> Oh, and a weapon that is typically used to win > debates, although it more often has the effect of > merely short-circuiting them, is the Appeal To Secret > Knowledge. In the modern age, marxists are past > masters at this, although the technique, itself, is > as old as the mystery religions of ancient Egypt.
Oh, you mean like referring to published books 'n stuff?
Fuller lived a long time and saw some paradigms come and go in the world of moneymaking...
* FINCAP was a version of capitalism that bankrupted in the Great Depression, very oriented around land holdings. J.P. Morgan a star.
* Post-FDR LAWCAP resurrected a lot of the same ideas, but pioneered new ones as well, was a lot about cannibalizing USA assets (e.g. tax funded nuclear know- how), and moving overseas, and/or off shore, making a permanent industry out of the WWII war machine. Or call it President Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" as in the movie 'Why We Fight'.
So far so good? Or does this come across as "secret knowledge" on your end?
* Then came The Grunch (or GRUNCH) which capitalized more than ever before on know-how, in itself immaterial, but critical to present and future profitability.
With each generation, this trend he calls "ephemeral- ization" [Toynbee: etherealization] becomes more pronounced. Humans figure out how to do more with less energy and physical materials, thanks to greater comprehension of the relevant generalized principles.
Fuller himself was on intimate terms with said Grunch of Giants, was no outsider, when it came to practicing this or that brand of capitalism. He held lots of patents, dressed like a banker, put all kinds of awards and academic degrees on his letterhead (a *very* impressive resume).
See: 'Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth' and 'Critical Path' for more on these topics. Both are easy to find in well-stocked bookstores (like our Powell's in Portland). Diplomats around the world have read both (fewer tackled Synergetics, though U Thant did), helps get 'em oriented vis-a-vis our 21st century possibilities.
I'd say there's nothing especially difficult or secretive about any of this jargon and I've read enough other authors to know that Bucky was not alone in coming up with a specialized nomenclature for stuff.
> I think that speaking in tongues is a variant; such > speech, much like marxese and fullerisms, that is > incomprehensible to other people, is an outward sign > that the speaker has tapped into an inner, or higher, > power.
How about just that the speaker and/or writer is exercising their powers of language?
Isn't that something of a birthright?
Don't you do the same?
> Mathematicians are sometimes accused of this (and > and 2,000 yrs ago the accusers would have been > right). A variant on this theme is the modern effort > to categorize mathematics as just another means of > communication. > > Haim > Je me souviens
Do you say it *isn't* a means of communication?
To say "just another" sounds too dismissive though, I agree, plus in the form of programmed logic controls devices running at superhuman speeds (which helps keep our economy goin') -- a different *kind* of communication then.
To me, you seem over eager to side step any substance and simply point out where I'm employing this or that debater's trick. I'll cop to using rhetorical devices, but won't apologize for doing so. Why should I? I'm simply exercising my right of free speech and encourage others to do the same.