A picture meant to remind the reader of warmer days, relaxing the mind and making it receptive to the essay’s message.
As a software engineer[1], there’s a certain necessity of developing a literal turn of mind, specifically when coding. Computers, with the possible exception of generative AI[0], but certainly not during the creation of programs, do not comprehend metaphors, similes, and those other modes of human expression we so commonly use. It’s possible to argue otherwise, but I fear the point might be stretched into a particularly gauche semi-colon, or even a sentence structure that has yet to be invented. The general literality of computers encouraging this facility of literality becomes important to the software engineer, particularly when faced with a few pages of obscure and unexpected errors emitted from a compiler[2]. The ability to play the computer, real or virtual, involves literal interpretation of the code refused by the compiler in order to amend it into acceptability.
It’s not inaccurate to say that this inclination to literal interpretation is sometimes present[3] at times that are inappropriate, such as reading communicative prose. This brings me, attentive to writing deficiencies in both myself and others, to the phrase that is bothering me. I shall obscure irrelevancies and personalities for the sake of clarity.
The internal contradictions are key. If XXX wins implies a future potential state, which is possible but of uncertain predictability. … her Oscar, however, is a subtly incompatible composition. Her implies definite ownership of the award, as if the time of selection has already passed and the lady in question already possesses the honor that is associated with such an award. This might work, logically, if her candidacy was viewed as the overwhelming favorite, but it is not. In fact, the article in question examines the contention that her potential for victory in the contest has been lessened due to personal views on various social issues.
In today’s destructive chaos of frenzied reading, it seems harmless enough, but in such a short phrase, a mere fragment of a sentence, lies the seeds of insanity. I’ve written elsewhere on this platform about the possible consequences of poor writing, namely of poor thinking[5], a problem afflicting so many of us[4]. Perhaps the best therapy for those applying pen to paper is to review their proposed writing with a literal turn of mind, correcting all such errors they can find; I shall neither enumerate nor bookend the errors. In this case, I do not know if the writer as relaxed onto a shoal of intellectual sloth, or has carefully chosen the phrase to capture the attention of a reader whose attention may be flagging. If the latter, I wish they hadn’t, as the insanity that many believe afflicts the political left does have a hidden origin in how they express themselves.
Indeed, some would argue that we are all mad, and we know it from self-expression.
0 Nor do I propose to investigate it; my interpretation of non-technical articles on the subject suggest it to be little more than a sophisticated party trick, although certain scholarly occupations will find its ability summarize semantic content valuable, although they must beware brutally wrong answers. But I may be wrong.
1 These days I introduce myself as an obsolete software engineer. At a recent event, a funeral and wake, when I used this phrase on introduction to one couple, they, in unison, said, “Don’t retire!” It turned out, in their separate jobs, that they both depended on old computing systems that still need support.
2 Compilers translate human-composed instructions into the native electronic instructions used by computer, aka machine language. Compilers may be the king of such errors, if I may employ the simile, but among the peerage might be found interpreters, which may translate to an intermediate format; linkers, which link together specific programs to general purpose libraries; and other tools of the instructional trade of programmer.
In fact, composition of this blog requires a literal view of HTML, as the HTML-oriented editor delivered by WordPress that I use, which I believe they call their Classic Editor, does not support footnotes. I must insert that code manually.
3 If a modifier to this observation is required, it might subcutaneous, a purely metaphorical description.
4 Some folks, including most of those occupying political leadership positions of all brands, should simply tattoo their faces crimson and resign, although their successors might find an obligation to copy their predecessors.
The above may be reflective of those who select such leaders, namely the followers.
5 Or perhaps I have consequent and antecedent confused, a not unknown problem when such a situation appears circular. If my reader is uncertain, consider the ‘chicken and the egg’ conundrum, which may even have quantum echos a la Dr. Erwin Schrödinger. How do I mean? I leave that as an exercise for the diligent reader. If any such have reached this divergence from the essay.
