Notes on non-sequiturs
December 20th 2006 01:44
So I ask you how you are, and you stare meaningfully up my nostril and inform me that the white dove leaves the bathroom at dawn.
Nothing resists comprehension, ultimately. Perhaps you're mad. Perhaps I'm mad. Perhaps you're screwing with me. Perhaps the aliens are manipulating you. Perhaps you're mistaking me for your MI5 contact...
But it's still a non-sequitur. There's still that initial wtf, the mind-blank, the pause. The gap, the train off the tracks. "Non-sequitur" refers firstly to the experience and only secondarily to the fact. How the hell does what you just said follow? How does it have anything to do with anything before it?
The non-sequitur is relative to beliefs, background knowledge; and, in particular, to shared understandings you thought were in place.
After all, a break is a break in terms of what?
If I were in MI5 after all...
Comedy is full of sequitur non-sequiturs and non-sequitur sequiturs.
What does it mean to follow? What determines what's sequitur and what's not?
One part of the story must be conversational thread, connection of relevance, relevance being relative to purpose.
And another part might be conversational move -- appropriateness and expectations and rules -- of language, etiquette, custom... For sequiturs needn't be linguistic, and whatever throws you to some extent wtfs you. In response to "How are you?", a punch in the face could be a non-verbal non-sequitur.
There are degrees of relevance and appropriateness. So there are degrees of sequitur, depending on how readily and squarely something can be seen to follow.
Why can you always "legitimately" why?
It's partly to do with the way that "why" has an implicit claim of relevance -- relative to a purpose of teaching or understanding.
And it's partly to do with what options, moves the situation permits you...
It seems usually possible to ask for the purpose or point of something -- the way it relates to an initial question or problem or statement, as if every part of the conversation were a branch of a tree diagram, as if all of it flowed from a single source.
And the less obvious or ready the relation, the greater the non-sequitur.
Not every conversation is strict, not every point sharp. There are any number of purposes to talk, including being entertaining, and passing the time. There are plenty of places where you're less worried about conversational thread.
Now, to say that this is a collection of thoughts to pass the time still gives a "point", still tells you how to structure the information you're receiving, in what spirit the speaker sent it, and what you're to do with it... It's just that the logic of your sentences, one after another, might answer to a more diffuse rule of "It should associate in some way with the previous", like a dreamy stream of consciousness, or "It should be interesting, and loss of conversational thread is forgivable".
But what is the point of the point? What guarantees its legitimacy?
Nothing resists comprehension, ultimately. Perhaps you're mad. Perhaps I'm mad. Perhaps you're screwing with me. Perhaps the aliens are manipulating you. Perhaps you're mistaking me for your MI5 contact...
But it's still a non-sequitur. There's still that initial wtf, the mind-blank, the pause. The gap, the train off the tracks. "Non-sequitur" refers firstly to the experience and only secondarily to the fact. How the hell does what you just said follow? How does it have anything to do with anything before it?
***
The non-sequitur is relative to beliefs, background knowledge; and, in particular, to shared understandings you thought were in place.
After all, a break is a break in terms of what?
If I were in MI5 after all...
***
Comedy is full of sequitur non-sequiturs and non-sequitur sequiturs.
***
What does it mean to follow? What determines what's sequitur and what's not?
One part of the story must be conversational thread, connection of relevance, relevance being relative to purpose.
And another part might be conversational move -- appropriateness and expectations and rules -- of language, etiquette, custom... For sequiturs needn't be linguistic, and whatever throws you to some extent wtfs you. In response to "How are you?", a punch in the face could be a non-verbal non-sequitur.
There are degrees of relevance and appropriateness. So there are degrees of sequitur, depending on how readily and squarely something can be seen to follow.
***
Why can you always "legitimately" why?
It's partly to do with the way that "why" has an implicit claim of relevance -- relative to a purpose of teaching or understanding.
And it's partly to do with what options, moves the situation permits you...
***
It seems usually possible to ask for the purpose or point of something -- the way it relates to an initial question or problem or statement, as if every part of the conversation were a branch of a tree diagram, as if all of it flowed from a single source.
