这一定会是一场精彩的演出。换句话说，我很想听到这种声音。我写了几篇文章，内容涉及流行文化和语言变化的方方面面。我14岁的孙子用草书写一个句子有困难，因为不再需要了;人们说不出十个单词就会用到“喜欢”这个词;愚蠢的首字母缩略词取代了普通语言，因为它们写起来更快。权力下放,事实上……或者，超级简单可能会成为新的知识分子传奇?Hmmmmm……

一个句子应该定义完整性，这是一个我希望听简讲的笑话。

I look forward to this show as I do to a blog that would set its stage.

Wherever this show goes, there will be much to think about. Children will not be the subject or the originators I would posit. Humanity, and human agency, is the issue not democracy I would posit.

Who are these philosophers unnamed one? I'm interested and somewhat concerned.

Carry on.

The death of the sentence is a symptom of bigger problems, seems to me. I dashed this off this morning. Maybe you will get the drift---I don't know:

Process; Thought and Depersonalization in the Late Post-Modern Era

I have been thinking about what follows for some time. Probably since people began using the word 'process', in lieu of terms such as thought and thinking. So, this is an objection, aimed at incurably hip, post-moderns everywhere. Thought is a human capacity at the moment. AI proponents are pondering this, wondering if that capacity might be imputed into their subject matter. Processing, however, is a machine function, built in to machinery of all sorts. It is what machines are uniquely DESIGNED to do. Human beings analyze, evaluate and make value judgments about other people, places and things. This is what they are uniquely EQUIPPED to do.
Anyone reading this might think me a crotchety grump-er, or better, ignorant and out-of-touch with the real world. To which I would counter with something like: post-modernism and pop culture in the 'real' world are depersonalizing human beings. I am not asking anyone to think harder We should, I think, think better. It would be foolish of me to try to tell you how to do this. Why? Because thinking is an intensely personal matter. Each of us has his or her own ways of going about it. Oh, and leave processing to the experts. They are pretty good at it, being machines and all...
(Sorry about the scare quotes. But hey, I only used them once.)

It seems to me that what's being missed is that communication is really about what's received, whereas today there's entirely too much emphasis on sending. Sentence structure facilitates understanding by the recipient, whereas the current abbreviated short form may only be intelligible to the initiated.

我一直在想，随着对话和社会互动的日益匮乏，这一切都将走向何方?如果权力下放是下一个大事件，那么我们似乎已经在进化的尺度上走了一圈(不管这意味着什么)。然而，我们仍然在谈论人工智能、无人驾驶汽车，甚至在火星上插上美国国旗等复杂的话题。(见鬼，我们的总统如此热衷于成为有史以来最好的，我想知道他是否知道我们之前对这颗红色星球的探险?当然,他必须吗?)我在读一本哲学论文集，1989年的——也不是很久以前。有一篇文章是关于修辞学及其在当今世界的意义的，很大程度上是基于语言的进步。其中一个关键的观点是(转述):修辞无论如何都很重要。有人进一步发问:如果我们能走到今天，部分是因为我们称之为语言的能力，那么我们想象没有语言的进一步进步会是什么样子呢?如果修辞很重要，无论如何，其他的方式是什么? Or, put differently, what would speechless rhetoric consist of? Telepathy?

I'm in agreement with participant Neuman's 1/9/20-post: Use of contemporary novel consumer-based communications systems is destroying the ability to talk because that's what it's designed for. If you can't talk, what's left is exchange in signals, functioning as approval or rejection so that no content is transmitted, conditioning the user for greater accommodation to manipulation of consumer behaviors. Something similar happens in the light-bulb market. If you sell people more light than they need, they'll lose the ability to see well, making the sale of brighter lights more profitable. Wide dissatisfaction with over-lit areas and increased brightness of automobile headlights seems not to have affected the problem. And that's how the agreement with participant Neuman's thesis is here interpreted: Destroying the ability to talk turns out to be a market design for the sale of communications. The less able people are to engage freely in discussion, the more willing will they be to buy their ability to communicate.