Re: "schizophrenic" reference

[Dusko Pavlovic <Dusko.Pavlovic@comlab.ox.ac.uk>]

peter selinger tells me that i viciously attacked tom leinster. i would
like to apologize for that appearance. i do not know tom, and had no
intention to address his post more than any of the previous 200 posts
about terminology. tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry,
tom.

and i guess maybe i should say sorry to all that i blew up.

but i still think that it is a pity, and curious, that the best minds of
category theory don't have better things to do but to generate volumes of
email about words.

before i disappear, let me add two things.

1) the meanings of words evolve away from their origins, just like bat's
wings and seal's flippers evolved away from their ancestors' legs. the
original meaning of the word "word" was "promise". but people are
ignorant, and the meaning changed. if people start using the word
"schizophrenic" to describe a type of shoes, or a sexual orientation ---
that will in due time become the meaning of that word. that is how
languages work, if you don't mind.

2) proscribing some words for reasons of political correctness is often
patronizing. let us protect the weak by using the name of their weakness
only very very carefully, and with a serious face. because we are
stronger, so we should protect them. (and also use the opportunity to tell
everyone else what to do.)

once upon a time, black people used to be called the n word by some white
people. and what did black people do? yes, they wrote many petitions to
guardian pleading for good style and political correctness. but since that
somehow didn't work, they took the offending word and made it into their
own authentication token. they made music from it. and the white people
from whom the n word originated were left wordless.

please lets make category theory and let language live its life.

-- dusko


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]