procure a consensus of a unilateral, mono-vocal, and singular individualistic center of linguistic creation, compiled with a terse nature indicate a covalent, consistent, and co-dependent relationship vis-a-vis the ambulatory nature of a minimalistic aesthetic.

@ MA,
Which aesthetic you clearly do not espouse. That was impressively obtuse. 🙂

Obtuseness is a factor that subsists within a refractory impulse that coalesces within the oracular regions of a potentially singular entity capable of accepting the illusion of perceiving an objective reaction.

That one’s easier: “Obtuseness is in the eye of the beholder.”

I sense enough of a pattern to suspect an automated translator to jargon. Kudos if that was hand-crafted.

Upper grasping digits were potentially used in the dialectical conscious (yet strikingly post-Cartesian in its unconsciousness) creation of empty poly-voiced signifiers that only obtain meaning when applied with a jujune amount of sesquipedalian loquaciousness.

When I was in graduate school, the biggest “critique” of my writing was that it was “too accessible.”

I’ve been trained to write esoterically, so I can if I have to (say, to get a good grade in a graduate school class, although now that I have that PhD, I don’t). It’s actually, once you get the flow and figure out the (rather easy) trick to it, to write in academic-speak; no need for an automated translator (hint, hint).