Language a tiger on the loose
If I had a time machine I’d travel
back in time to the age of Aristotle
— where I’d hunt the bastard down
and slit his bloody throat.
Not that I have anything against
the guy, you understand. And maybe
I’m too hard on him.
But his ideas have taken far too
long to die, and that’s what concerns
me.
File this, then, under “M” for
“Manifesto” — or, inversely, under
“W” for “Why I Don’t Want To Be
a Journalist When I Grow Up.”
It’s a sad point of fact that I don’t
have a time machine. But my plot
might not have worked anyway;
maybe it was never the man, just a
set of ideas whose time had come —
and himself merely an unlikely
vessel for them.
So I’ll have to put my knife to the
throat of the ideas themselves — no
easy task and one that takes some
doing.
Still, I’d like to feel, on the day I
die, that I’d played some small part
in their demise. I’m certain they’re
on the way out.
Aristotle has come to mean, for
me, the simple idea that X=X. That
X=X. That a thing can not be both
itself and not itself at the same time.
This is patently false.
I mean just look at this sen
tence....
The above sentence is self
reflexive, that is, it is a sentence and
at the same time it is looking at
itself as a sentence.
It’s self-aware. It knows it is a
sentence in much the same way that
the sentence before it does not.
I myself am both constantly
myself and the constant observer of
myself in a never-ending reflexive
loop that makes me who I am.
That is, I’m self-aware.
I, like the sentence, embody a
paradox that would blow old
Aristotle’s gaskets, if he still had
any.
And in this way I am like God.
I grew up knowing the word for
God was “Word.” It’s no accident
thaf tW^t^fipel of Johh b^gmsf'
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.”
Mark Baldridge
‘language is always
getting away from us. ”
For a long time I thought, like
everyone else, that John was saying
something very arcane about the
nature of God and reality itself;
when taken with a dose of Genesis
1:1 it really takes your mind off
little things like traffic and the price
of coffee.
But, of course, there was more to
it than that. Besides saying that
reality is essentially information,
language—everyone knows this
already, right? — he’s also saying
something different, and very
interesting, about consciousness. Ch
at least... about the consciousness of
God.
Because the word “word” is the
point at which language becomes
self-reflexive. It is a word itself, like
“Angola” but it also “means” word.
It is sign and significr in the best “I
know what you’re thinking. And you
know that I know. And I know that
you know that I know,” manner.
Put two mirrors up, facing one
another, and walk between them.
You get the idea.
John has chosen the point at
which language becomes self-aware
to signify his God. He says “God is
infinity wrapped up in the tiny word
‘word.’”
He’s doing something not terribly
different from what Moses tried at
the burning bush — or maybe it was
the bush that tried, or the burning:
“Whom shall I say is calling,”
Moses says.
“I am what I am and that’s all
that I am,” says the bush, giggling
like Popeye, very pleased with
himself.
— I will be what I will be. Que
sera, sera.
— Wherever you go, there you
are.
And so God is language speaking
itself. Or: the only way to refer to
God is in language that speaks itself,
refers to itself, is self-aware.
“We are vain and we are blind,”
says David Byrne, and I have to
think he’s right.
Journalists want to lasso lan
guage, they are language wranglers.
But I don’t think that works. I
think language is always getting
away from us. I think language has a
will of its own and an idea where
it’s going -1- and we, all of us, the
whole world, are along for the ride.
. No thanks to Aristotle and his ilk,
who would play with language to
blind us to its ridiculous dreaming,
we are about to learn this great and
terrible fact.
I mean all of us, the whole world.
We are riding on the back of a
tiger.
Who ya gonna call when the tiger
turns? Woodward and Bernstein?
No way. You’re going to need a
high priest of language, not some
yellow russler.
You need an artist, a sorcerer, a
poet.
And I’d rather be a poet.
That’s why you won’t see me in
the unemployment lines with
Aristotle and the journalism majors.
Nope, but in the bread lines with the
poets and the novelists and other
ne’er-do-wells.
Where we will be biding our
time, binding our wounds, waiting,
lest at any moment we might be
needed.
Because if it’s a choice between
the pallid print on the pulped page,
or a living, terrible tiger, I’d rather
have a tiger.
