Although somewhat longwinded, I love the root of Locke's argument in this reading: Language is ambiguous. We should language with the knowledge that it is a system based on empty connections. Locke argues that through societal consensus, words gain and retain meaning, that everything we can name is a product of human decision. If "complex ideas are formed by the connections among simple ideas," and simple ideas are only the products of overlapping consensus, what then is our system on communication based upon? (Locke, 815).
Let's take Locke's issue, and apply it to modern rhetoric/mediums. Text messages are fraught with double-meaning, online research comes from a myriad of different sources, even this blog is created with a variety of input. I feel that in a technology-based society, the issues Locke outlined are only compounded. As our global connection grows, so does the margin of possible error. I feel digital communication/writing is more prone to ambiguity than printed words, as Locke puts it"language is inextricably and frequently misused...and imprecise means of conveying knowledge" (Locke, 815). Think about the issues Locke raises, then apply them to a modern perspective..am I alone in my assumptions? Is there more or less clarity in writing that transcends boundary and place, (digital text)?