Zappa: Was he For or Far from the People?

Brainstormer wrote: Hackettfan: I really don't want to go into this with you. I could retract every point you've made. Everyone knows what F@$k means, and why they say it. I think even the post-modernist stance of the universality of subjectivity is just a meme of the present to be weighed. You seem to be saying the deep strcture is arbitrary...that's pretty odd, IMHO.   The reason why it is deep is because it's the true form, the surface structure creates greater "generations" and thus is more "arbitrary." There isn't even objective philosophical language perhaps in our discourse to arrive at anything, and this isn't the place to go on about it.

Deep Structure or Surface Structure are theoretical constructs that are particular to a specific era of theory that Chomsky himself no longer subscribes to. Universal Grammar (UG) is a term that will better transcend specific eras and changes in theory. You're right that UG is some portion of sentence grammar (syntax) that is theoretically not arbitrary because it is universal. This is purely a matter of theory, however. It is not the result of any aspect of structure that can actually be observed, and there are no shortage of competing theories with competing views on the matter. (For myself and for the record, I find Chomsky's politics more palatable than his approach to linguistic theory). Whatever determination one wishes to make about this, Chomsky maintains that the internal operations of UG are completely disconnected from other cognitive processes. It is an autonomous language organ. So, once again, social dynamics do not bear any relevance to UG. I refer you to Chomsky's discussions of i-language versus e-language. The upshot of this is, as I said, Chomsky was the worst linguist for you to cite.

I brought up arbitrariness to point out that sh*t was a word like any other word. It carries with it certain social effects. The social effects are genuine, but arbitrary. There is no non-arbitrary reason for 'sh*t' to be an obscene word while 'stool' and 'fecal matter' are not. They are as Frank said all just words. Such distinctions as they are made are purely derived from historically grounded social convention. If, by chance, we can claim common ground up to this point, then the real dispute that might remain rests upon whether such conventions should or should not be encoded into law purely on the basis of their own convention. I don't believe so. I still remain with Zappa on this.

Edited by HackettFan - March 01 2015 at 11:34

HackettFan wrote: ... I brought up arbitrariness to point out that sh*t was a word like any other word. It carries with it certain social effects. The social effects are genuine, but arbitrary. There is no non-arbitrary reason for 'sh*t' to be an obscene word while 'stool' and 'fecal matter' are not. They are as Frank said all just words. Such distinctions as they are made are purely derived from historically grounded social convention. If, by chance, we can claim common ground up to this point, then the real dispute that might remain rests upon whether such conventions should or should not be encoded into law purely on the basis of their own convention. I don't believe so. I still remain with Zappa on this.

Thanks ... I agree with most of this.

From an acting/directing stand point this is probably best explained. It's HOW you say it that makes the difference, and if you are soft, gentle and use the expression it comes off as an adjective and if you are harsh, blunt, this will come off as an insult and this is the problem with English that is not a well defined language ... which helps poetry, but creates issues in a discussion like this, because no one has studied grammar and schools in America do not teach it! They teach ebonics, instead !!!!!!

Convention is a problem ... you must see that, and America is a great example. The conventions in NY are vastly different from the ones in Alabama, Texas or California or Las Vegas ... so if you use the word in a sentence in LV everyone thinks is OK ... but if you use it in the south, the reaction will be different. Likewise if you do this in Berkeley, no one cares, but if you do this at Notrer Dame, you will probably be expelled for being a bad example of some godly bullpucky!

Regardless of how Frank used the terms, they were almost strictly "personal" and not meant to be a social commentary for the whole country, because folks in NY wouldn't give a damn, but folks in Punkadots, Iowa would be all up in arms and insulted that their religious upbringing was shamefully disrespected ... and we haven't even gotten to the middle east, yet! But you know folks at the Roxy, wouldn't care ... they just wanna dance!

Yes, there are moments when it is ... not exactly within the borders of good taste, but then, that's like saying that there was no literature/art in the 20th century that was just as "offensive" but no one said anything, or simply hid it from your eyes? C'mon ... let's do an artist and take a pee on the canvas, and when that huge thing makes it to the big museum in NY, and everyone thinks its magnificent ... and how the fudge do you think that is any different than a set of words by Frank, or you and I swearing? ....

I find that in the open era/ear of the media, that we are losing our own abililty to discern anything ... we're getting stupid'er instead! We lose the ability to define ourselves and have to accuse everyone else, thrown stones and crucify them! And then we think that we're better off than all those other poor folks out there ... who will likely throw all kinds of things at your thoughts anyway!

So very weird!!! Sometimes I hate Frank Zappa discussions ... it's all pee and poh and everyone wants to ______________________________ ( !!! ).

Edited by moshkito - March 10 2015 at 14:05