Baldridge is the Opinion page editor for
the Dally Nebraskan.
Unconditional love, parables
Last week was a tough one for
me. It was the sort of week that
makes you want to stay in bed all
day, rocking back and forth, saying
in a strained voice, “Oh dear, oh
dear. Oh, oh dear.”
It was the sort of week that
makes you want to surround
yourself with people who love you
unconditionally, or in other words,
your mom.
I thought of calling my mom, but
something stopped me. When I have
a problem, my mom is generous
with the unconditional love. But
she’s also generous with something
else.
Bible parables.
There’s nothing wrong with
Bible parables or any sort of
parables. Parables arc useful
teaching tools. Jesus used them. And
anything that Jesus does is worth
imitating.
Jesus could give the ultimate
endorsement. He would put Michael
Jordan to shame. If Jesus jumped off
a bridge, I would definitely follow
him.
bui my moiner ts no Jesus, (sne
can work wonders with leftovers,
but she can’t turn water to wine.
And if she could, she wouldn’t let
you have any. It’s milk or juice or
nothing, Buster.)
She knows lots of parables, it’s
true, and she’s even an engaging
storyteller. But my mother uses the
Bible parable as more than just a
teaching tool. She uses it as a
substitute for conversation.
I wouldn’t even mind that if she
would choose relevant parables. But
she doesn’t waste any time trying to
find a parable that actually pertains
to the matter at hand, oh no.
In my mother’s mind, all scrip
ture is inspired by God. God created
everything, so if it’s inspired by God
— it has to be good.
Rainbow Rowell
“At least she tried to talk
to me. And at least she
confused me with stories
from the Bible, and not
old Sports Illustrated
back issues. ”
(1 changed my mind: God could
give the ultimate endorsement.)
For example, I would often come
home from high school, upset by
teacher problems or stupid high
school friend problems. My mom
would give me a hug and something
to eat and then ...
“Rainbow, do you remember
when the apostles fought over who
would sit beside Jesus in heaven?”
Or “Rainbow, do you remember
the story about the bad man and the
donkey who talked?”
After she was done, she would
smile a warm smile, give me a hug
and ask if I felt better.
And I would chew my home
baked chocolatey treat, and think,
“No, just confused.”
The Bible parables were espe
cially abundant when the subject
was difficult or embarrassing. My
mom never talked to me about sex,
but I think she tried once.
“Rainy, remember when Joseph’s
brothers threw him in a pit and then
put goat’s blood on his coat of many
colors? You be careful, honey.” =
And then she started to cry.
I have to give her some credit. At
least she tried to talk to me. And at
least she confused me with stories
from the Bible, and not old Sports
Illustrated back issues.
When she couldn’t think of an
inappropriate Bible parable — or
maybe it was when she was tired of
using the same old parables, day in,
day out — she liked to tell mission
ary stories.
Usually the stories were set in
some very small, cruel country I had
never heard of. Like Malawi. I think
she liked the missionary stories
because they were like modern fairy
tales with good guys (the missionar
ies and their eager converts) and bad
guys (usually practitioners of the
evil arts or anti-Christian military
sorts) and heavy supernatural
elements.
But she often forgot the neces
sary elements of the story ... like the
rising and falling action. They went
like this:
“There were two missionaries
and a congregation of new Chris
tians and the witch doctor’s house
was engulfed in green smoke. ...Do
you want another piece of cake,
Honey? I’m worried about you. I
never see you eat.”
Maybe she was never trying to
make sense or to offer helpful
advice. Maybe she just wanted me
to think about the Bible, to think
about God. I guess if I’m sitting
there wondering what in tarnation
she means, I’m not thinking about
my problems.
Rowell Is a senior news-editorial, adver
tising and English major and the Dally
Nebraskan managing editor.
guest
Nick Wiltgen
Altruism threatens
personal freedoms
Altruism is a philosophy in which
the “good” is defined to be any
action that benefits some person or
persons other than the person who
performed that action. It is a phi
losophy that, believe it or not, is
even more pervasive than religion
itself these days.
Altruism has its roots in reli
gion, but it has spread far beyond
religion into the atheist doctrines of
communism and into other politi
cal forms of collectivism, such as
the American welfare system.
