<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>My dear Brother Carl,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joan/Auntie E.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Carl Westberg</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 10, 2005 12:05 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> mghuskey@msn.com; Vision2020@moscow.com</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>In following, or trying to follow this sin tax thing, does anyone else feel <BR>like the whole world is a tuxedo, and you're a pair of brown shoes? Or is <BR>it just me? <BR> <BR> <BR> Carl Westberg <BR>Jr.<BR><BR><BR>>From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey@msn.com><BR>>To: Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines<BR>>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:35:21 -0800<BR>><BR>>In pursuance of Moffett's First Axiom, I'll wade in here (but I promise to <BR>>keep it reasonably brief!).<BR>><BR>>Wayne writes:<BR>><BR>>"When searching for "the truth" it may be useful to understand that some <BR>>statements are neither true nor false. For example:<BR>><BR>>" 'The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy.' "<BR>><BR>>"Just because words can be strung together in an apparently syntactically <BR>>correct sentence doesn't mean the sentence has a comprehensible, literal, <BR>>testable meaning."<BR>><BR>>This example demonstrates an interesting property of language: it can be <BR>>used to construct syntactically correct nonsense statements--thus allowing <BR>>us to derive rules of syntax for individual languages, and even, <BR>>potentially, basic principles about language itself.<BR>><BR>>Wayne goes on to say,<BR>><BR>>"In your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind of <BR>>assertions. Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are rife with such <BR>>statements. These assertions are generally recognizable by the practical <BR>>impossibility of being neither unequivocally confirmable nor falsifiable or <BR>>for the establishment of any significant probability of thier truth. The <BR>>latter two cases is often especially the case."<BR>><BR>>But here I believe you're drawing a false conclusion, Wayne. There is a <BR>>categorical difference between syntactically flawless nonsense sentences, <BR>>which by their nature are not intended to contain meaning for speakers, and <BR>>sentences which do not contain literal or testable meanings, but which have <BR>>some contingent and deferred meaning for speakers. Your implication, of <BR>>course, is that such statements as "In the beginning was the Word" are <BR>>simply nonsense, on a par with your "square root of blue," while other <BR>>statements are verifiably true--say, "You just can't prove the existence of <BR>>God."<BR>><BR>>As a student of post-modern French linguistics and theory, I have to smile <BR>>at the notion that any language at all is literal or testable. There is a <BR>>certain naivete in the belief that some words are more literal than others. <BR>> The free play of the signifier means that all meaning is contingent, <BR>>endlessly dependent on a chain of connotations without any ultimate <BR>>referents outside the system of language. What seems quite demonstrably a <BR>>fact contained in a literally true sentence to you is itself as subject to <BR>>slippage, incoherence, and misprision as any prophetic utterance by <BR>>Habbakuk or Nahum.<BR>><BR>>Secondarily, it seems to me quite dangerous to assert that language must be <BR>>subject to tests of literality in order to be comprehensible. Since there <BR>>is no meaningful connection between a signifier and a signified, what can <BR>>literality mean? Inherent in the notion of literal, testable, language is <BR>>the premise that some kinds of experience are more "real" than others, and <BR>>that you or I can determine the reality of another person's experience by <BR>>comparing it to our own. I find both of these ideas nearly impossible to <BR>>defend, owing to the circularity of the proof, "I experienced it, therefore <BR>>it is real."<BR>><BR>>Hurrah for Derrida!<BR>><BR>>Melynda Huskey<BR>><BR>><BR>>_____________________________________________________<BR>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the <BR>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR><BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR> http://www.fsr.net <BR> mailto:Vision2020@moscowcom<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>