`No matter what metarules are formulated, it seems intuitively obvious that the native speaker could break them too and count on the context to get his meaning across to another speaker' (H. Dreyfus). This is part of an argument that machines cannot, and humans just do, know how to get away with breaking rules usefully. I cite it only to pounce on the over-statement `count on'. Some message-senders do indeed `count on' success -- for example, the lecturer who `just knows' when his stuff is getting across, acknowledging no special responsibility for eliciting feedback. More commonly, he may underestimate this responsibility, and give up too soon; or he may persist long enough, but misinterpret what he eventually gets, taking politeness or echolalia or big blue eyes as proof of understanding.
In what I hope is the standard case, though, he just resigns himself to going on, hoping that clues to the interpretation of the incomprehensible feedback he's getting on the current `point' will be thrown up in the course of exchanges on some subsequent `point'.
This rests on two familiar but not generally welcome observations: any later `point' may fire the synapse of any earlier one; and understanding needs time as well as all the logical inputs. The penny may drop when nothing has changed except the clock. Analysably or not, mere confusion does, in its own unforeseeable time, sometimes precipitate into understanding, or into misunderstanding, or at least into awareness of a crux. `How much the years teach which the days never know!' (Emerson)
Yet he may be betrayed into many unnecessary and pernicious mistakes where he deems his interference warranted by substantial experience. And in spite of
all his caution, remarks may drop insensibly from him which shall wither in the
mind of his pupil a generous sympathy, destroy a sentiment of approbation or
dislike, not merely innocent but salutary; and for the inexperienced Disciple
how many pleasures may be this cut off, what joy, what admiration, and what
love! while in their stead are introduced into the ingenuous mind misgivings, a
mistrust of its own evidence, dispositions to affect to feel where there can be
no real feeling, indecisive judgements, a superstructure of opinions that has
no base to support it, and words uttered by rote with the impertinence of a
Parrot, or a Mocking-bird.
And by this process insensibly may steal in presumption and a habit of sitting
in judgement in cases where no sentiment ought to have existed but diffidence
or veneration."
Warrants for Belief
E. Gellner: "There is a principle of Ideological Meretriciousness at work in
human societies, which ensures that at any given time there is a variety of (as
it were) scriptural warrants available for quite diverse courses of conduct. We
all behave, in matters of belief and adherence to convention, like governments
who assign an ambassador to the official foreign ruler in his capital, while
sending less overt but still accredited agents to keep in touch with the
various rival revolutionary groups and governments-in-exile. You never can
tell."
Kierkegaard: "It is absolutely certain, for my father told me."
Quine: "The real is the stuff that mother vouches for and calls by
name."
Winners 1, Losers 2
Each term in the rule or hypothesis can be semi-methodically varied up
and down in various dimensions. [Of course our imagination won't provide enough dimensions or steps-of-variation; hence the `semi-'.] Each term has survived competition with its nearest stronger and weaker variants (not only in one dimension; and variation one-word-at-a-time is not the only kind). But in a sense the defeated competitors also survive; for they define the narrow
frontiers of the victor's universe, where each crux in the (provisionally)
victorious rule has to try and maintain a position equidistant from every
Scylla and every Charybdis.
There never is much sea-room; yet many potted expositions of the history of the problem give the opposite impression -- which requires that those who failed to see the gap be systematically presented as (inexplicably) naïve or (explicably) base, or both. You'd think the very infallibility of this tactic
would give its users more pause.
It is customary to erase from the final wording all trace of the `defeated'
competitors. But to be called the defeated is to be still remembered, still to
survive. With the force-field removed, we are nevertheless supposed to sense
what is keeping the `victor' in place, and are made to feel stupid for not
seeing what has been taken away.
Where is the merit, if the competition were all pushovers?
Exposition, more humanely understood, must accept responsibility for running
the gauntlet -- that is, for regular reminders of the dilemma-horns on either
side, and for reassuring the reader who has momentarily lost a part of the
complex that he may expect, as of right, frequent help of this kind. If he
doesn't get all this (and mostly he doesn't), distressing disorientation sets
in. What tricky bits is the chosen path so often and so silently detouring
round? Why this unbearable discrepancy between the perspicuity implicitly claimed and the perspicuity achieved?
It's crucial that there should be a supply of the only-just-not-fit-enough.
We non-winners demand a different name, one which welcomes the essential contribution we make. Adding to the supply of wrong guesses should after all be an honourable profession, with a charter, royal patronage, headed note-paper.
