“Contextectomy”

Great word of the day pointed out to us by James McGrath. Thanks James!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on ““Contextectomy”

  1. Gorgeous word indeed! And such a useful practice that politicians the world over have been using since Roman times. And were perfected by Nazi Germany and taken to dizzy heights of effectiveness recently to convince “people” that we need all sort of things we really don’t need, like ………………………………….. (enter superfluous concept/policy/doctrine/etc of choice. Ai, ai, ai…
    PS. All well with you?

  2. dodo dahling, where have you been? Reg and I were just talking about you!! Yes, I love words like this. Cram as many meanings into syllables as one can in a nice precise word. 🙂

  3. You don’t wanna know where I’ve been. You’d die of tedium… (basically: been rather unwell+quite busy+very productive graphics-wise; a fatal combination, except for the graphics bit!).
    Ah, funky words. “They” make them up as the go along, just to confuse the popilace and the issue. Oivay…

  4. And here’s mystery setting us a fine example, encouraging us to raise our heads above the parapet. Thank you. Blog posts I should have written, and emails (Dodo) I should have written. Which brings me to these “ectomys”. There seems to be a fashion for conveniently excising the human conscience if any other consideration is present. Market economics is, apparently, the ultimate arbitor of what’s possible. It’s always used as a sure trump card to stop any discussion dead in its tracks. Whereas, in my opinion, what ought to be done should be given at least equal weight to what’s affordable and/or profitable (E.G. the health care question).

    What bankers get by way of bonuses, and what some professional sportspeople get paid is apparently OK, because everyone does it, it’s the “market rate” and there’s nothing to be done. Well, pragmatism is all very well, but before the word “right” as an adjective becomes prohibited, when someone offers me a consciencectomy, don’t let me sign the consent form.

  5. Reg,
    Well, Mr. McGrath’s point is surely about religion and taking the entire bible out of context as if it fell out of god’s hands whole-hog, forgive the colloquial phrase. However I suppose you can say that about economics as well. Rather than view it as a moldable machine that can be changed with a tinker here or a thought there, what is missed is the weight of years of practice behind it. The same goes for evangelicals who view the bible as a brand new document that has been “misinterpreted” all these years.

    Of course, there is the opposite tendency to discount the present as having anything to say to the past or as in any way authoritative. I like the Quaker view that the bible is merely a record of how God may or may not have spoken to an ancient people down through the centuries. Similarly governments are people created and people led. There is no standard by which we much govern ourselves nor is there anything to say it can’t be changed by the will of the people.

    And this rambling comment probably makes no sense. ah well. I could use a nap. (smile)

Comments are closed.