In the presence of about a dozen other people, an alleged student, calling himself 'George' and proclaiming himself an English major, asked Truly Yours if I was familiar with the published works of English professor, S. I. Hyakawa.
I replied that I was somewhat familiar with his work about language and words. George went on to say that he agreed with Prof. Hyakawa's emphasis on the fact that 'words are not things' - he exemplified this by explaining that if you say 'dog', to a dozen different people, they imagine and see a dozen different dogs; summarizing that people should never take offense to words and that it is foolish to do so - that words are mere gutteral utterances and noise, and the fact that people are distressed by mere words is absurd, foolish, and tragic, summarizing that entire wars have been fought over over words.
I considered his point and agreed with him, with the qualification that the other side of that consideration is that words are also a metaphorical finger pointing to the moon. He (the self proclaimed senior college student majoring in English) asked me what I meant by that. I responded that 'food, clothing, medicine, shelter and love' are also ('merely') words, whereas, they are gutteral noises that allude to real, existential conditions of importance - such as the moon... That the point he was making was being made with the vehicle of words, and that his point was a polarization, favoring what can happen when the power of language is abused... That the written word of English professor S.I. Hyakawa are words, and that they are words of importance that need be taken seriously, as should so many other words; that the evolution of self expression through language and the written word is one of the greatest revolutions in the history of the human species.
George interrupted, flatly stating that I was 'lying'.
Specifically, George said:
'You're lying about what you just said'.
Ignoring his provocative arrogance, I quoted Henry Fairlie's statement about the good, bad and ugly power of words:
"We can manipulate or be manipulated by the words we use. We can command or hide. Attack or benefit. Stand or retreat. Adjust to new realities or obscure them. All with words."
I added: "The Vietnam War was a 'Police Action'.
A nuclear melt down is a 'transciency'.
Horses sweat, men perspire, and women are overcome by the heat.
George asked, "Who's Henry Fairlie?"
I replied that he was an English (British) Journalist and social critic.
George repeated himself, saying: 'You're lying again'.
I countered his repeated arrogance by saying that he was deliberately abusing words, practicing the power of abusing words, and that his impertinent motive was to project and inflict discomfort, distress and suffering on me; comparable to starting a war...
George proceeded with: "Did you say this guy's name - this British journalist's name was 'Fairy'?"
I said, "No. I said this guy's name is 'Fairlie - Henry Fairlie'.
George replied, 'Oh. I see, you're saying he was a 'Fairy'. What else did this British queer say?"
Of course this transparent gaffe caused quite a stir in what had become our riveted audience in the presiding room full of people.
One thoughtful guy interceded with: "Knock it off, George. That's sadistic".
George forged ahead with, "Hey. I'm only kidding around - What else did this British queer you're talking about have to say that might contribute to this conversation?"
(At this point, several people left the room.)
George quipped, "Hey, I guess they were fairies too". Then he asked: "Are you a fairy?" I replied in the negative, adding the qualification that one of the people who left the room happened to be 'gay', and that his behavior was proof of the point he was denying about the meaning of words... He chuckled...
He didn't seem to mind being the only person in the room that was laughing.
I replied that, as a matter of fact, I happened to have some papers with me that included several notes about what Henry Fairlie had to say about several things. I added that some of the notes were 'kinda wordy'. The volunteer captive audience roared amusement on that note...
George responded with a question: "Would you care to let me see the notes, or better yet, maybe you could read some to me?"
I replied that I was glad that he asked, and produced a notebook I had in my pack sack, from which I read aloud the following passage:
"It is true ... that animals are not cruel. They cannot be cruel; if we say that they are being cruel, we mean only that they are being savage, whether to survive or simply to triumph. They cannot be cruel because they cannot associate themselves with the feelings of their victims, and even their own feelings are only those of enjoyment, if there is enjoyment at all, of their own power. A man is cruel, on the other hand, and is rightly said to be being cruel, when he is associating himself with the feelings of his victims, when he is enjoying, not only his own power, but the suffering of another."
My recitation of that statement was followed by a fairly extended silence.
Then George feigned a conspicuously artificial amusement in a correspondingly counterfeit laugh. A distraught bystander looked at the antagonist and said:
"I don't think that's funny, George. I think you just painted yourself into a corner."
I excused myself, saying that I had an appointment to keep with another English major at the library.
On my way out the door, a red faced George barked: "You're lying again!".
Just as I closed the door behind me, I looked at the vanquished predator and resolved:
"This time you're right, George. I am lying. I'm actually on my way to a dog-eared language class on semantics and gay journalism".
Post Script: Perhaps 'George' is of the school that says threatening someone's life or yelling 'Fire!' in a theater, is merely, absurd, gutteral, noisey word usage...?


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
