same on issuu:
idiosyncratic: of or relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual.
An idiosyncrasy is an unusual feature of a person (though there are also other uses, see below). It also means odd habit. The term is often used to expresseccentricity or peculiarity. A synonym may be “quirk”.
The term “idiosyncrasy” originates from Greek ἰδιοσυγκρασία idiosynkrasía, “a peculiar temperament, habit of body” (from ἴδιος idios, “one’s own”, σύν syn, “with” and κρᾶσις krasis, “mixture”).
– – –
Jargon is a type of language that is used in a particular context and may not be well understood outside of it. The context is usually a particular occupation (that is, a certain trade, profession, or academic field), but any ingroup can have jargon. The main trait that distinguishes jargon from the rest of a language is special vocabulary—including some words specific to it and, often, narrower senses of words that outgroups would tend to take in a broader sense. Jargon is thus “the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group”. Most jargon is technical terminology, involving terms of art or industry terms, with particular meaning within a specific industry. A main driving force in the creation of technical jargon is precision and efficiency of communication when a discussion must easily range from general themes to specific, finely differentiated details without circumlocution. A side effect of this is a higher threshold for comprehensibility, which is usually accepted as a trade-off but is sometimes even used as a means of social exclusion (reinforcing ingroup-outgroup barriers).
The philosopher Étienne Bonnot de Condillac observed in 1782 that “every science requires a special language because every science has its own ideas”. As a rationalist member of the Enlightenment, he continued: “It seems that one ought to begin by composing this language, but people begin by speaking and writing, and the language remains to be composed.”[
– – – – —
rules of language:
Language is typically said to be governed by a group of unspoken rules: phonological, semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, prosodic, and idiosyncratic. These rules shape the way language is written, spoken, and interpreted.People create communication, not languages, phrases, or letters.
The idiosyncratic rules of communication tell what type of words and language are to be used when speaking with people. Different word choice is adjusted due to the relationships between the communicators, the context of the conversation, the content of the conversation, and the cultural differences between the communicators. Jargon is a specialized language between certain people or professionals, and it is one example of how different words and language are used between people. Doctors or lawyers use jargon relating to their professions when communicating with other professionals, but adjust their word choices when speaking with patients or clients so they do not confuse or create misunderstandings.
adding this page after a recent conversation (with comments much like many in the past) in regard to this (be you) site. ie: i tried to go to the site.. i don’t get it.. i wish it wasn’t filled with so much idiosyncratic jargon…
[just a reminder.. this is all an experiment, life is an experiment, so i could be completely wrong here.. just my thinking.. right now]
what if idiosyncratic jargon ness – is a means to making many of our man-made rules/technologies/ideologies irrelevant. ie: security, privacy, property, encryption, permission, …
coming from the assumption that the thing the world needs most is for each person to be themselves. that we don’t need people to be clones of other people. that the dance depends on us each being a vital (idiosyncratic) part of the dance.
ie: each person is the only person that has the potential for being the expert at being them. and if we need that.. for people to be themselves…you start to wonder about distractions to that. lost energy toward that.
how much time in our day do we spend..
..trying to get people to listen-to/follow/like us (our rules) and/or trying to listen-to/follow/like other people (their rules). it’s like a relational bureaucracy of sorts. the thing getting in the way of us being us.
what is legible.. who decides..
what if we all spent more time ..listening-to/following/embracing our own idiosyncracies/quirks/whimsies. and leaving a trail of that (commonplace book ness). all without having to defend/translate/prove/credential every thought/dream/action.
besides all the energy/time that would save/redirect.. perhaps it would make irrelevant.. privacy, security, et al.. by giving everyone something else to do (rather than being inspectors of inspectors, etc..). ie: i’m not spending all my time trying to find that shiny answer in your book or trying to get you interested in my book. i live with intent. being intentionally me. which i believe is way different than what we’re used to doing.. as the day.
perhaps then.. noise is no longer noise. perhaps if we’re ok/in-focus/authentic.. perhaps that sort of focus/being cuts through noise… cuts through insecurities.. toward a different song. so that when we do connect.. it’s either with intention.. and/or with intention-filled individuals.
like wikipedia, most often people go there with intention, a question/interest/curiosity.
what if this commonplace/never-ending book, this ongoing extension of your brain, is not meant to be stand alone. not definable/closure-able. what if its underlying purpose.. is that by (idiosyncratic) design.. it begs connection. it helps us realize:
encouraging you/me to think for ourselves before/during/after we access each other. living with intention ness… rather than follow-the-shiny ness.
