In a message dated 10/5/2015 2:58:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Was wondering how long it would take Meryl to jump on the implicature
bandwagon.
Well, the use of "not" depends on how the conversation (and attending
implicature) is reported. There is in UK a newspaper that calls itself "The
Guardian" (implicature: of the Nation's consciousness -- in Campbell-Popper's
evolutionary way of interpreting this).
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/02/meryl-streep-on-feminist-questio
n-im-a-humanist
“Are you a feminist?” Her response: “I am a humanist, I am for nice, easy
balance.”
So, for "The Guardian", there was no "not".
It's still different from the implicature reported elsewhere (THIS FORUM)
by McEvoy to the effect that a football personality once uttered:
i. People are human.
But something like that IS implicated by Streep.
ii. A: Are you a feminist?
STREEP: [No]. "I am a humanist" [Implicature: "And feminine people are
human, you know].
I would use a '.' where "The Guardian" has an Oxford comma.
iii. Q: Are you a feminist?
STREEP: [No, I'm not]. I am a humanist [+> And feminine people are
humane, you know]. I am for nice, easy balance.
The explanation, "I am for nice, easy balance" strengthens the negation,
for she is implicating that BEING A FEMINIST would NOT have her 'for' (or
"into" as her daughter would say) nice, easy balance".
"Nice" etymology means "not-knowing" as Popper should discuss this in his
crucial "Objective Knowledge". George Mikes, another Continental author,
does, and says that 'nice' is the most abused word in the English language.
And I say this strengthens the implicature, "No, I'm not", because she is
IMPLICATING, as well, that being one would NOT have her for "nice, easy
balance".
The logical situation resembles the football personality:
ii. People are human, you know.
It's best represented in terms of Venn's diagrammes. Streep is implicating
that we have two sets: "F" and "M". And that they intersect (Geary adds:
"perhaps she also implicates that "F" are from Venus and "M" from Mars.")
So, Streep is being inclusive and for a 'nice' (perhaps not to be
interpreted as "not knowing" -- 'ne-scio') easy balance.
Streep is also trying to be amusing, the keyword: 'humanist' has been used
by Italian renaissance men [sic] and other for ages; but her point is
lexicological. She is not being a 'humanist' in the full way this keyword is
taken philosophically. She is merely playing with suffixes: 'femin-ist',
narrower than 'human-ist', for 'feminine people, you know, ARE human'
(Implicature: So why leave half of the world's population beyond my concern).
Perhaps she misunderstood the question? Similarly, the Pope was recently
asked, "Is the Pope Catholic?" and he answered, "Who, me?".
And so forth.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