J. Levenson: "A thought includes what its thinker eliminates; an idea has its
particular quality from the fact that other ideas, expressed in other quarters,
are demonstrably alternatives... An idea..is a denial of alternatives and an
answer to a question. What a man really means cannot be gathered solely from
what he asserts; what he asks and what other men assert invest his ideas with
meaning."
R. G. Collingwood: "If we cannot understand what the doctrines were which a Plato or a Parmenides meant to deny, it is certain that to just that extent we are
unable to grasp what it was that he meant to affirm."
Word-play
Hobbes: "Speciall uses of Speech are these; first is acquiring of Arts.
Secondly, to Counsell, and Teach one another. Thirdly, to make known to others
our wills, and purposes, that we may have the mutuall help of one another.
Fourthly, to please and delight our selves, and others, by playing with our
words, for pleasure or ornament, innocently."
Jean Tardieu: "Madame Chère, très chère peluche!
Depuis combien de trous, depuis combien de galets n'avais-je pas eu la mitron
de vous sucrer!
Mme de Perleminouze, très affectée. Hélas!
Chère! j'étais moi-même très, très vitreuse!
Mes trois plus jeunes tourteaux ont eu la citronnade, l'un après
l'autre. Pendant tout le début du corsaire, je n'ai fait que nicher des
moulins, courir chez le ludion ou chez le tabouret, j'ai passé des puits
à surveiller leur carbure, à leur donner des pinces et des
moussons. Bref, je n'ai pas eu une minette à moi.
Madame Pauvre chère! Et moi qui ne me grattais de rien!
Mme de Perleminouze Tant mieux! Je m'en recuis! Vous avez bien
mérité de vous tartiner, après les gommes que vous avez
brûlées! Poussez donc: depuis le mou de Crapaud jusqu'à la
mi-Brioche, on ne vous a vue ni au `Water-proof', ni sous les alpagas du bois
de Migraine! Il fallait que vous fussiez vraiment gargarisée!
Madame Il est vrai!... Ah! Quelle céruse! Je ne puis y mouiller
sans gravir.
Mme de Perleminouze, confidentiellement. Alors, toujours pas de
pralines?
Madame Aucune.
Mme de Perleminouze Pas même un grain de riflard?
Madame Pas un! Il n'a jamais daigné me repiquer, depuis le flot
où il m'a zébrée!
Mme de Perleminouze Quel ronfleur! Mais il fallait lui racler les
flammèches!"
J. N. Findlay: "[H. H. Price holds] that sign-cognition always involves a degree of belief. He has narrowed his view to cases where we prepare seriously for instances of a certain sort, and has ignored cases of a playful, make-believe readiness. Yet even the play of dogs involves a great deal of counterfeit counter-attacking directed to attacks which are themselves recognised as counterfeit. Such cases are important since they represent a primitive loosening of meaning from the bonds of verification and practice. Not only men, but also animals, sometimes play with notions."
Ernest Renan: "Il faut que l'esprit humain s'amuse d'abord quelque temps de ses
découvertes et des résultats nouveaux qu'il introduit dans la
science, il faut qu'il s'en fasse un plaisir, quelquefois même un jouet,
avant d'y voir un objet de méditation purement philosophique."
Words
Georges Bernanos: "C'est une des plus incompréhensibles disgrâces de l'homme, qu'il doive confier ce qu'il a de plus précieux à quelque chose d'aussi instable, d'aussi plastique, hélas, que le mot. Il faudrait beaucoup de courage pour vérifier chaque fois l'instrument, l'adapter à sa propre serrure. On aime mieux prendre le premier qui tombe sous la main, forcer un peu, et si le pêne joue, on n'en demande pas plus. J'admire les révolutionnaires qui se donnent tant de mal pour faire sauter des murailles à la dynamite, alors que le trousseau de clefs des gens bien pensants leur eût fourni de quoi entrer tranquillement sans réveiller personne."
Stephen Booth: "A word or phrase can be incomprehensible at the moment it is read
and then be effectively glossed by the lines that follow it; a word or phrase
can (and in the sonnets [of Shakespeare] regularly does) have one meaning as a
reader comes on it, another as its sentence concludes, and a third when
considered from the vantage point of a summary statement in the couplet."
Diderot: "La logique vraie peut se réduire à un très petit
nombre de pages; mias plus cette étude sera courte, plus celle des mots
sera longue."
Marcel Jouhandeau: "Grâce à Dieu, un mot n'a pas un sens que l'on
puisse arrêter strictement, définir absolument et
définitivement. On a toujours les moyens de solliciter de lui
l'inédit, de lui faire exprimer grâce au contexte quelque chose de
nouveau, d'inconnu, d'imprévu pour tout le monde, même pour soi."
Ian Hacking: "Words have profound memories that oil our shrill and squeaky
rhetoric."
P. Valéry: "Je me méfie de tous les mots, car la moindre
méditation rend absurde que l'on s'y fie. J'en suis venu, hélas,
à comparer ces paroles par lesquelles on traverse si lestement l'espace
d'une pensée, à des planches légères jetées sur un abîme, qui souffrent le passage et point la station."
A. N. Whitehead: "The notion that thought can be perfectly or even adequately
expressed in verbal symbols is idiotic. [This notion has been the curse of
philosophy, since] philosophers verbalize and then suppose the idea stated for
all time. [But words are not] fixed things with specific meanings. Actually
the meanings of language are in violent fluctuation and a large part of what
they try to express in the world lies outside the range of language. [The
truths expressed in language are, consequently, only] half-truths [; there are
no] whole-truths [among them]."
Work ethic
G. Spencer Brown: "To arrive at the simplest truth requires years of
contemplation. Not activity. Not reasoning. Not calculating. Not busy
behaviour of any kind. Not reading. Not talking. Not making an effort. Not
thinking. Simply bearing in mind what it is one needs to know. And yet
those with the courage to tread this path to real discovery are not only
offered practically no guidance on how to do so, they are actively discouraged
and have to set about it in secret, pretending meanwhile to be diligently
engaged in the frantic diversions and to conform with the deadening personal
opinions which are continually thrust upon them."
Hume: "Reading and sauntering and lownging and dozing, which I call thinking,
is my supreme Happiness, I mean my full Contentment."
Writing
It's not just that writing is hard work. It's also sacred (and correspondingly
rewarding) work. Like the Gurkha's sword, the pen is not to be unsheathed
lightly. It has equal potential for giving and for taking life, either of
which could be for good or evil. However small your readership, one reader at
least will be permanently marked by what you write, as a source of small pride, or a challenge skived: yourself.
It is also lonely work: ³The knowledge gained in communion, and ripened in solitude, must pour its life into the world through action... Into loneliness spirit by its nature swings; and, as it is only in communion and action that man learns, so it is only in loneliness that he discovers what he has learnt. Nevertheless, from his solitude -- yes, and from communion, -- man must always return.² (L. H. Myers)
Colette: "Ecrire ... C'est le regard accroché, hypnotisé par le
reflet de la fenêtre dans l'encrier d'argent, -- la fièvre divine
qui monte aux joues, au front, tandis qu'une bienheureuse mort glace sur le
papier la main qui écrit. Cela veut dire aussi l'oubli de l'heure, la
paresse au creux du divan, la débauche d'invention d'où l'on sort
courbaturé, abêti, mais déjà
récompensé et porteur de trésors qu'on décharge
lentement sur la feuille vierge, dans le petit cirque de lumière qui
s'abrite sous la lampe...
Ecrire! verser avec rage toute la sincérité de soi sur le papier
tentateur, si vite, si vite que parfois la main lutte et renâcle,
surmenée par le dieu impatient qui la guide... et retrouver, le
lendemain, à la place du rameau d'or, miraculeusement éclos en
une heure flamboyante, une ronce sèche, une fleur avortée...
Ecrire! plaisir et souffrance d'oisifs!... Je prends encore la plume, pour
commencer le jeu périlleux et décevant, pour saisir et fixer,
sous la pointe double et ployante, le chatoyant, le fugace, le passionnant
adjectif..."
V. S. Pritchett: "In writing there is a preliminary process of unwriting."
William Paley: "One thing I always set my face against; and that is, exercises in
English composition: this calling upon lads -- (lads, be it understood, is the
old-fashioned University word for undergraduates) -- this calling upon lads for
a style before they have got ideas, sets them upon fine writing, and is the
main cause of the puffy, spungy, spewy, washy style that prevails at the
present day."
Zombie
These potions were insipid enough when first mixed. Excretion and
re-excretion does not improve the flavour. Their purpose is to bromidize the
wells, to paralyse by dint of repetition the sense of discrimination -- to
obscure, if possible, the difference between zombie understanding and the real
thing. Of course this is not possible; the presumption must always be, in case
of doubt, on the side of zero understanding.
This applies not only to the re-excreter.
Nevertheless it is easy to find oneself in a kind of trance, giving reluctant
crumbs of credit for some dutiful repetition which visibly conveys no
engagement with the issue, and whose tired uniformity and ludicrous
encapsulation proclaim its falsity -- moral as well as
substantive falsity, contaminating equally those who offer and those who receive.