And the less obvious or ready the relation, the greater the non-sequitur.
Not every conversation is strict, not every point sharp. There are any number of purposes to talk, including being entertaining, and passing the time. There are plenty of places where you're less worried about conversational thread.
Now, to say that this is a collection of thoughts to pass the time still gives a "point", still tells you how to structure the information you're receiving, in what spirit the speaker sent it, and what you're to do with it... It's just that the logic of your sentences, one after another, might answer to a more diffuse rule of "It should associate in some way with the previous", like a dreamy stream of consciousness, or "It should be interesting, and loss of conversational thread is forgivable".
But what is the point of the point? What guarantees its legitimacy?
| 91 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Some interesting, well thought-out questions here...
Comment by Oblivion
The question, itself, is regarded by many as just 'chit-chat'. Do not tell me that in asking someone 'How are you doing' that in all seriousness you really mean it? To prove my point consider this: If you were to ask me that question, what if I was to answer truthfully and honestly...and I were to proceed answering your question to the fullest...by telling you how I felt...emotionally, physically, financially, socially, psychologically, and so forth...would anyone whether it was you or Postmodern Critic feel somewhat uncomfortable? In essence, (and I am not saying this rudely) you do not care about my full and present state of being. Besides one's family and the closest of friends, who would?
On another note, I am reminded also of Frankfurt's essay on Bullshit. When you were talking about conversational move, I was reminded of Frankfurt when he said (or rather wrote) "Bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are" in the vary sense that the Bullshitter does not care about the relevance or Truth of the conversation...I did not realize later that the context of that sentence seemed familiar and that it came from Nietzsche when he said, "Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies." Ahh…Nietzsche…I could go on for days writing about him.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
As I read your comment, you point out that "How are you?" doesn't have literal force (it's more of a greeting, or a ritual formality). And you conclude that since it's meaningless, the appropriate response should also be meaningless. A punch in the face or a perve up the nostrils is not a non-sequitur after all.
In reply, I'd claim that a punch or a perve would count as non-sequiturs, and I reckon I could persuade you to agree if you buy the following three claims:
Firstly, that meaning shouldn't be confused with "literal meaning", that meaning is use, and that "How are you" isn't meaningless.
Secondly, that even if it were meaningless, this wouldn't automatically make any meaningless response appropriate, and wouldn't, in most contexts, make a perve or a punch a sequitur.
Thirdly, that "How are you?" is a good example of a conversational move, and that anything other than one of the normal replies (including a punch or a perve, and including -- God help us -- a literal reply) would violate some sort of implicit norm and be to some extent a non-sequitur.
Does "How are you?" deserve a non-sequitur response? -- Well, probably
But in any of these cases, you're still aware of the normal rules, you precisely want to commit a non-sequitur in relation to them, and you still realize that what you're doing will mind-fuck the other person.
Comment by Oblivion
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
The question that Alice brings us is a great point because strangely enough I just read George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" last night. It was a terrific essay with great points! Adrian, I really would like to suggest this to be a future topic with Language because there is so much material that can be addressed. It is not really my strong area, your sword seems to be much sharper than mine.
Lastly, I would have to persist once more to argue that the responses you were describing could not be as 'non-sequitur as you are saying. I have to believe most people would have a clue about some of the absurd or irrelevant things that people say to the question "How are you?", even if you don't expect it!
Comment by Esteban
It is something incredible the fact that the language has different forms of expression and interpretation. Sometimes it depends on the context. What do you think about Wittgenstein?
You are invited to my philosophy blog http://qpm.blogspot.com !
Comment by Oblivion
Anyways I have not got to Witt yet, like I said my sword is not as sharp when it comes to the origins/functions/etc of language. I'm sure Adrian could enlighten us... or perhaps throw us into an inescapable nihilisitic void. You know, just whatever may be the case. Oh and Esteban, you have some very interesting blogs. I have to give you credit because I have to yet start a successful one. I enjoy adding to existing thoughts then to create my own. It's laziness I guess
Also Adrian, I don't know if you answered whether or not my hypothetical response would be considered 'non-sequitur' because I'm giving a literal response to a question in which the answers are mostly already determined. These answers usually include: fine, alright, good, fine but tired, not unwell, great, well, etc etc. The determined answers to the question may vary but they all basically express the same thing.
