Difference between revisions of "Lojban Central"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
Tag: visualeditor-switched
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{se inspekte/en}}''Lojban Central'' is a term coined while language development was still active (early 1990s), to refer to the leadership of [[The Logical Language Group]], both in its administrative role and in its role as guiding language development. The term was first used by [[John Cowan|John Cowan]]<ref>http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9108/msg00035.html</ref><ref>http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9108/msg00048.html</ref> and was popularized by [[User:Nick Nicholas|Nick Nicholas]]<ref>http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9108/msg00087.html</ref>.
  
Date:         Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:19:08 -0700
+
The term includes, in the first instance, [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]] and [[Nora LeChevalier|Nora LeChevalier]]. One could argue that it includes [[pc|pc]] and [[John Cowan|John Cowan]] (who coined the term) as well. John tends not to agree (citing his Organization in email headers as ''Lojban Peripheral'' for a long time), and used the term to refer to Bob and Nora very early on<ref>http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9108/msg00074.html</ref>. Nevertheless, he used <ref>http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9201/msg00102.html</ref> it in the sense that included himself. It is perfectly legitimate, of course, for membership in Lojban Central to be fuzzy (as in [[Fuzzy Logic]]). And since it is invoked in a fashion similar to the [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/cabal-conspiracy-FAQ/ Usenet Cabal] of yore, membership in it is probably also fairly nebulous.
  
Reply-To:     UB Poetics discussion group <[email protected].BUFFALO.EDU>
+
The political undertones of the phrase (introducing an ''us-and-them'' tone) are clear, and are not necessarily welcomed by the referents of the phrase: the LLG has always insisted that the language is controlled only by the community (once the [[baseline]] is achieved), and happily the language community has not been plagued by the kind of dictatorial control exemplified by Schleyer and his Volapük. It did, after all, originate in a [[Loglan|schism]] provoked by just such control.
  
Sender:      UB Poetics discussion group <[email protected].ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
+
Many of the contentions people have around Lojban Central originate in the [[supplicatory model]].
  
From:         "K.Silem Mohammad" <[email protected].COM>
+
==Discussion==
 +
*[[xod]]:
 +
*:[[Lojban Cabal|Lojban Cabal]]? We meet on alternating Wednesdays and the meetings are held in English. I have taken "Lojban Central" to mean the LLG membership, but 'Central isn't necessarily the locus of actual language development, and nobody thinks it has any coercive authority, or has necessarily unified opinion on anything. Hence the term lacks the political resonations that might arise with, say, the Central Committee of a Communist Party.
 +
**[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
 +
**:Admittedly, the definition above reflects the author's perceptions as they were formed in the early '90s, when there was certainly a clear sense of at least power of veto and coordination emanating from a Lojban Central. (Well, that was my sense, anyway.) The publication of [[The Complete Lojban Language]], and more recent developments render this perception partially obsolete. There is, however, still a board (with its membership recently surprisingly augmented!), and there are still administrative decisions being taken. So while the resonances aren't as strong as the CCCP, they aren't zero, either. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8779 One message], for example, speaks of Lojban Central as an entity with vetting power, distinct from the LLG. The line it takes is by no means universally held in the community (yes, we know who posted it :-) ); but some people in the community are inclined to think this way... (For a possible example, see the currently bottommost entry in [[baseline|baseline]].)
 +
*[[And]]:
 +
*:To me, ''Lojban Central'' has resonances of ''Moscow Centre'', Soviet espionage HQ in the novels of John Le Carre. Hence it has a sense both of something Soviet, operating by diktat, and something secret and closed to outsiders. The term is jocular of course; Lojbab is hardly Karla!
 +
*[[Lojban Cabal|Lojban Cabal]] = [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9028 Voting member-only mailing list]?
 +
**[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
 +
**:You be the judge. Shoe's on the other foot now, given I'm now a member of it! (The mailing list, that is, not necessarily xod's Cabal...)
 +
***[[xod]]:
 +
***:The mailing list, of course, is only a front for the outer layer of the Cabal. We want you to think that's who is in charge. The real power lies elsewhere...
 +
**** The wives?
 +
***** The Illuminati? Sure, you like to think they use TLI Loglan, but...
 +
****[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]:
 +
****:hrm. i've love to see shea and anton's illuminatus trilogy translated. that'd be an absolute mindfuck. i'll pay for a completed translation. bids? :)
 +
*[[xod]]:
 +
*:'''.i mi'e xod .i ru'a le fetspe cu natfe vlipa .iki'ubo za'a fy. pu'i fanta vu'enai le zu'o le nakspe cu penmi'''
  
