Rusty, you are using that technique of over-literalizing my statements to make them
sound ridiculous
(just as I'm afraid we are doing to Howard on other matters). I never said that words
can have only
one meaning, only that Scotty can only have one firm opinion at any one time, and that
words have
consequences. Qualifiers are fine as long as they serve to enhance and not to detract
from the
essence of your statement. Exceptions are fine as long as they serve to cast the rule
in starker
relief, not to obscure it.
I am not assuming that "certainly true" means that Scotty is saying he is 100%
certain, I am just
saying that if you are going to imply a lack of doubt by saying "certainly", it's
confusing to then
add the free-fall guessing of "to a good degree". Falling back on literal dictionary
definitions
does no good. How much is a "degree" to Scotty? How many degrees for Scotty until it
becomes a
"good" one? You say that 80% truth is a "good degree" to you, so you go on to assume
that Scotty
must also share that view, which means (you assume again) that you understand him loud
and clear.
What is he only thinks 50% is good? You'll never know, because you just assumed.
I am indeed completely over-analyzing this, but the reasonings for doing so are noble.
The best
book on Doublespeak, entitled "Doublespeak" from William Lutz, presents whole chapters
of these
techniques. Patients who die in hospitals are called "negative patient outcome" by
doctors afraid
to admit that they lost one. Handicapped people are called "differently abled", or
anything else
designed to obscure the ugly truth of their unfortunate malady. Comedian George
Carlin has a lot of
great material on these terms, where he hypothesizes future uses such as calling rape
victims
"unwilling sperm recipients". The scary part is, I would no longer blink an eye if I
saw something
like this on an official hospital record. Carlin has a great bit where he defines the
transformation of the brutal, harrowing word "shellshock" into the cushy, fuzzy,
infinitely less
clear term "post-traumatic stress disorder" over a single century. He's right, the
word has become
lifeless, robbed of all of it's raw power to convey thought by people interested in
covering up the
ugly truth of what it means.
I thing that "certainly true, to a good degree" tells me nothing. I can guess (as you
did at 80%),
but it's only a guess. If he would have said "partially true", then I would of
listened very
closely to following statements, looking for that one sentence or qualifier that
unambiguously
nailed down how "true" he meant. Any specific example serving to establish this line
would have
worked..."I think that THIS is true, but not THIS." That is what is lacking, and that
is why I
brought it up.
When you say things like:
> It might be true only half
> the time, which doesn't strike me as an especially "good degree" of truth
> (or probability), though others might disagree, and I suppose that it would
> be a "good degree" of truth in some circumstances.
I'm sorry, I am confused. The qualifiers present serve to obscure, not to enhance.
If 50% doesn't
sound like a "good degree" to you, then why are you so quick to point out that you
suppose it would
be a good degree in "some" circumstances? What circumstances? For example? Answer
these questions
for me, and the light bulb goes off in my head. Voila...understanding!
It is the same process that Howard used in his fiction. He NEVER just says "some" or
"partially"
when describing something. That would leave the reader hopelessly stranded. So the
river isn't
just sparkling "to a degree", it is sparkling "like jewels shimmering in the sunlight"
or some such
description. Ahhh, with the unambiguous analogy (the "example") now I see it! It's
not sparkling
like tin foil at a barbecue (as you may have assumed) or like John Gacy in the
electric chair (as
Big Jim may have assumed).
It's not so much that I disagree with what Scotty is saying, it's that, until the
language is
cleaned up and real qualifiers are given, I don't know WHAT he is saying, and I'm
forced to ASSUME
his thoughts. Of course I agree that we all have do this to a point, but lately we
have been forced
to make assumptions with Howard that I am uncomfortable with.
Like when I took Scotty to mean Howard's soda-jerk job was "debilitating" when he said
that is was
lousy and "certainly" affected his health negatively. Scotty acted a bit scandalized,
like I was
misinterpreting what he had said, as if I was taking some liberty with his words. Now
if he is
going to use that bogus defense in place of an actual argument, I am FORCED to become
over-analytical in order to get what he is saying. That is why I asked him "then if
what you said
did NOT mean that Howard's job was "debilitating", then what DID you mean by "lousy
and negatively
impacted health? Why doesn't this kind of job qualify as "debilitating"
I don't LIKE to be this anal, but making the claim that I misrepresented what he said
in this way
FORCES me to, unless I choose to just "give up" and agree with an argument I really
DON'T. Of
course, as with most other questions I have raised, this one went unanswered. I
maintain that the
reason it went unanswered is because THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER, because in his effort to
be on both
sides of the argument at the same time (to kind of "cheat" by making his opinion
nebulous) he has
painted himself into a logical corner with no escape. Now, whatever he says is
contradicted by what
he said previously.
