Close cousin to ontological argument: "Can you imagine a being with the ability to transition out of imagining into reality?"
Is the "no frills, be clear and concise" style advocated by Strunk compatible with:
- The hope for deep recall, made by linking a concept or memory to as many different other memories or concepts as possible? (by this, Žižek should be the easiest philosopher on eartth to remember!)
- Efforts to preserve meaning across the ages (e.g. if we were to write the Quran, knowing that subtleties of meaning are difficult but a number of very clever people will create schools of litereary analysis dedicated to try to pull as much meaning as possible from one's work)
- Conveyance of the level of ease the author has with the particular ideas being expressed
Stepping back a bit, I am unsure of the proper scope of Strunk, but hearing a long discussion on him in a group meeting (networking research group which I'm kinda-sorta associated with) at CMU that I happened to attend got me thinking about this. I'm not sure if one can make a principled distinction between the purported scope of sentence-level writing philosophy and paragraph/paper level, in that the broad writing philosophy might entail sentence-level decisions that are nonstrunkian.