My First Time

I recently read part of my first issue of Touchstone Magazine (as a result of a confession--non-sacramental--to Father Patrick Henry Reardon that I had never read the publication) and read for the first time a writing sample of Peter J. Leithart. Many people have respect for this man as an intellectual contemporary theologian, though I only read a very brief comment in the beginning of the magazine. The comment that he made is somewhat pertinent to my stalled-out series on the depth of language and literary theory, so I will quote it in full:

Consensual Silence

Meaning in language depends upon consensus. The sound "cat" denotes a feline to English speakers because English speakers agree that it does. French speakers can make no sense of the sound, but say "chat" (without the "t") and everything becomes clear.

Augustine gives a near twist to this common notion. Not only do we know what words mean because a group agrees, but learning what words mean involves coming to agreement with those who use the word. Learning that "katze" means "cat" unites me, in a small way, with all the German-speakers.

This is the heart of Augustine's analysis of the dangers of superstition. If an astrologer says, "If Venus is in the fifth house, you'll fall in love," and I agree, even if I agree simply by failing to disagree, I have formed a pact with falsehood. Worse, by agreeing with the astrologer, I've entered into a league with the demons who inspired his false signs in the first place.

Confronted with a false word, there is no way to remain neutral, to let it slide. I must either enter into fellowship with falsehood or break the consensus by disagreeing and telling the truth. "No," I must say to the astrologer, "Venus doesn't mean that."

Such disagreement is a liberation. But Augustine's analysis also raises disturbing questions about our culture's mania for politeness. What kind of villainy do we tolerate when we smile and smile and refuse to disagree?

Focus on Leithart's phrase, "his false signs." Note the importance, as I stressed in the first major installment of the S&M series, of the use of the correct signs. Naturally, I would expect all readers to agree, yet be at a loss as to where they define false from true signs. If by our mere disagreement we can falsify the signs of another, fine. But if the truth or falsehood of the statement and the sign created by the string of words in the statement (note that each word is a sign in itself and put together they form a new sign...) is intrinsic to the sign and cannot be changed, then we are at a quandary--we must first know whether the sign is true or false before agreeing or disagreeing! Please wait with extreme anticipation for my follow-up on how we create meaning through the "making" of signs which should be forthcoming as soon as I get settled in my new home (though who knows how long that will be.)