Ineffable: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|glossary|}}Undescribable, usually on account of wondrousness. It doesn’t, literally, mean “incomprehensible” — but it sort of does, because not being able to artic..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|glossary|}} | {{a|glossary|{{image|Quo Vadis|jpg|}}}}{{dpn|/ɪnˈɛfəbᵊl/|n}}Indescribable, usually on account of sheer wondrousness or cosmic scale. It doesn’t, literally, mean “incomprehensible” — but it sort of does, because not being able to articulate something is little different to being unable to understand it. I suppose one can’t describe the soaring beauty of Allegri’s ''Miserere'', Beethoven’s ''Pathetique'' or Status Quo’s ''Piledriver'' — but is that because it is beyond comprehension of mortal mind? | ||
Ineffability — the ability to do worthwhile things that no other mortal hand or eye can frame or, at any rate, weather the colossal [[tedium]] needed to frame them — is one of the twin pillars of a private practice lawyer’s ongoing profitability. She must deliver, over a prudent period of [[Time and attendance|time]], the kind of value that presents to the [[muggle]] world, incontrovertibly ''as'' value, whilst it not being at all clear in what exact ''way'' it is valuable. It needs just to ''be'' valuable, ineffably, in a way that cannot be [[Reductionism|reduced]] to its parts. For that which cannot be [[Reductionism|reduced]] cannot be [[Outsourcing|outsourced]], [[automated]] or programmatised. | |||
It is also resistant to [[financialisation]], so in the process of financialising, something is necessarily ''lost''. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Epistemology] | *[[Effable]] | ||
*[[Epistemology]] | |||
*[[Large learning model]] | |||
*[[Financialisation]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:44, 22 May 2024
|
Ineffable
/ɪnˈɛfəbᵊl/ (n.)
Indescribable, usually on account of sheer wondrousness or cosmic scale. It doesn’t, literally, mean “incomprehensible” — but it sort of does, because not being able to articulate something is little different to being unable to understand it. I suppose one can’t describe the soaring beauty of Allegri’s Miserere, Beethoven’s Pathetique or Status Quo’s Piledriver — but is that because it is beyond comprehension of mortal mind?
Ineffability — the ability to do worthwhile things that no other mortal hand or eye can frame or, at any rate, weather the colossal tedium needed to frame them — is one of the twin pillars of a private practice lawyer’s ongoing profitability. She must deliver, over a prudent period of time, the kind of value that presents to the muggle world, incontrovertibly as value, whilst it not being at all clear in what exact way it is valuable. It needs just to be valuable, ineffably, in a way that cannot be reduced to its parts. For that which cannot be reduced cannot be outsourced, automated or programmatised.
It is also resistant to financialisation, so in the process of financialising, something is necessarily lost.