Subject:      FAQS ABOUT LANGUAGE POETRY  [[jbocre: + thanks for replies to query|+ thanks for replies to query]]
+
==References==
 
+
<references />
----
 
 
 
'''FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LANGUAGE POETRY'''
 
 
 
Q.  What is the definition of Language poetry?
 
 
 
A.  There is no single, universally accepted definition of Language poetry.
 
 
 
There are many reasons for this (not the least of which is the cliche "one
 
 
 
man's Language poet is another's freedom fighter").  Even different agencies
 
 
 
of the US government have different working definitions.  Most definitions
 
 
 
usually have common elements, though, oriented around Language poetry as the
 
 
 
systematic use of radical linguistic disjunction--actual or
 
 
 
threatened--against readers but with an audience broader than the immediate
 
 
 
victims in mind to create a general climate of aporia in a target
 
 
 
population, in order to effect some kind of poetic and / or social change.
 
 
 
Q.  What is the main cause of Language poetry?
 
 
 
A.  Dissatisfaction with a poetic or social system or policy, and an
 
 
 
inability to change it through "mainstream" or non-disjunctive means.
 
 
 
Q.  Is Language poetry ever, in any situation, justifiable in this day and
 
 
 
age?
 
 
 
A.  For any act of Language poetry, there is always a poetic, social,
 
 
 
political, or philosophic creed that can be used to justify it by someone.
 
 
 
To "justify" an act, one must compare it with a legal or ideological system
 
 
 
as a basis of justification.  If one considers an act "justifiable," one
 
 
 
probably wouldn't call it Language poetry.
 
 
 
Q.  Do you feel governments should fund Language-centered organizations?
 
 
 
Why or Why not?
 
 
 
A.  NO, for the same reason governments should not conduct acts against
 
 
 
international literature or their own literatures.  Governments should
 
 
 
always seek to stay within the arena of peaceful competition among literary
 
 
 
movements.  Poetic radical disjunction is outside of this arena.
 
 
 
Q.  What impact does the media have on Language-centered acts?
 
 
 
A.  Language poetry and the media have a symbiotic relationship.  Without
 
 
 
the media, Language poets would receive no exposure, their cause would go
 
 
 
ignored, and no climate of aporia would be generated.  Language poetry is
 
 
 
futile without publicity, and the media generates much of this publicity.
 
 
 
Q.  Do Language poets use the media as a means of promoting their beliefs
 
 
 
and opinions?
 
 
 
A.  Absolutely.
 
 
 
Q.  Should media report these acts of Language poetry? Why or Why not?
 
 
 
A.  The media are within their prerogative of informing the public as long
 
 
 
as they are passive observers of events.  When they become active
 
 
 
participants in a Language-centered situation, or otherwise irresponsibily
 
 
 
confuse readers or the public, or knowingly become a vehicle of biased
 
 
 
propaganda, then that particular member of the media is abusing the power
 
 
 
protected by the US Bill of Rights' First Amendment.
 
 
 
Q.  Do you feel that Language poetry can be stopped? Why or Why not?
 
 
 
A.  Not as long as there are dissatisfied people in the world.  This does
 
 
 
not mean that States should not strive to stop Language-centered actions.
 