Psychological proof of
altruism’s widespread acceptance
lies in the overwhelmingly nega
tive connotation assigned to the
word “selfishness” today.
The dictionary definition of
“selfishness” is“concem with one’s
own interests.” This definition is
not a moral evaluation. It does not
tell us whether selfishness is good
or bad. The branch of philosophy
known as ethics tells us whether it is
good or bad.
But these days you will almost
never hear “selfishness” used in a
positive sense. The altruist phi loso
phy to which nearly everyone sub
scribes today (in word if not by
deed) has targeted selfishness as an
evil scourge to be eliminated from
the earth.
Most people seem to have for
gotten that America was built on
selfishness—specifically, rational
selfishness. Capitalism depends on
rational selfishness; both the
businessman’s motive to maximize
profits and the consumer’s motive
to minimize expenses are proper
forms of selfishness.
The opposite of altruism is the
philosophy of egoism. While there
are variants of egoispMhe specific
philosophy I embrace is called “Ob
jectivism.” It was formulated by
the groundbreaking author Ayn
Rand (1905-1982), who wrote two
classic novels, “Atlas Shrugged”
and “The Fountainhead,” along with
several other Fiction works and nu
merous non-fiction volumes con
sisting of essays and lectures.
Fernaps the most concise ot these
non-fiction volumes is “The Virtue
of Selfishness.”
At the core of the Objectivist
philosophy is the assertion that ev
ery man is an end in himself; in
other words, each man’s purpose is
to pursue his own objective, ratio
nal self-interest and his own happi
ness, not the interests or happiness
of others. He pursues this goal by
refusing to sacrifice himself to oth
ers or to sacrifice others to himself.
Personal interactions must be based
on freedom and mutual consent.
Note the words “objective” and
“rational” in the above definition.
Just because someone feels an ac
tion is in his selfish interest does
not make it so.
The political and economic sys
tem required by this philosophy is
laissez-faire capitalism. In this pure
form of capitalism, government’s
role is limited to safeguarding citi
zens against coercive force initi
ated by criminals or foreign invad
ers, and to settling disputes between
men based on objective laws that
On a personal level,
altruism leads people
to perform foolish acts
of self-sacrifice which
ultimately lead to
feelings of
worthlessness, loss of
self-esteem and lack of
identity.
uphold individual rights.
The United States’ political and
economic system of the 1990s is far
from full capitalism. In fact, the
capitalist elements of the current
economy are getting more and more
obscured by megatons of govern
ment regulation, subsidies, and the
“redistribution of wealth.” Interest
groups fight over which industries
and individuals should get money
from the government when in fact
none of them should, because gov
ernment has no business taxing the
people to support businesses or
entrepreneurs.
If a business is to be successful,
consumers must support it freely.
Meanwhile, so-called “progres
sive” politicians rant and rave about
a “fair” distribution of wealth.
Welfare is about as unfair a distri
bution scheme as was ever invented.
The only truly fairway to distribute
wealth is to let the market deter
mine wages and salaries. The most
productive people will earn the most
money, while those who are unpro
ductive or inefficient will earn the
least money.
The consequences of altruism
are devastating. The value of work
is severely diminished when hard
work is “rewarded” with heavy in
come taxes while not working at all
is “rewarded” with a check from the
government. Subsidies distort mar
ket forces so severely that people
lose confidence in capitalism alto
gether and seek refuge in additional
state controls.
On a personal level, altruism
leads people to perform foolish acts
of self-sacrifice which ultimately
lead to feelings of worthlessness,
loss of self-esteemand lack of iden
tity. Only the doctrines of altruism
could permit the horrors of slavery,
the disasters of communism, and
the disillusionment of young aspir- -
ing entrepreneurs faced with the
prospect of dealing with a regula
tion-ridden government.
This column is not intended to
be a complete guide to the Objec
tivist philosophy. You may have
many valid questions about the
above arguments. I suggest reading
“The Virtue of Selfishness” or any
of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction works
for a more detailed explanation of
the reasoning behind this philoso
phy
Wlltgei Is a sophomore broadcast
lag aad meteorology major.