[Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines

[Carl Westberg]

In following, or trying to follow this sin tax thing, does anyone else feel 
like the whole world is a tuxedo, and you're a pair of brown shoes?  Or is 
it just me?                                                                  
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                             Carl Westberg 
Jr.


>From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey at msn.com>
>To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:35:21 -0800
>
>In pursuance of Moffett's First Axiom, I'll wade in here (but I promise to 
>keep it reasonably brief!).
>
>Wayne writes:
>
>"When searching for "the truth" it may be useful to understand that some 
>statements are neither true nor false.  For example:
>
>" 'The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy.' "
>
>"Just because words can be strung together in an apparently syntactically 
>correct sentence doesn't mean the sentence has a comprehensible, literal, 
>testable meaning."
>
>This example demonstrates an interesting property of language:  it can be 
>used to construct syntactically correct nonsense statements--thus allowing 
>us to derive rules of syntax for individual languages, and even, 
>potentially, basic principles about language itself.
>
>Wayne goes on to say,
>
>"In your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind of 
>assertions.  Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are rife with such 
>statements.  These assertions are generally recognizable by the practical 
>impossibility of being neither unequivocally confirmable nor falsifiable or 
>for the establishment of any significant probability of thier truth.  The 
>latter two cases is often especially the case."
>
>But here I believe you're drawing a false conclusion, Wayne.  There is a 
>categorical difference between syntactically flawless nonsense sentences, 
>which by their nature are not intended to contain meaning for speakers, and 
>sentences which do not contain literal or testable meanings, but which have 
>some contingent and deferred meaning for speakers.  Your implication, of 
>course, is that such statements as "In the beginning was the Word" are 
>simply nonsense, on a par with your "square root of blue," while other 
>statements are verifiably true--say, "You just can't prove the existence of 
>God."
>
>As a student of post-modern French linguistics and theory, I have to smile 
>at the notion that any language at all is literal or testable.  There is a 
>certain naivete in the belief that some words are more literal than others. 
>  The free play of the signifier means that all meaning is contingent, 
>endlessly dependent on a chain of connotations without any ultimate 
>referents outside the system of language.  What seems quite demonstrably a 
>fact contained in a literally true sentence to you is itself as subject to 
>slippage, incoherence, and misprision as any prophetic utterance by 
>Habbakuk or Nahum.
>
>Secondarily, it seems to me quite dangerous to assert that language must be 
>subject to tests of literality in order to be comprehensible.  Since there 
>is no meaningful connection between a signifier and a signified, what can 
>literality mean?  Inherent in the notion of literal, testable, language is 
>the premise that some kinds of experience are more "real" than others, and 
>that you or I can determine the reality of another person's experience by 
>comparing it to our own.  I find both of these ideas nearly impossible to 
>defend, owing to the circularity of the proof, "I experienced it, therefore 
>it is real."
>
>Hurrah for Derrida!
>
>Melynda Huskey
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net   
>                              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