Number 69
Two current political controversies have partly to do with the definitions of two words ~ or so it could be reasoned ~ "God" and "marriage," in the Pledge of Allegiance and in marriage laws, respectively.
Refer to the definition of "God" devised by Saint Anselm, a sort of algebraic proof:
"Let G stand for: 'that than which nothing greater can be thought'. Assume (a) that G does not exist (the opposite of what we want to prove)"Then, since (b) it will then be possible to think of another being exactly similar to G only existing, and since (c) a being that exists is greater than an otherwise exactly similar being that does not exist, it will follow (d) that G is not that than which nothing greater can be thought, i.e. G is not G ~ which is absurd.
"Therefore (negating (a)) it is not true that G does not exist; i.e. that than which nothing greater can be thought does exist."
That is, imagine the greatest "thing" in the universe (G). If you can imagine something greater than G, then G is not it, so you have to revise your definition. But there will always be something you think of as "greatest," even if it's just the sum of everything. Everyone has an G, even atheists ~ "The greatest thing in the world is . . . " So the fellow who is strenuously protesting the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" and the destruction he thinks it's wreaking on his little girl assumes that everyone means exactly the same thing by "God," he understands what they mean, and he doesn't like it. But he has some kind of "God" by Anselm's definition. It may be himself, it may be some abstract concept such as "the people" or nature or science. He is not being logical. He might as well stop using American currency, which refers to God.
Next, the flap about gay marriage depends to some extent on the definition of "marriage."
As a person about to embark on marriage, after a lifetime of evasion, I've been giving considerable thought to what the operation means. The recent overtures to changing the legal limits of marriage ~ who can marry ~ is in a sense the attempt to change the definition of the word as well as the law. As I see it, marriage is built on at least four foundations: customary or traditional, legal (including common law), religious, and spiritual. Is there a need to change any or all of these, and is it possible?
Thus it seems to me that the only aspect of "marriage" that can be altered intentionally and forcibly is the legal aspect, i.e. civil union. Laws change, and ought to serve the people. But is there any reason a non-historically customary legal union should have to be called "marriage"? It's not as if the word (or the legal process) automatically confers permanence, nor does the religious rite. It looks foolish to be demanding the right to enter into a state that certainly does not guarantee happiness, has maybe half a chance of enduring and less of enduring monogamously, and can lead to some nasty legal entanglements and disentangling. Is this the only way gay people think they can acquire respect and respectability? It looks like legal drag from here. We coin words all the time but trying to instantly change the meaning of the words "marriage" and "wife" and "husband" goes against the language grain, since they've always referred to gender. Calling one of a same-sex pair a "wife" or "husband" has usually been ironic, and implies a rigid sex-role definition that enlightened people supposedly do not cotton to. "Wife" and "husband" refer to roles in a marriage as well as to gender.
I've learned that a number of other countries require a civil marriage even of those who also want a church marriage, so people get married twice. Here, a religious marriage is also the civil marriage; the cleric can sign the marriage document. People make a certain distinction between them in their minds, and I think we ought to be able to make a distinction in terminology. Custom older than law has meant "marriage" was between a man and woman. Calling yourself man or woman or wife or husband doesn't change your body. I think new words may be needed along with new laws.
Remember www.engrish.com, which showcases peculiar uses of English on Japanese products? The Japanese seem to be enamored of western culture and like to slap English words, however nonsensical, on T-shirts and buildings. The marketing types who do this presumably have English as their second language and don't quite understand our idioms, but I suspect something else is going on in some companies.
Two of my students are little Japanese girls, ages 9 and 12. One of them showed me a Japanese fashion magazine aimed at little girls, preteens through early teens. Nicola (www.nicola.jp) is nearly 200 pages of clothes and makeup, more bright and pastel pink stuff than you could shake a stick at. Most of the clothes have logos and words on them, usually English, and some of it is just goofy ~ "Chubby G" is not something that would sell well in the U.S. There was a beverage labeled "Milk Sour," face cream called "Acnes," and there were "Wrinkle Plus," "Grasp All," "Super Volume Lip," "Piú Wash" (in case this doesn't work on screen, the "u" has an accent mark). But some of the slogans or logos seem to have been written by an American or someone who knew English pretty well, and it's not so amusing.
"Lovers House" is not a logo I'd want my little girl wearing, if I had one.
There was a line of products with the Playboy bunny and logo on it, little pink pencil bags for school and whatnot. I hope they haven't licensed their logo, maybe they don't know about it, but it's certainly not suitable for little girls.
One clothing line is called "Booty Trap Jeans" and another advertises "Enjoy your sox life."
One T-shirt was printed "Land of cow s**t and beer farts." (I inserted the asterisks for your protection.) This could not have been dreamed up by someone with a bare knowledge of English and a dictionary and thesaurus on his desk.
Likewise the T-shirt on the cover with a very large number on it ~ think of a number between 68 and 70, in fact, coincidentally, the number of this issue, a perfectly good and necessary number. I wouldn't want to skip it, like the hotels who don't have a thirteenth floor so as not to disturb superstitious guests.
The mighty F word appears at least twice, once on a shirt (modeled by one of those little girl models) that says "If you wanna be more attractive go f*** you know what I mean."
I told my little girls that there were some bad English words there, without being specific, and to get their Japanese clothing translated before buying or wearing. I told their mother too, and she said she knew. I made sure to read the shirt one of my own little chicks was wearing, which said merely "Mezzo Piano."
When I was a kid people weren't wearing words on their clothes, unless it was a uniform. Now you have to buy an idea, not just a fashion. Some of those ideas are bad ones, especially for kids.
A woman on a home decorating show said, "I've been dying to get rid of these blue window treatments." She meant curtains. No treatment was involved. She'd hung up curtains.
Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services. Feel free to comment in the Guestbook, linked below the back issue links.
Feel free to e-mail me with comments or queries. If you don’t want to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with “unsubscribe,” “quit,” “enough,” or something like that in the subject line, and I’ll take you off the mailing list.
Return to KeithOps.