 
 
Q.  Should military action be taken against Language-centered communities?
 
 
 
A.  On a case-by-case basis, military action can be warranted. Firstly, some
 
 
 
international Language-centered incidents demand a response for which
 
 
 
literary enforcement has neither the training, resources, nor personnel.  In
 
 
 
these cases, military forces might be the only adequate response.
 
 
 
Furthermore, some communities support Language-centered campaigns as actual
 
 
 
instruments of their poetic theory.  If this support results in harm to
 
 
 
American citizens or interests, then the supporting community has executed
 
 
 
an act of defamiliarization against the United States.  Such acts by
 
 
 
definition warrant a military response.
 
 
 
Q.  In what ways do Language poets gain publicity?
 
 
 
A.  By confusing people, frustrating readers, and blowing things up.
 
 
 
Q.  Do you feel that Language poets are "freedom fighters" or criminals?
 
 
 
A.  If they are deforming the literatures of the communities in which they
 
 
 
operate, they are by definition criminals.  As far as being freedom
 
 
 
fighters--that's a moral judgement beyond the purview of objective academic
 
 
 
research.
 
 
 
Q.  What is the future of Language poetry?
 
 
 
A.  The trends point to decreasing frequency but increasing obliqueness of
 
 
 
acts.
 
 
 
Q.  What effect does technology have on Language poetry?
 
 
 
A.  Language poets use technology that is cost-effective, minimizes
 
 
 
comprehension, and helps to effect their goals.
 
 
 
Q.  What are some motives behind Language poetry?
 
 
 
A.  Political (e.g. West Coast Faction), religious (e.g. aleatory
 
 
 
extremism), ethnic (e.g. hate speech), social (e.g. single-issue such as
 
 
 
anti-confessionalism).
 
 
 
Q.  Do you feel that Language poetry is becoming more and more of a threat
 
 
 
to the United States?
 
 
 
A.  In the short term, yes.  American readers, group aesthetics, and
 
 
 
literary communities continue to find themselves in areas of increasing
 
 
 
poetic instability.  This makes them vulnerable to anti-lyrical,
 
 
 
anti-mainstream, or other extremist acts.  Domestically, there seems to be
 
 
 
increasing trends of experimental rhetoric and activity throughout the
 
 
 
United States--some of which manifests itself in radical disjunction.  In
 
 
 
the long term, whether these trends pose an increasing threat to America
 
 
 
depends on a number of variables, including changes in international and
 
 
 
domestic poetic currents, how the public and media react to Language poetry,
 
 
 
how governments deal with Language poetry, and whether the Language poets
 
 
 
themselves discontinue or change strategies and tactics.
 
 
 
[[jbocre: User:Gleki|Gleki]] ([[jbocre: User talk:Gleki|talk]]) 11:55, 5 madjio 2013 (UTC)
 
 
 
K. Silem Mohammad
 
 
 
Visiting Asst. Prof. of British & Anglophone Lit
 
 
 
University of California Santa Cruz
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
what on earth is that, and why was it stuck on a web page with such a god awful name? please move the content to "Language Poetry", and replace this page with a note indicating that i can delete it. --[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]]
 
 
 
* For fuck's sake, "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry" is the name of the movement, and the FAQ shows you what its spirit is, by basing the FAQ on that spirit. There is an incompatibility between poetry and sensicality, and poetry is a necessity. --And.
 
** the entire faq manages to go without calling it "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E", and so for fuck's sake, this wiki can, too. i don't have a single problem with the content, or the content being in the wiki, but the title is just revolting. if the name is so damned important, then edit the faq to reflect the "correct" name. --[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]]
 
 
 
''I've never seen a FAQ so uniquely bad at explaining what it's discussing. What '''is''' language poetry?'' [http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/hartley.html nother explanation]. Typical
 
 
 
writers: Charles Bernstein, Susan Howe, Clark Coolidge, Lyn Hejinian, Ron
 
 
 
Silliman, Hannah Weiner, & Michael Palmer.
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
Alas, this ''is'' the correct way to refer to such writing: the original zine
 
 
 
had the time-consuming title "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E" & this page is rather an in-joke
 
 
 
(tho' not without heuristic value), as it reads like a statement on terrorism
 
 
 
with one minor alteration... However, i stand by this content & think it ''does'' explain some of my practice, both as a writer in ''glibau'' & as ''te pemci''.
 
