There's hardly a thing I write that, in the initial draft, doesn't make me wince when I read it later. Sometimes this is because I can see an outright error, and sometimes because I see how I could have made it "better". In non-fiction, the most frequent "bettering" is making it clearer.
I don't agree with Michael that I was pulling a bait-and-switch below, but I could have made the following line clearer: "I believe that any two given notions are ALWAYS different to some degree, and often VERY different." I truly did have in mind both two notions of "the same thing" (like Chicago), and two notions of different things: Gibraltar and diabetes. What I didn't have explicitly clear in my own mind was what would prompt me to call some notions VERY different. It's still not "perfectly" clear, in part because it's a moving target. The criterion for my using 'very' is comparable to that for my using 'serviceable'. A notion can be unclear (all notions are unclear to some degree), but still be serviceable. Which leads to this small but unexpected insight: It's wrong ever to say outright that a word/term is "unclear" or unserviceable. Because it depends on to whom you're uttering it. If I say to my friend George, "The Sox are playing tonight," the word 'Sox' is serviceably clear in that the notion it occasions in George's mind will be sufficiently close to the notion in my mind. "Sufficiently" how? In fact I'm a bit hoist by my own IIMT petard, here. Once I've argued that all notion is indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex, and transitory, it's hard for me to get away with saying, "Well, George will understand I mean the Boston Red Sox are on tv, and does he want to come over for dinner and watch the game." Oh, Cheerskep? George will "understand"? "Well, yeah, he will. I mean sort of. Serviceably. I mean, to a degree that will prompt him to responses that satisfy me his notions are sufficiently like mine." "Oh? 'Sufficiently'?" "Aw, you know what I mean. You have a serviceable idea of what I have in mind." The fact that language works only more or less, to a degree, should prevent any alert person from thinking he can correctly be categoric when talking about judgmental words. In a message dated 6/27/09 5:28:37 PM, [email protected] writes: > On Jun 27, 2009, at 5:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > I don't. Consider the state of North Dakota. Now consider the > > opening scene of HAMLET. Now consider the taste of rum raisin ice > > cream. > > > > How would you "calibrate" the very great differences between the > > three notions"? > > I am sending electronic "scriptions" to your location. I hope they > form the notion "bait and switch" in your head. From your first set of > electronic scriptions (at 2:19), I saw these shapes on my screen: > > "I believe that any two given notions are ALWAYS different to some > degree, and often VERY different. If you, a savant about the city, > hear the word 'Chicago', a stream of indeterminate, indefinite, > multiplex and transitory notions passes through your mind. One could > argue that, strictly speaking, you cannot "know" that your streaming > notion is different from what would stream through the mind of a given > non-literate Nepalese shepherd who heard 'Chicago' right now. But I > myself would accept your insistence that you DO know the two streams > of notion are different." > > I produced the mental notion that your use of "very different" > referred to two different listener's interpretation of the word > "Chicago." I concluded that "very" described the degree of difference > between their notions of "Chicago," not the degree of differences in > the notions evoked by "North Dakota" and "ice cream." > > Your "Meaningless" perambulation with a memory of A.C. Ewing struck me > as well beside the point. > > > > (2) How important or crucial to your assertion is the degree of > > "very"ness?"? > > Again, you dodged a direct answer by switching to Gibraltar and > diabetes. Of course, "no one would deny it" when you assert that they > are "wildly different notions." But they aren't what you originally > described as example for your argument, namely, two notions of > "Chicago" or of "slavery." My original question remains unanswered: > when does "different" become "very different"? > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected] > http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/ > > > ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
