Implication is better than teargas. Implication can be used in multiple ways, whereas teargas has essentially but one application, which is making people scatter. Implication can be used in mining, philosophy, and ice skating events. Teargas is just good for crowd dispersal. Implication fails in this respect. I’ve attempted implying that people clear a room so that I may be alone, but it generally misfires. No one seems to know what I’m talking about. That’s when I like to bring out a canister or two of teargas. It’s pure magic. Everyone runs away screaming.
Implication
can be injected into a conversation almost at any point. Results may vary, but
depending on whatever it is you’re attempting to imply, implication works
better than teargas in virtually every instance. Teargas is not conducive to
conversation, but if it’s solitude you want, you can’t beat it.
Once,
at a UN conference, I was in a bad mood. I wanted to be alone, but was too
sedentary to rise from my seat and find a private room. I just lobbed a couple
of tear gas canisters and cleared the room instantly.
The
ensuing wars were not my fault. But if any dignitaries were unduly
inconvenienced, I apologize.
Implication
can, by undertone and innuendo, have a lot of imputation in it. Implication is folding.
It’s reciprocal, sporadic, and casual. Implication may contain bromides, boll
weevils, or venison, but it will always love you in return, especially when it
waddles into a conversation like an artery and deepens someone’s gabardine.
What
I’m attempting to suggest here is simply this: syllogisms are clunky. It’s
almost always better to use syllogisms late at night or first thing in the
morning. Off-peak hours are generally 8 pm to 7 am. Thus, when Aristotle begins
in Book 7 of the Metaphysics to ask what makes a thing a thing, he narrows the
question to apply only to living things. He doesn’t infer it. He moves it into
the totalities of signification and intelligibility where it can be reached by
spiritual insight, and then hammered into a piece of old gray wood, just like
the revival guitar players. This isn’t explicit. But it’s implied.
2 comments:
you're a hard man to keep up with, John! every time i check back here there's another new small book's worth of awe-expanding work to check out.
thank you, thank you.
the internet poses this very peculiar problem, and very rare i might add -- in strange cases like yours where the artist is SO prolific, and the caliber is so high across the spectrum of your output -- the accessibility the internet grants you makes it challenging for the reader to keep up with -- whereas most other folk give you a couple year break between books/albums/whatever. you power & surge forth, like spilled water across a tabletop.
you've inspired and continue to inspire me mightily.
thank you, thank you.
mahoney
Wow, thank you Mike. I appreciate that. My cup runneth over.
Post a Comment