What IF my answer was this: "Oh I'm feeling a bit dizzy and nauseated from the half-dozen glazed donuts I just ate. It was way too much sugar in one sitting for me in addition to being pricey. Speaking of pricey, I need to pay my electric bill today because I just can't stand the feeling of a cold house/apartment when I go to bed. Speaking of going to bed, I've beening bouting some insomnia lately. Pychologically I feel that maybe I have some subconscious workings (unknown to me) that could be affecting my sleeping functions. Because physically, I am very lazy, I haven't worked out in some time and my mind may be imitating my physical condition. OR it could be vice versa....but no I have been doing really well in school and I am even learning things outside of class. Maybe it is socially? I haven't been really doing socially accepted things like going to movies or parties. I always felt I was sort of an outcast myself. I am an introvert in the sense that....
You see? It can go on and on... this can have the guise of a non-sequitur response but it does not seem so to me.
Ugh, that's all the typing I can handle for now. Thanks for reading.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
My brain hurts after reading it and i guess that this the point.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Damo -- thanks! In all honesty, I can't read this shit without my brain hurting (and my throat gagging)...
Dear Oblivion,
You ask directly whether literal responses to "How are you" are non-sequiturs. Well, "How are you" might be usually used as greeting or formality, but there's always the option, I think, to answer it truthfully. It hasn't entirely lost its literal force. People aren't that freaked out when you answer literally. So I think now that most literal responses, per se, probably wouldn't count as non-sequiturs -- though, perhaps, as I've suggested in the post, one can speak of "degrees" of non-sequitur -- a literal response is still to some extent unexpected.
As to whether your specific example is a non-sequitur, well I think it is. It ISN'T inasmuch as it does follow, in some sense. The questioner did bring it on their own head. But it IS inasmuch as it probably still violates some rule or norm. Not only the norm of treating "How are you" as greeting or ritual, but also some sort of decorum norm about appropriate length of response and how far one can try people's patience, and what information one shouldn't burden people with ("How are you?" -- "Great thanks. I just fucked my girlfriend and had a nice long shit.")
And note, in relation to length, that this isn't something that's restricted to "How are you?". If you gave me an essay-length response in reply to "What's the date?" or "What's your name", that would also freak people out...
About punches and perves in relation to "How are you" ("I would have to persist once more to argue that the responses you were describing could not be as 'non-sequitur as you are saying. I have to believe most people would have a clue about some of the absurd or irrelevant things that people say to the question 'How are you?'") -- You're quite right that the notion of "norm" is relative to listener, and that different listeners will have different norms. I still think, though, that most people would think it doesn't follow for someone to punch them in the face in response to "How are you", but I think this is ultimately an issue of fact. That is, we'd have to do surveys, field work, to find the truth of it.
About sharp, long, and uncut swords -- I'm not much for comparing them.
About Orwell -- I suppose the main issue there is the claimed connection between thought and language. So in Politics, he warns against cliches and thinks it deadens thought. In 1984, especially in the appendix, he talks about control of people via control of language.
I dunno how much I can contribute to the discussion. The claim, in its purist form, goes by the name of "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" in linguistics. The mainstream take on this seems to be that language does influence thought, but that Orwell was wrong -- it's not restrictive of it...
About Wittgenstein and Monty Python -- no comments.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Another quick note on this... Re when I wrote "Comedy is full of sequitur non-sequiturs and non-sequitur sequiturs"...
So, in comedy, you don't just stand up on stage and speak nonsense. Rather, if you're going for nonsense-type humour (as opposed, for instance, to humour of malice), then what you say must be appropriate in an inappropriate way. The pun plays on dual meanings.
Well, I'd assert that your extended response to "How are you?" is comic. It could get a laugh. And it's comic precisely because it's a non-sequitur sequitur; it is and it isn't appropriate...