![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Definition of the Word “Is”
Back in the Monica Lewinsky semen-stain era of politics, Bill Clinton famously made a profound existential pronouncement when asked whether or not the two were having an affair. He said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
The technicality he was highlighting at the time had to do with verb tense. He maintained that he was being truthful when he said “There is no improper relationship,” because at the present time of that question being put to him, there was none. He understandably got hammered for this technical usage of language, but by that point, the trap had been set and the damage had been done.
Lucky for him, he didn’t try to explore the definition of the word “is” in any greater depth, because he might have gotten into even more trouble. Merriam-Webster defines “is” as “to equal in meaning” or “to have identity with.” But when we use it in common speech, we rarely consider what we are doing with this most simple of verbs…
The weather is bad.
In that statement, we are constructing with language an equation which goes something like “weather = badness.” We are saying that local weather conditions are identical to or equal to the abstract subjective concept of badness. But it’s just easier to say, “The weather is bad” than to be very technical about it. But if we were to be very technical about it, we would run into a major problem when we reach that equal sign, the part that says “identical to or equal to,” because it is simply not true.
The concept of weather is not identical or equal to the concept of badness. Rather, they are two totally unconnected concepts with entirely different meanings which are being temporarily linked together by way of a linguistic land-bridge, the word “is.” But again, it’s easier to just say “The weather is bad” than it is to say, “I would like to meaningfully link my perception of local weather conditions to the state or concept known as ‘badness’ so as to indicate a close relationship, wherein my perception of local weather conditions temporarily takes on certain elements (in a metaphorical sense) of the intangible concept of ‘badness’.”
You might, by this point, be thinking, “This guy is full of shit. What is the point of all this endless dithering?” And if that’s the case, I would caution you to re-evaluate the technical precision of any statement which would equate me or the concepts I am communicating with the physical object known colloquially as shit…
But now that we have that out of the way, the point of this is to show how deeply buried blatant glaring inaccuracies are in our thinking and communication. Life is simply riddled with them. But my goal is not to instill despair over such existential quandaries, but to inspire you to look for traps people lay verbally for themselves and one another.
I actually have a separate article which I am about to write which builds on this foundation, and looks at how word substition, identity and equality is used within advertising to trip people up and trip people out. If this sort of exploration of language appeals to you, I recommend doing some further research about it. Several other groups, I think, have mastered this sort of thinking - for better or for worse, and there’s much that can be learned from it. Check out these older articles for more:
- To Wish Impossible Things
- Hubbard On Language
- “Verbal Tech” in Scientology
- Landmark Forum & Scientology
- How Does NLP Work?
Also look for these techniques in Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics, and the Political Correctness movement, among other places.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:19 am
NOTHING runs like a deere………….
it is important to explore and point out to people how words can create little logical traps that can become serious reeores in judgement. i read yesterday that someone said many years ago the it is the job of business to mislead the public.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I don’t have a comment that pertains specifically to this, except to say that this post is exceptionally well-written.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Well, you know what they say. If you don’t shit, you die. Do what you gotta do. Just don’t squeeze the Charmin.
Agnes
August 10th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I know most people think that this was a low point in Clinton’s career, but he became my hero with those 11 little words. I mean, the cajones on that guy…Ha!…to this day I’m in awe of his audacity…From what I understand, the way he justifies it to himself, his enemies where attempting to unjustly destroy him, so he could use every weapon in his arsenal (specifically rhetoric under oath) to fight back…Man, if I had the guts to argue the definition of the word “is” in a federal investigation…genius…
And Tim, have you come across E-prime in your readings? The basic premis of the language (actually a modification of English) is that most, if not all, confusion in English comes from the use of “be” verbs. By simply dropping “to be”…is, am, are, was, were, etc…English becomes much more accurate and descriptive. I’ve experimented with it on and off and have found that it really does change the way you process etic reality into language…and my writing got incredibly more sophisticated and clear. I keep dropping out of using it because it takes more effort…but thinking about it now, its definitely worth using…
Heres a solid intro: http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_dev...pment/GeneralSemantics/KensEPrime.htm
whoa…general semantics…never noticed that before…think I need to do a little more research into e-prime…
Be good,
Ronin
August 10th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Oh wow, e-prime, never heard of it. I’ll have to check it out! I think general semantics is fairly similar, though it’s hard to find a really good solid intro to it.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
word. e prime has been fascinating me recently….
check this Robert Anton Wilson video, it def got me thinking…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doci...7&q=Robert+Anton+Wilson&hl=en
August 10th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
E-Prime is darned cool stuff. Actually, the Psychologist Albert Ellis, founder of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy, wrote one of his first books, A Guide to Rational Living, completely in E-Prime.
As far as good, simple primers on General Semantics, i remember buying a book about Religion in Astoria about five years ago (have since either lost it or given it away), which turned out to apply General Semantics to the history and evolution of religions–it was a super pleasant surprise of a book at the time. Don’t remember the name of the woman who wrote it, but she was associated with the Society for General Semantics in NY or somewhere. I believe the title of the book was something like “Religion & the New Age” (though I might not be remembering it correctly) and was from the early 70’s. If you can find that book (hopefully, it ain’t too much of a needle in the haystack kind of thing), it felt like the easiest, simplest and most engaging intro to General Semantics that I coulda found. (Damn, I wish I still had that book!)