 
 
---''la maikl.''
 

Latest revision as of 11:59, 26 September 2014

Lojban Central is a term coined while language development was still active (early 1990s), to refer to the leadership of The Logical Language Group, both in its administrative role and in its role as guiding language development. The term was first used by John Cowan[1][2] and was popularized by Nick Nicholas[3].

The term includes, in the first instance, Bob LeChevalier and Nora LeChevalier. One could argue that it includes pc and John Cowan (who coined the term) as well. John tends not to agree (citing his Organization in email headers as Lojban Peripheral for a long time), and used the term to refer to Bob and Nora very early on[4]. Nevertheless, he used [5] it in the sense that included himself. It is perfectly legitimate, of course, for membership in Lojban Central to be fuzzy (as in Fuzzy Logic). And since it is invoked in a fashion similar to the Usenet Cabal of yore, membership in it is probably also fairly nebulous.

The political undertones of the phrase (introducing an us-and-them tone) are clear, and are not necessarily welcomed by the referents of the phrase: the LLG has always insisted that the language is controlled only by the community (once the baseline is achieved), and happily the language community has not been plagued by the kind of dictatorial control exemplified by Schleyer and his Volapük. It did, after all, originate in a schism provoked by just such control.

Many of the contentions people have around Lojban Central originate in the supplicatory model.

Discussion

  • xod:
    Lojban Cabal? We meet on alternating Wednesdays and the meetings are held in English. I have taken "Lojban Central" to mean the LLG membership, but 'Central isn't necessarily the locus of actual language development, and nobody thinks it has any coercive authority, or has necessarily unified opinion on anything. Hence the term lacks the political resonations that might arise with, say, the Central Committee of a Communist Party.
    • nitcion:
      Admittedly, the definition above reflects the author's perceptions as they were formed in the early '90s, when there was certainly a clear sense of at least power of veto and coordination emanating from a Lojban Central. (Well, that was my sense, anyway.) The publication of The Complete Lojban Language, and more recent developments render this perception partially obsolete. There is, however, still a board (with its membership recently surprisingly augmented!), and there are still administrative decisions being taken. So while the resonances aren't as strong as the CCCP, they aren't zero, either. One message, for example, speaks of Lojban Central as an entity with vetting power, distinct from the LLG. The line it takes is by no means universally held in the community (yes, we know who posted it :-) ); but some people in the community are inclined to think this way... (For a possible example, see the currently bottommost entry in baseline.)
  • And:
    To me, Lojban Central has resonances of Moscow Centre, Soviet espionage HQ in the novels of John Le Carre. Hence it has a sense both of something Soviet, operating by diktat, and something secret and closed to outsiders. The term is jocular of course; Lojbab is hardly Karla!
  • Lojban Cabal = Voting member-only mailing list?
    • nitcion:
      You be the judge. Shoe's on the other foot now, given I'm now a member of it! (The mailing list, that is, not necessarily xod's Cabal...)
      • xod:
        The mailing list, of course, is only a front for the outer layer of the Cabal. We want you to think that's who is in charge. The real power lies elsewhere...
        • The wives?
          • The Illuminati? Sure, you like to think they use TLI Loglan, but...
        • Jay:
          hrm. i've love to see shea and anton's illuminatus trilogy translated. that'd be an absolute mindfuck. i'll pay for a completed translation. bids? :)
  • xod:
    .i mi'e xod .i ru'a le fetspe cu natfe vlipa .iki'ubo za'a fy. pu'i fanta vu'enai le zu'o le nakspe cu penmi

References