The Finger of the Moon

Abstract

If I were to say the President of the United States is pusillanimous, most people would agree that my statement was descriptive, fair or not, and the same would hold if I were to say he is brave. After all, adjectives are descriptive words. But what if I were to say the President is a peacemaker; a poltroon? Are these descriptive statements? How about the President is a man, he has dark hair or he lives with a pretty lady? Do these words reveal the President? Are descriptions of a man the man? How do words function in regard to reality? Imagine walking along a trail, stopping and distinguishing some of the things and activities within five feet of you. You would use symbols, of course. Is this act like the one of describing the President? Is telling what we see when we observe the President or a spot along a trail, or a cancerous cell, a descriptive act? How do describing and distinguishing relate? Are there words for things that have not been distinguished from other things? Is there a link between words and what they distinguish, point out, in reality? Does a word ever quit just describing a slice of reality and become it? Or does a description of something, even the best one in the world, remain a description, never approaching or becoming one with the aspect of reality that it refers to? How about the word, word? What is the difference between good and poor descriptions of some aspect of reality? Is a good description, even a true one, still a description? If words can't be reality, can't become what they point to, can they slice up reality? If an expert on fruit proceeded to write out an excellent description of a watermelon, distinguishing some of its parts, would a watermelon be divided up? Isn't describing and analyzing about the same thing, and isn't analyzing a dividing-up? If we analyzed what a skilled rider puts into balancing on a bicycle, would we be dividing balancing up into its distinguishable parts? Or does the ability to balance on a bicycle stay intact, unaffected by the analysis? If non-riders studied another's analysis of bicycle balancing, wouldn't they be learning balancing? Would learning an expert's analysis of skilled piano playing be learning to play the piano? How about cake-baking? If I described the procedure for baking a good cake (mix together one Duncan Hines lemon supreme mix, four eggs, one-fourth cup sugar, two-thirds cup of cooking oil, and one cup of apricot nectar and bake at 350 degrees from 35 to 45 minutes) and if you studied my description, wouldn't you be learning to bake a cake? Do my words equate to the skills of distinguishing the correct ingredients, opening the containers, pouring, stirring, preparing the pan and placing it into an oven, setting the thermostat, keeping track of time, testing the cake with a knife? Or do I, in describing this procedure, presume this knowhow? Is presenting one with a cake recipe an act of giving the ability to make it, divided up into its components-the skills of cake-baking? Who would confuse a description of a watermelon with a watermelon, a description of the skills to play a piano with the ability to play a piano, a description of a sexual partner with a sexual partner, a description of a poem with a poem? A description of a language with a language? Who would confuse the learning of a description of a watermelon with the learning of