P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>]

Larry Berlin ranted:
> Your evocation experience is solely derived from acquaintance with the
> misuse of the term, and NO other property of the word itself or it's
> true meaning. Thus saying you think it's evocative of, is merely a
> trained response, not an educated one nor a knowledgeable one.

and etc., etc., and, of course, et cetera.

Oh, good grief Larry! You are getting entirely too worked up over this.
You seem to be so sure of your brilliance and righteousness that the
only reasons you can imagine for anyone disagreeing with you is that
that person is at least ignorant, stupid, brainwashed or treasonous.
Relax! You're going to hurt yourself! Have you ever considered that
knowledgable persons of good will can honestly disagree? Especially
about matters of personal taste?

Now, I know that you believe you have delivered an argument of
impeccable logic and irrefutable evidence. Believe me, I GET YOUR POINT.
But to me, your point is trivial and silly. It IS a matter of personal
taste. What is my evidence? Well, I'm not about to make an exhaustive
search of the literature over a peripheral issue, but I can't recall
anybody else so upset over a completely ordinary, logical and even
poetic use of the language. I see no reason to rewrite the dictionary
merely because you have a bee in your bonnet. Are we all idiots? Or are
you just another fanatic with a pet peeve? Far be it from me to judge,
especially since your devasting indictment of me as a
counter-revolutionary has destroyed whatever credibility I have on this
list!

;-)

Since your emotional fury seems to have temporarily impaired both your
compassion and your sense of humor, let me state my points:

1. It is a fundamental principle of human democracy that everyone has an
absolute right to believe and advocate any dang fool thing they please.
You are welcome to your opinion, you are welcome to try to change the
nomenclature. As an editor, you have some influence.

2. You will fail in this moral crusade because: (a)most of us have no
problem with this terminology (b)many of us actually like it (c) the
term is well established, (d)there is NO evidence it has induced
confusion, misunderstanding or any negative consequences at all, (e) you
are a lone voice howling in the wind.

3. Just because another human does not think like you, it does not mean
that person cannot think at all. Just because another human does not
feel like you, it does not mean that person has no sense of morality and
decency. Just because another human does not worship your omniscience
and holiness, does not mean that person is a mere Pavlovian automaton.
Just because another human has an occassional disagreement with you on a
secondary issue, does not mean that human is a low-down,
rabbit-wrangling, stallion-stealing, bushwacking, back-stabbing
troglodyte. I don't know how such words are treated in your neck of the
woods, but out here a man better grab his cards and deal a hand of
pinocle.

4. I do not have a problem with adapting an image from ancient,
pre-scientific mythology to describe a modern concept. Analogy is never
perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be analogy. I am not bothered by the
dialectical nature of the term; I'm a rehabilitated ex-neo-Marxist and
an anarcho-dadaist. I see contradiction everywhere in human life;
perhaps you are just burdened by linear logic and a rigid ideology. Out
of respect for the contributions of the past, and to facilitate
communication in the present, I bow to priority in nomenclature, unless
there are really compelling reasons to the contrary. You haven't made
such a case.

5. The Cyclops was the miraculous offspring of the Gods. To pontificate
the Good Old Boy was incapable of stereopsis is (a) an insult to the
devine, (b) unsupportable. Until you can offer up an autopsy to prove me
wrong, I speculate: the Cyclops eye was unlike the human eye; rather it
was a siamese twin of an eye with two retinas, two optic paths that
shared one pupil and iris. We have seen discussions of single-lens
stereoscopy on this list before; since the Cyclops was a giant, and had
one GIANT (not normally proportioned) eye, he surely had enough parallax
across his cornea to rival the stereo perception of his puny human
rivals. Big Deal. Irrelevant anyway.

If I took you and this subject seriously, my feelings might be hurt, but
I've seen too many 3D messiahs; I am only amused.

Better luck next time, comrade.

Tony