Which makes for confusion, in my humble opinion
Leo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Rusty Burke
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:05 AM
> To: REH Fans
> Subject: Re: [rehfans] OFF TOPIC- Doublespeak
>
>
> Leo Grin wrote:
>
> An impassioned plea for declaring literary discussion and analysis an exact
> science, and giving every word one single and unambiguous meaning.
> Unfortunately, it isn't exact science, and they don't have single,
> unambiguous meanings. There is no *absolutely* correct way to look at a
> literary work -- even a single word -- so there will always be a need to
> introduce qualifiers into the discussion. (As one whose work involves, in
> part, the analysis and interpretation of statistics, I would also suggest
> -- not declare, but suggest -- that even the "exact sciences" are not as
> "exact" as all that, and there is considerable room for qualification in
> speaking of our results.)
>
> In your "over-analysis" of Scotty's phrasing, you make some assumptions
> that might be called into question, at least by those of us inclined to the
> over-analysis of literary stylings. As an example:
>
> >Now you said: "That is certainly true to a good degree."
> >
> >In this instance, I would say that if "that" is true only "to a good
> degree", then it isn't
> >"certainly true" at all. And what exactly is a "degree" here, and how
> many degrees qualify as
> >"good"? Until these questions are answered, or until the language is
> cleared up to the point where
> >asking these questions isn't necessary, then the statement means NOTHING.
> Very frustrating when you
> >are trying to figure out what someone is actually saying.
>
> Here you are assuming that "certainly true" must mean that Scotty is 100%
> certain of the truth of the statement in question (which I do not recall,
> and the original message is probably on the home computer). But the way I
> read it, Scotty is certain that the statement is "true to a good degree."
> There are, believe it or not, degrees of truth. You are familiar, are you
> not, with the old, old concept of "exceptions" to a "rule"? Or are you one
> of those tiresome literalists who wasted all of our time in class arguing
> that "If it's a rule there can be absolutely no exceptions, ever"?
>
> "Degree" has a fairly lengthy entry in the dictionary; one item is "the
> extent, measure, or scope of an action, condition, or relation." As to its
> relation to "truth," a thing can be absolutely true under all conditions
> and circumstances, in which case we might say it was 100% true. But it
> might be true only about 80% of the time (to pick a number out of the air),
> which I would say is a "good degree" of truth. It might be true only half
> the time, which doesn't strike me as an especially "good degree" of truth
> (or probability), though others might disagree, and I suppose that it would
> be a "good degree" of truth in some circumstances. Given that you seem to
> rigidly insist that "truth" can have but one state or condition, and that
> is absolute, you must also agree with those who say that anyone who
> consciously attacks another and kills them, no matter the circumstances, is
> guilty of first-degree murder? States tend to recognize "degrees" of
> culpability for the death of another -- why can't "truth" have varying
> "degrees"?
>
> The statement seems very clear to me. Scotty seems to me to have been
> saying "What you say seems to me to have a lot of truth to it, although I
> am not willing to accept it without qualifications." He said it in fewer
> words, though.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to me to have a fair degree of logorrhea.
> Sort of. Maybe.
>
> As to your idea that somehow words have clear, unambiguous meanings that
> are always true under any and all circumstances, well, that's horse hockey.
> Take a little ramble through the dictionary and notice how many words have
> more than one listed meaning. Sometimes these are shades or nuances of
> meaning, sometimes they are meanings used by differing disciplines,
> sometimes they are meanings that have evolved over the years. There are
> actually words that have contradictory meanings (such as "hoi polloi"). Or
> what about those words that seem to mean identical things but that we may
> understand to have slightly different meanings. The other day my
> colleagues and I looked up "impel" and "compel." I was just sure that the
> meanings were slightly different, that "impel" related to an internal
> motive force and "compel" an external one. But the dictionary definitions
> are virtually identical. (Ooops, sorry, I guess they have to be absolutely
> word-for-word or else they are not "identical" at all, right?)
>
> The problem is then multiplied many-fold when the words appear in
> combination with other words. The reader or auditor has to do some
> interpreting. You, for instance, understood "certainly" to modify the word
> "true" in Scotty's statement, while I understood it to modify the phrase
> "true to a good degree." Who's "right"? I think Scotty would probably say
> that my interpretation is truer to what he "meant," but that still doesn't
> mean yours is "wrong."
>
> Rusty
>
>
