Pretty Lady's dear friend Chris Rywalt asks what may, perhaps, be a rhetorical question:
How can someone use the words "teleological" and "reify," then follow those up with "historicity," and yet still use an apostrophe in the possessive its, and even worse, confuse "whose" and "who's"?Ah, Chris. Tsk, tsk.
Can you explain this to me? Because I sure as hell don't get it's.
You are making the same error as did, apparently, that ridiculous IQ test that Pretty Lady took the other evening (which was obviously unreliable, because it said that Pretty Lady's IQ was only 138! The horror! Or perhaps Pretty Lady has fried one too many brain cells with all that tequila...hmm...a definite possibility, sadly) and mistaking vocabulary for intelligence. Indeed, Pretty Lady is quite certain that she got the vocabulary questions on the alleged IQ test correct, which further depresses her regarding her score.
But enough of this egoistic rumination.
You must understand, my dear Chris, that as Pretty Lady learned all too well in the course of obtaining a couple of thoroughly useless degrees, "intellectual" is by no means synonymous with "intelligent." In fact, toward the end of her 'education', Pretty Lady began to suspect that the two concepts bear no relationship to one another at all. To this day, whenever she attempts to engage a so-called intellectual in sensible conversation, she is stymied by the fact that possessing a gargantuan vocabulary by no means guarantees that a person can follow a simple train of logic. Pretty Lady forgets herself, and saunters off into wild, polysyllabic ruminations, only to be brought heavily down to earth when the other party to the conversation entirely misses her point, by virtue of failing to comprehend her rhetorical devices.
After much contemplation upon the issue, Pretty Lady ascribes this phenomenon to 1) insufficient abuse by junior high school teachers and 2) the Parrotic Obfuscation Technique. There is further evidence to suggest that the one may be a consequence of the other.
To wit: if a person was not forced, by a fascistic sixth grade teacher, at the sort of school where you get sent home for being creatively dressed, and expelled for smoking marijuana, to learn to diagram a compound/complex sentence down to the last prepositional phrase, that person's command of basic systems of logical thought is permanently impaired. Or rather, it has not ever been given the structure with which to develop properly, and thus grows like weeds in an abandoned lot, throwing off dense, impenetrable foliage in every direction.
You see, in the process of diagramming the kind of sentence which takes up the entire length and breadth of a regulation-size blackboard, one is forced to consider the logical relationships among every single word one uses. After an entire year of this sort of thing, a person is literally incapable of constructing a statement which does not make internal sense. The horror of attempting to figure out where to attach that last dangling participle is simply too painful to contemplate.
A person who has not undergone this type of radical brain espalier in childhood, however, will cheerfully spew forth sentence after alleged sentence which lacks either a subject, a verb, or an object, in the mistaken notion that he is communicating something. He is under the impression that nouns or verbs by themselves, in all their creatively modified glory, translate into a coherent understanding of the universe--no matter that notions of time, cause and effect are lacking therein. Which may, on a deeper level, be absolutely true; however, trapped as we are in the space-time continuum, we are forced to rely on these tedious constructs in order to get anything done.
A person thus logistically handicapped who is hurled into the morass of Higher Education is then in desperate straits. Unable to follow a line of reasoning lucidly enough to test its validity, this person is equally incapable of mounting a cogent argument with which to challenge it. Thus, Obfuscation becomes his only viable means of self-defense. And words like 'teleological' and 'reify' work wonders in this arena. Not only are they casually used in even the most elementary philosophy class, but even the professors have only a vague notion of what they actually mean, if anything.
(teleological, from the Greek 'telos' meaning 'end or purpose,' and 'logos' meaning 'rationality'; an argument for the existence of God, based on the perceptions of design or order in nature: reify, from the Latin root 'res, reis' meaning 'thing'; to regard an abstraction as though it had concrete existence, literally to 'make a thing' of it)
Thus, my dear Chris, we get the monster that you have so unfortunately fetched up against, presumably in the art blogosphere. This is a person who drops teleologies and historicities until the cows come home, but is unable to distinguish between the concepts of possession and contraction, let alone their semiotic manifestations.
At this point, Pretty Lady suspects that this person's mind is a Lost Cause; the wiser and wearier may eventually come to a point where they recognize that they are drowning in their own mental manure, move to the country, and take up composting. These are the lucky ones.
But most of them will continue to spew, in increasingly dense and tautological verbiage, because they are walking an infinitely diminishing tightrope which has no end. They have become Specialists, and must defend their miniscule intellectual niches in the space-time continuum, no matter how ineffectually reified.