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

[Joan Opyr]

My dear Brother Carl,

I never feel like a pair of brown shoes.  I'm a pair of Spectators, baby!  But "spectator" brings up Michel Foucault, and God (or whomever) knows we don't want to do that.

Joan/Auntie E.

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Westberg
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:05 PM
To: mghuskey at msn.com; Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines

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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050110/c4edd578/attachment.htm