What speech is has been so confused by us that it seems that it is any expression. Since this is confused by us, freedom of speech is confused by us. But there is something worse than this. It seems that what all mean by speech is an outward sign of any sort that shows some meaning other than the outward sign. For example, a favorite among many, the burning of the flag is considered speech, because it conveys a meaning (in this case contempt, anger, etc.) other than the burning of the flag itself. This confusion shows two things: one, that we cannot or refuse to make distinctions between the different kinds of signs; and two, because of this, that we belittle speech and do not realise its dignity.
There was recently a young lady who embarrassed herself (knowingly or unknowingly). Who she is, is not important, because she is just an example of all of us. We laugh at her thinking that she is an anomaly and not one of us, raised by us, educated by us, and given her values by us. We laugh at her thinking we are not laughing at us. She was asked a question concerning the ignorance of many American children, when it comes to finding America on a map. Her answer was full of irrelevancies and wanderings. She took us around the world to meet different countries and cultures (to places she has never been and to meet people she has never met), and she never answered the question.
There was recently a young lady who embarrassed herself (knowingly or unknowingly). Who she is, is not important, because she is just an example of all of us. We laugh at her thinking that she is an anomaly and not one of us, raised by us, educated by us, and given her values by us. We laugh at her thinking we are not laughing at us. She was asked a question concerning the ignorance of many American children, when it comes to finding America on a map. Her answer was full of irrelevancies and wanderings. She took us around the world to meet different countries and cultures (to places she has never been and to meet people she has never met), and she never answered the question.
She wasted her speech. She could have said, "I do not know", and she would have shown more intelligence than she did. If she said that she did not know, she would have shown two things: one, that she knows that she does not know; and two that she recognises the dignity of speech, for she would not have wasted it.
Of course this video is all over the inter-net; she is being made to look like ignorance itself. What we, who put her out into the inter-net world to belittle her, forget, refuse to see, and do not want to know, is that she is a sign of all of us. She is we. She was made in this country, by her fellow citizens. She is just as ignorant as we are and as we made her to be.
Of course this video is all over the inter-net; she is being made to look like ignorance itself. What we, who put her out into the inter-net world to belittle her, forget, refuse to see, and do not want to know, is that she is a sign of all of us. She is we. She was made in this country, by her fellow citizens. She is just as ignorant as we are and as we made her to be.
There can be heard on C-Span, NPR, Rush Limbaugh's show, PBS, etc., people everyday that are just as ignorant as she, and just as she never answered the question, so too these people in no way answer the questions given them. In some cases, just as she did not have the ability to hide her ignorance, they cannot hide their ignorance. In other cases, we have "well educated" people, who have learned to hide their inability or their refusal to answer the questions asked of them. In either case, if these plain folk or if these "well educated" just said, "I do not know", they too would have shown more intelligence than they had. They too would have shown their reverence for the dignity of speech. But, instead of doing this, they like the young lady, are wasting speech, and belittling speech.
Here is what I mean by the answers that in no way answer a question. Every sentence, no matter its kind, has a subject and a predicate. A question is a kind of sentence. Therefore a question has a subject and predicate. So, when a person asks a question, the person asks, in some way, whether a predicate can be said of the subject. There are two ways these questions never get answered.
Here is what I mean by the answers that in no way answer a question. Every sentence, no matter its kind, has a subject and a predicate. A question is a kind of sentence. Therefore a question has a subject and predicate. So, when a person asks a question, the person asks, in some way, whether a predicate can be said of the subject. There are two ways these questions never get answered.
Sometimes, the answerer cannot put the predicate with the subject. The person is simply ignorant and cannot answer the question.
Often, however, so often it hurts, the answerer does not put the predicate with the subject. The answerer attempts to put the subject and predicate together (or take them apart in the case of a denial), but does not. They do this in two ways.
One way not to answer a question is to change the names of the subject and predicate. The questioner has A and B as a subject and predicate, and the answerer changes them to C and D. Change the names of the subject and predicate, and you can change the things about which you are speaking. If the answerer changes the names, he can speak of different things in his "answer". The trick is to change the names of the subject and predicate, but make the questioner believe you are not changing the meanings of the subject and predicate.
The second way is to change the meanings without having changed the names. This is called equivocating. For example, the name bat in one sentence may speak of an animal, and in another a tool of a game. The name is the same, but the meaning is different. This is a simple equivocation, an equivocation by chance. There is also an equivocation by reason. For example we say that a body is healthy, and we also say that a food is healthy. What we mean by "healthy" is different in each predication, but not wholly unconnected. There is connection in the two meanings, a connection made by reason. Nevertheless, there is a subtle difference. This subtle difference is oftentimes an opportunity for the "well educated" to never answer a question.
So the questioner gives A and B as the subject and predicate of his question, and the answerer gives A and B as the names of his subject and predicate of his answer, but he gives the meanings of C and D. If he equivocates by chance, then the meanings will be wholly different and unconnected (and sometimes easily seen). If he equivocates by reason, the meanings will have some connection, and therefore the equivocation can be more difficult to see.
The more practice the "well educated" have, the more skill they develop in fooling others and even themselves. They can become enthralled in the activity of coming up with an answer for a question rather than answering a question. We even have a saying for this: "he loves to hear himself speak". The answerer loves to give some long-winded exuberance of his own trying to show his intelligence. What this does, in fact, show is how well he has fooled himself; how much he loves to fool; how ignorant he truly is (for it is always better to know that one does not know); and, the most criminal of all, how much he does not revere and respect speech.
What I have not done here is show why speech is so dignified. I have assumed it. Here is a clue to figure it out for yourself. Speech is a sign used to signify something other than itself, so like smoke, which is a sign of fire, or a flag, which is a sign of a state, speech is a sign of something other than itself. If one looks at what distinguishes these signs, one from another, the dignity of speech can be seen. The clue is in what it truly signifies, in what speech truly signifies, and from what it comes.
Editing is in part a sign that thought and care has been put into what has been said. It is therefore, in part, a sign of the reverence for and the dignity of speech. Let this be an exhortation, to this author too, to edit. There is a line from the movie The Winslow Boy. I think it goes, "Let right be done" (someone correct me please if I have this wrong). This line is significant. It speaks of justice. Well, I would like to include in this exhortation of "let right be done" speech. Let us be just to speech. Let us recognise its dignity. Let it not be wasted, belittled, and lowered to the level of brutish sounds. Let it be more than smoke.
What I have not done here is show why speech is so dignified. I have assumed it. Here is a clue to figure it out for yourself. Speech is a sign used to signify something other than itself, so like smoke, which is a sign of fire, or a flag, which is a sign of a state, speech is a sign of something other than itself. If one looks at what distinguishes these signs, one from another, the dignity of speech can be seen. The clue is in what it truly signifies, in what speech truly signifies, and from what it comes.
Editing is in part a sign that thought and care has been put into what has been said. It is therefore, in part, a sign of the reverence for and the dignity of speech. Let this be an exhortation, to this author too, to edit. There is a line from the movie The Winslow Boy. I think it goes, "Let right be done" (someone correct me please if I have this wrong). This line is significant. It speaks of justice. Well, I would like to include in this exhortation of "let right be done" speech. Let us be just to speech. Let us recognise its dignity. Let it not be wasted, belittled, and lowered to the level of brutish sounds. Let it be more than smoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment