One of the things I like about having you as a flister is that when I talk about an issue in the abstract like this ... you'll tackle it in the abstract head-on
Hah!
I once was set a question on a maths exam asking for the height of a tent pole given a certain width of tent, I responded with two pages, closely written, considering all the different possible shapes of tent and laying out the different geometrical calculations required for each one. The teacher claimed afterwards that it was obvious what shape of tent had been intended. Some people are just incapable of seeing the wood for the nearest tree.
Because I think the underlying disagreements tend to be not so much political as philosophical.
I absolutely agree. I happen to have seen some of the discussions about appropriation of the term 'queer' and they are all balancing at the top of such a huge pile of assumptions, preconceptions and general guff that it is very hard to make much sense of them beyond picking up a general impression that some people have clearly had their feelings hurt. As luck would have it I do have the necessary personal qualification that allows me to know why they were hurt, but those discussions are no place for logic. And as with all discussions of that nature they will be very unpleasant experiences for anyone rash enough to join in without the necessary qualification. You are wise to keep quiet.
In that context I think 'meaningless' means 'does not provide me with the necessary self-identification that I am used to having from the word'. I do not think you need to look for any deeper intention than that.
So in a sense she has tools universally applicable to analyze all of human behavior. (Hell, there's really nothing to stop from applying Freud to gods or astrological bodies, either.) Granted. But she will not be able to use that tool to analyse the wave form of a beam of light. She can analyse the human reaction to such a wave form, but not the wave form itself. Hence her tool can not analyse everything. In the same way, not everything can be a text because somewhere there is something that cannot be analysed with the tools that define what a text is. The only way to incorporate absolutely everything into the definition of text is by making that definition so loose that nothing is excluded. Then you are saying everything = everything, which is meaningless because it provides no useful information. Of course everything = everything. If you redefine 'text' as everything then 'text' becomes redundant as a word. But in truth you do not wish to redefine text or queer or any other word to mean everything, you simply wish to redefine it with a wider meaning than the current one. Your academic definition of text is very broad - excitingly broad - but it does not include everything. If it did, it would indeed be meaningless.
no subject
Hah!
I once was set a question on a maths exam asking for the height of a tent pole given a certain width of tent, I responded with two pages, closely written, considering all the different possible shapes of tent and laying out the different geometrical calculations required for each one. The teacher claimed afterwards that it was obvious what shape of tent had been intended. Some people are just incapable of seeing the wood for the nearest tree.
I absolutely agree. I happen to have seen some of the discussions about appropriation of the term 'queer' and they are all balancing at the top of such a huge pile of assumptions, preconceptions and general guff that it is very hard to make much sense of them beyond picking up a general impression that some people have clearly had their feelings hurt. As luck would have it I do have the necessary personal qualification that allows me to know why they were hurt, but those discussions are no place for logic. And as with all discussions of that nature they will be very unpleasant experiences for anyone rash enough to join in without the necessary qualification. You are wise to keep quiet.
In that context I think 'meaningless' means 'does not provide me with the necessary self-identification that I am used to having from the word'. I do not think you need to look for any deeper intention than that.
Granted. But she will not be able to use that tool to analyse the wave form of a beam of light. She can analyse the human reaction to such a wave form, but not the wave form itself. Hence her tool can not analyse everything. In the same way, not everything can be a text because somewhere there is something that cannot be analysed with the tools that define what a text is. The only way to incorporate absolutely everything into the definition of text is by making that definition so loose that nothing is excluded. Then you are saying everything = everything, which is meaningless because it provides no useful information. Of course everything = everything. If you redefine 'text' as everything then 'text' becomes redundant as a word. But in truth you do not wish to redefine text or queer or any other word to mean everything, you simply wish to redefine it with a wider meaning than the current one. Your academic definition of text is very broad - excitingly broad - but it does not include everything. If it did, it would indeed be meaningless.