[balance in all of this.. currently speaking from the over/under balance of too many people believing it’s not legal to think for themselves.]
it’s freeing to be ok with (or delusional about) the idea.. that this page/site/day/me isn’t finished. doesn’t have to (ever) be finished. there’s no due date for clarity. no due date for revisions. perhaps clarity/revision comes in the moment of being.. that you are in with another person(s). and we just need to work on freeing up more time/people for that. ie: gatherings that matter.
[thinking beyond (and alongside) books, written word, to unlimited words and/or no words. to no prep. perhaps.. the words, the prep, is us just being/becoming. the words are just part of a trail rather than another’s road map. not trying to deny, defend, ignore.. just trying to understand.. the prize ness…]
– – –
back to my writing from when i first heard the term:
thinking about its ability to let us speak our own languages.. (idiosyncratic jargon) – creating equitable access to communication. and then too – to serve as a degree of privacy we (may or may not) want. like a crypto scrambler ish. like completely/publicly transparent – but invisible to the naked eye. like – the code breaker is – you have to care enough about that particular person and/or topic.. to have either 1) learned that particular language 2) learn it really fast 3) spend more time with the person or 4) embrace the dis\order .. but it goes both ways – not a distraction (begging for attention) for those not inclined – as well as – aid in translation for those really wanting to connect
just rambling going on in my head… that i don’t want to lose (which i believe is another great use of the app/tech – like how Clive credits Thad).. like it’s freed him up to listen better.. pay attention to now ness.
so in a way.. idiosyncratic jargon (not intentionally.. but rather organically).. is one way.. perhaps.. that a person who is seeking/listening to their own heart/map daily… (in order to bring the best of them to the world et al).. creates their own chamber.. not as in silo.. but as a way to be private in public.. and public in private..
rather than babel izing some elitist bespeak, spending our time trying to fit/get in, we create us/eudaimoniative surplus.
Nemetics is just a code. It is a meta language to allow people in different silos to communicate about complexity science.
tower of babel ness
social media platforms.. more like broadcast..messaging apps more like convos we’re used toon keeping score in likes and rt’s…a service like snapchat… where no likes and not recorded.. is more familiar, more like convos we’re used to f to f.. almost always ephemeral, ..digital connection is part of this reality.. this one realityon forgetting that most of our communication is banality…
most interesting.. the rise of visual communication.. a new literacy.. i can express what i want with an image… visual literacy..
9) #recalibration : The business case for mindset as competitive advantage https://t.co/ji9AVxvZpQ v @ribbonfarm HT @petervan deep thinking
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/JenniferSertl/status/693759054250950656
The plot device that unfolds is a common trope in sci-fi: the problem (or in this case, crime) can only be solved by a particular personality, a unique configuration of beliefs, memories, perspectives, and quirks that can be virtualized, but never simulated.
Both these stories hint at an idea found in both sci-fi novels and current artificial intelligence debates: that subtle shades of subjective consciousness are the only irreducible, indivisible things in the universe — the quarks out of which souls and narratives are built. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the implications of this idea can shed light on a much more immediate problem: productivity, from the day-to-day “checking of boxes” kind all the way to the “living a generative life” variety.
Productivity as we know it is based on delayed gratification, which described a world that was predictable and structured. It was clear what you had to do and in what order — it was just a matter of scheduling and pain tolerance. But delayed gratification is obsolete in a world dominated by VUCA, because the pain you’re pulling into the present might not even be necessary, and the gratification you’re pushing into the future might never materialize. It is not at all clear what must be done and in what order; in fact, it becomes ever more clear that most of the tasks we execute don’t make much of a difference, while a tiny percentage randomly and dramatically influence the course of our work and our lives. It makes sense to invest more and more resources in making that distinction, because the absolute fastest way to complete a task or reach an objective is to realize you don’t have to.
almost didn’t read this article because of tweet calling for competitive advantage…
perhaps we call out competitions/advantages as @fortelabs calls out delayed gratification ie: as irrelevant if living antifragile (more notes from this here)
There is one bright side to all this hard work: the only way to *crystallize a state of mind is to use affective triggers to decide what to take notes on and keep. Instead of making a mini-outline of each book and article and podcast you consume, trying to preserve the logical structure of the argument, just wait in low-power mode for reactions like surprise, delight, intrigue, and outrage. This System 1 processing is much faster, less energy intensive, and more intuitive than the more analytical System 2. To take this approach means **your notes will not be neat and ordered, like a Dewey Decimal system for the mind. They will be dominated by the contrarian, by paradoxes, by the inexplicable. Which is exactly the point. Contrarianism is the fastest method for discovering the paradox at the heart of every inexplicable phenomenon.
*crystallize – like this paragraph – esp toward antifragile/uncertain/chaordic documentation.. but the word crystalize sounds death like..
**notes will not be neat .. but contrarian/paradoxical/inexplicable – back to idiosyncratic jargon ness
the more you are you.. the more secure you are.. the more privacy you have. be\cause – in order for someone to get to you, ie: through all your idiosyncratic jargon (that has saved you tons of time not jumping through hoops to practice eudaimonia), they have to get to know you/your stories enough. and that enough ness gets us to i know you ness.. to .. assuming good. (ie: entropy as witness protection program)
so.. 1\ you have this protective (idiosyncratic jargon et al) barrier ish.. and 2\ passing through that barrier from the outside in.. creates/begs empathy/curiosity in people.
imagining a world where we oscillate between idiosyncratic jargon (individual and tribe ish) and a sort of toki pona ness..
tower of babel ness
indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
thinking.. occurring naturally in each soul..
Jacqueline Novogratz (@jnovogratz) tweeted at 5:36 AM – 17 Oct 2016 :
We need a new vocabulary to stand for Peace… everywhere. Here Mohammed Hanif writes about India/Pakistan https://t.co/pprfXsHF4P. (http://twitter.com/jnovogratz/status/787980484781477888?s=17)
In the current noise hardly any one notices
new vocab: idiosyncratic jargon
tower of babel ness
AtlasLanguageSchool (@Atlas_Dublin) tweeted at 4:55 AM – 30 Dec 2016 :
“A different language is a different vision of life.” – Federico Fellini (http://twitter.com/Atlas_Dublin/status/814802039347802112?s=17)
7 bn plus
Ewan McIntosh (@ewanmcintosh) tweeted at 1:35 AM on Fri, Mar 10, 2017:
Is jargon actually a loud way to create organisational silence @M_Heffernan? Makes me think of @ottoscharmer1’s levels of listening #sgis17
Richard Feynman asked why/how magnets repel
how does a person answer why something happens..
when you explain a why.. you have to be in some framework that you allowed something to be true.. otherwise.. you’re perpetually asking why..
2 min – you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications.. if try to follow anything up.. you go deeper/deeper in various directions..
3 min – ie: you ok with.. because you slip on ice.. or go deeper as to why.. is ice slippery.. to why does water expand when it freezes and other substances don’t expand.. et al..
i’m not answering your question but i’m telling you how difficult a why question is.. you have to know what it is that you’re permitted to understand and allowed to be understood and known.. and what it is you’re not.. the more i ask why.. it gets interesting.. that’s my idea that the deeper it is the more interesting it is
4 min – when you ask why do magnets repel.. there are many diff levels.. it depends on whether you’re a student or an ordinary person that doesn’t know anything about it.. if you’re somebody that doesn’t know anything at all.. all i can say is that there’s a magnetic force that makes it repel .. and that you’re feeling that force
5 min – it turns out the magnetic and electric force with which i wish to explain these things.. is what ultimately is the deeper thing.. that we have to.. that we can start with to explain many other things that looked like they were.. everybody would just accept them.. you know you can’t put your hand thru the chair.. that’s taken for granted.. but when you can’t put hand thru chair.. you look more closely.. why.. that involves the same repulsive forces that appear in magnets.. the situation you then have to explain is why in magnets.. goes over a bigger distance than an ordinary (chair) … it’s a force that is present all the time.. very common.. a basic force.. almost.. i mean i could go a little further back.. more technical..
6 min – but in the early level i am just gonna have to tell you.. that’s going to be one of the things you’ll just have to take as an element in the world.. magnetic repulsion or electrical/magnetic attraction..
i can’t explain that attraction in anything else that’s familiar to you..
ie: if i would say magnets attracting as if by rubber bands.. i would be cheating you.. because they’re not connected by rubber bands.. and i’d soon be in trouble.. you’d soon ask me about the nature of the bands.. and secondly .. if you were curious enough you’d ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again and i would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces.. which are the very things i’m trying to use the rubber bands to explain.. so i have cheated very badly you see..
so i’m not going to be able to give you an answer.. to why magnets attract each other.. except to tell you they do..
and to tell you that’s one of the elements in the world and diff kinds of forces in the world.. electrical/magnetic/gravitational forces.. and others.. and those are some of the parts..
7 min – if you were a student i could go further.. that magnetic forces are related to electrical forces very intimately.. that relations between the gravitational forces and electrical forces remains unknown.. and so on..
but i really can’t do a good job.. any job.. of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else that you’re more familiar with.. because i don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with
thinking: idio jargon ness keeps us closer to truth further from cheating.
Regina Dugan on facebook’s non-invasive brain-computer interface that will let you type at 100 wpm — by decoding neural activity devoted to speech.
World Economic Forum (@wef) tweeted at 5:52 AM – 15 May 2017 :
The language of dolphins could be translated by 2021 https://t.co/GlCRUWd4IB #technology https://t.co/WbOctn6o05 (http://twitter.com/wef/status/864085960354615296?s=17)