Most people speaking English use the word "but" to box-out various small places of cause-effect. Many psych-nerd-types suggest that all "buts" can be replaced with "and". What does that win us? I call it "the AND world". All things co-exist. You could say "In a jungle there are fruits BUT there are nuts." You can just as logically say "In a jungle there are fruits AND there are nuts." The second jungle looks like it offers me more options, even though it's the same jungle with fruits and nuts coexisting. I could say "I have a sister BUT I have brothers" or I could say "I have a sister AND I have brothers." Both sentences are factually true. If I am looking for siblings, how do I benefit by boxing-out the siblings?
What about "I have a sister BUT I have no brothers"? I think it must mean something different from "I have no brothers BUT I have a sister". And I think that they both mean the same thing, down deep, as "I have a sister AND I have no brothers." Why do I prefer the AND world over the two BUT worlds?
There's an interesting thing about the AND world: I think it contains no "EQUALS". In other words, since there is always A AND B AND C AND..., I think A always stands in such a way that B is separate from it, so in the AND world, the A is what it is, and the B is what it is. In the AND world jungle, each fruit is different, each nut is different.
No comments:
Post a Comment