Drawing Distinctions

Dear Colleagues in Linguistics,
Fiction, Liberal Art and
Across the Curriculum.

Drawing Distinctions
(Crucial: Priceless)

For the sake of argument, I will claim that
the IS/LIKE distinction we were playing with
in linguistics is LIKE the literal/metaphorical
distinctions with which we engage ourselves in
talking about texts—interpreting poems, and
novels, say, or scripture: necessarily arguing
over whethera passage is to be taken literally

(it IS what it IS, damnit)

or metaphorically:

(No, it's just LIKE is all
a like-ness, not an is-ness)

Wars are fought over this
distinction, probably some
domestic violence, too.
Wars of Representation.
Map Wars, call them.

(The “map” is not the ”territory” but we often collapse,
conflate, and confuse the 2 so as to get up in arms, true?)

The distinction drawn between
“implicit” and “explicit” meaning
IS LIKE the is/like distinction--as
is the relationship between “precise”
and “vague” (“clarity” and “ambiguity”)
that we explored a few weeks back—
and even (say): what we mean by
claiming something is “concrete”
on the one hand and “abstract” on
the other can be said to be LIKE the
is/like distinction.

A fine line?
A cutting edge?

The heart of thinking = drawing distinctions.
Thinking for one’s self = drawing distinctions
of one’s own as opposed to using/abusing the
one’s already drawn: pre-rolled, shrink-wrapped,
holy smokes. (an implicit distinction, right there.).

Can you sense a family resemblance
between these allo-variations (say,
in a manner of speaking) and the initial
or primary IS/LIKE differentiation?

The difference IS between “identity” and
“similarity.” "Spot on" as we say these days
vs. close-but-no-cigar which we’ve said
for a long long time.

There IS something fundamental (archetypal?)
“behind” all distinctions, if one doesn't get
lost in the differences, true? But I
couldn’t say what IT’s like.

SAME, Similar, & Difference.

There's a “triad” to conjure and put into play—
and how much controversy-to-agreeability ratios
in any given converse-action might be measured
with this cerebral differential “tool” (in manners of
speaking) so as to assess the getting-along-ness
of any two or three gathered together to make
some common sense.

A distinction of another KIND:

Call it ACTIVE/PASSIVE aggression. .

I did something on the one hand.

IT HAPPENED, on the other hand.

This distinction was put into play in another class
(me: a guest at Dr. Bradshaw's—talking about the
transcendentalists) when a student noticed how we
tend to talk in terms of I-did-this and I-will-do-that:
I I I which seems natural enough seeing as it's the
personal pronoun and subject of so many sentences
of intentionality,. experience and expression and exchange.

While in Russia (she claimed) the tendency was to talk
in terms of stuff-happening-to-one rather than I-did-it.

One could call it partial vs. systemic accountability.
A crucial distinction worth turning way up: hostile
and incommensurate and yet complementary
if neither side is privileged.

My parents claimed I would never take responsibility
for the many things that broke in my presence.
Rip, Smash & Ruin, they called me. So
many things collapsed into pieces when
I was around. And my account was
always: IT BROKE.
Never: I broke it.

You tell me which account comes closer to
the TRUTH.

If it weren’t for a bullet in an envelope up in a
Connecticut desk drawer—none of you
would be-here-now with these notions
walking around between your ears.

Need we argue?

xxxooo, Sam (Courses Without Borders Series)