"If it includes everything, it becomes meaningless."

[alixtii]

There is a claim I've seen being made a lot lately, in a lot of different places (but part of the same overall argument) by different people, that if a word applies to everything it becomes meaningless. Can anyone explain this claim to me?

If I say "everything is made up of atoms" does that mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category?

I remember having a conversation on the OTW FAQ and the language it uses, referring to what I would call source texts as "original works" and thus inadvertently imply intentionality which isn't truly there in the case of many RPF canons, in the comments of this post, with jadelennox, in which she said:

The jargon term "text" encompasses the idea that all objects, experiences, encounters, etc. are analyzable under the same lens is we would use to analyze the non-jargon "texts". There really isn't any jargon-free way to say "I mean everything in the world, except everything in the world from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text". I'm not even explaining it well when I try to translate it into a whole lot of English words. *shakes tiny fist*

Is the "except [. . .] from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text" part of her definition really lacking any semantic content?

If I say everything is about sex, or the death-drive, or the means of production, or the will-to-power, am I making meaningless statements?

If everything is X then, a) that may say something meaningful about the state of everything, and b) that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some things are more X than others, closer to the center of the conceptual web, less problematically X, while others lurk in the fuzzy boundaries.

Or am I just insane?

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

If I say "everything is made up of atoms" does that mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category?

Since the statement 'everything is made up of atoms' is false for the commonly defined meaning of 'everything', it could be concluded that 'made up of atoms' has become a meaningfull category since it is in fact the limiting factor rather than the 'everything'. So what you have just said is 'everything that is made up of atoms is made up of atoms' hence it is a tautology and rather un-useful information, which could well be what people mean when they say 'meaningless'.

In the unlikely event that you can come up with a true statement that everything is X for the normal definitions of 'X' and 'everything' then no, it does not preclude that some things will be more X than others. However, this could probably only occur in the course of a discussion in which 'everything' has already been delimited and defined quite narrowly into a sense other than the general 'everything'. Hence it is possible that your problem (I'm assuming you are having a misunderstanding with someone) arises because you are in fact working from two different definitions of 'everything' and are not aware of it.


I think it is unlikely you are insane, but I am not a qualified medical practitioner ;o)

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

to me, if I say "everything is made up of atoms" that does not mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category, but it does mean that "everything NOT made up of atoms, that which is atomless" is a meaningless category.

also, having been in an rpf fandom, it is true that there is no "original text" in the same way that SG-1 the show is the original text for my fanfic. but there is SOMETHING there that the rpf writer are riffing off of. it's just not as easily collected and pointed to. i don't have any dvd boxes for my source text for Lotrips, but it was definitely there.

personally, not meaning to start something here, but i saw no problem with RPF fandoms being included in a definition of "transformative works" but I'm certainly not up to date on the OTW's definition of what it is they are wanting to include in the definition of "media fandom".

hi!

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

If I say, "The hue of these cars is red," I am saying, "The hue of these cars is not blue or green or yellow or brown or black or white or etc." I'm differentiating one hue from other hues. Now, I might still be using "red" to cover a narrow spectrum of possible hues -- perhaps crimson and burgundy and candy-apple are all "red." But I have decided that the commonality among those colors is stronger than the differences among them; lumping them together is fine. And I think most people will accept "red" for both "burgundy" and "crimson" in a sentence like "I'll be driving a red car."

But what if I say, "The hue of all cars is red"? I've widened the spectrum that "red" can encompass dramatically. Now, if I tell you, "I'll be driving a red car," I have given you no useful information. Which is not the same as not meaning anything. But in situations where distinctions are materially important to someone, blurring or removing those distinctions causes problems.

[youngest-one.livejournal.com]

I don't think that lumping everything in one category makes that category meaningless, but I do think that it oversimplifies and tries to make connections between two things which are either tenuous or non - existent. I mean, you could say that everything anybody does creatively is driven by a buried sex drive, but that would be ignoring a whole range of possible motivations for the creative act, in my opinion.

Also, I don't think RPF has a source text in the same way other media fandoms do. Those fandoms operate of sources that were created by one or more people as explicitly fictional, while RPF builds off real life events to a greater or lesser extent.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

I become easily confused by the logic chains, but just popping in to say thank you for the lovely comment in my discussion (I haven't had a chance to reply to some of them, but I do appreciate it).

And, while I agree appying "queer" to everything would be problematic, I do not think that it what academics are doing in expanding the meanings.....however, I refuse to be held responsible for what all sorts of other people over whom I have no control at all are doing to words!

Nobody has yet put me in charge of fandom, damnit!