Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:02:13 CDT
From:         Tushar Samant <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Five Reasons (was tushar,
              boy..) : Wherein I make another attempt to examine the texts and
              make a shocking discovery regarding the nature of the exchange on
              which I have embarked,
              and hence possibly result in producing an essay not of general
              interest
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

     Tushar's posting leaves me with a chilly suspicion of futility.

Ah, there is some common ground now, for Carol's postings induce exactly
the same effect in me. It's this one sentence which leaves a faint hope in
me that we might still make some headway and that's the sole purpose of this
letter.

     No matter what I say in response, he can always resort to his
     favorite strategem: arm-waving incomprehension in the face of my
     "alien framework of reasoning."  I'm inclined to regard this as
     disingenuous, since tushar's own postings demonstrate his
     facility with non-Euclidean modes of expression, such as
     hyperbole, indirection, and comic non sequitur.

Apparently Carol thinks this is damning to my case, unless I am mistaken
again - there is no assuming anything reasonable now. Perhaps I should put
this in perspective, hoping that the point is comprehended. Yes, I can
always resort to arm-waving incomprehension no matter what she says. This
is another place where we seem to agree. However, it is still important to
pause a while and examine at what point I have resorted to arm-waving
incomprehension, namely, right from the beginning of the letter. I respect-
fully submit that my resorting to arm-waving incomprehension is a resorting
to arm-waving incomprehension which ought to tell Carol that her arguments
are arm-wave-inducingly incomprehensible to a normal human being.

I am grateful - and, why deny it, rather flattered - to accept that I have
a facility with hyperbole, indirection, and comic non sequitur. In passing,
I might also mention that in addition to hyperbole I am also rather good at
... well ... something which rather makes me geometrically complete in my
modes of expression.

The central problem, unfortunately, is that the " ""alien framework of
reasoning"" " (which could easily have been "alien framework of reasoning
but for Carol's penchant for cheap effects with quotation marks) is a far
more alien framework of reasoning than the modes of expression alluded to
above.

There is a problem with vocabulary too - Carol seems to have a rather non-
standard one. Perhaps it's my ignorance showing here but "non-Euclidean"
seems meaningless in the context here. It might be a sign of serious
misconception of all human culture to confuse terms on this grand a scale,
and I must be forgiven for keeping this always in mind. If one reflects on
this, the meaning of the word "alien" as I use it will be clearer.

     And yet tushar persists in examining obviously facetious utterances
     in the harsh glare of logic, and casting up his hands in histrionic
     despair when they fail to pass his invented tests.  Is his role
     as Grand Inquisitor intended to amuse?  On me at least, its
     novelty is beginning to pall.  Or is this his form of witty
     repartee?  I could wish for a dancing partner with a somewhat
     lighter foot.

Ah, but here is where we go into ever deeper levels of meta-argument, and
perhaps - perhaps! - one may, at this new level of abstraction, begin to
notice some features common to both of us! Carol questions the motives of
the argument, descending (paradoxically, while ascending) into the comic
value of the argument. I am truly shocked that my thesis could be taken as
anything other than a serious examination of text. I have to say more on
this at some later stage, but I feel compelled to mention this forcefully
at this point.

I never stoop so low as to resort to trivialities like witty repartee,
intention to amuse, lightening of the foot, or, for that matter, in case
that is what Carol expects, replying to her posting by another X-oracular
posting containing six shallow, illogical and just this side of unparseable
statements purporting to demonstrate why Carol is not as happy as my elephant
with the sole object of extorting cheap laughter from onlookers. If she
expects that then she is, if I may coin a phrase, sadly mistaken.

     I suppose it's always possible that tushar is really as obtuse as
     he acts.  Maybe he's been laboring too long in his austere scholarly
     cell, and the smoke and noise of the saloon confuse him and make
     him crabby.  At the risk of tedious earnestness, tushar, I was
     not proposing an "alternative formalism of logic."  I was making
     an eentsy-weentsy jeu d'esprit -- for which the measure of
     success is not absolute logical rigor.

This is perhaps where we differ -  as will be made clear in my soon to be
posted essay where I irrefutably establish it with absolute logical rigour
that the measure of success is always absolute logical rigour, the measure
of success is always absolute logical rigour.

     If "Five Reasons" wasn't funny (and god knows it's a frail reed
     on which to construct an aesthetics of humor), then show me why
     by being funnier.  As for the Mr. Spock schtick -- tushar, babe,
     don't quit your day job.

If that is the only yardstick to be applied here, and if that is the only
motivation, I might as well stop examining these things in a closer light.
As for an aesthetics of humour, there is some doubt about the existence of a
reed strong enough to base it on, a fact which, I hope, takes care of the
word "funnier", just in case it was mistakenly thought of as objectively
defined to begin with. Apparently the last clause above is meant to be funny;
that should serve as an illustration of the high subjectivity the word is
subject to.

     With a big wet affectionate Bronx cheer,
     Carol

This would serve almost equally well.

tushar
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU