From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:12:11 -0500, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates :   
      
   >On 2025-03-15 11:36 a.m., Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:42:19 +1100, the following appeared   
   >> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>   
   >> Never mind; I see you corrected your error in a later post.   
   >> Thanks for doing so.   
   >>   
   >>> On 15/03/2025 4:49 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>>>> Genesis, not the quoting of it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means   
   >>>>> that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation   
   >>>>> allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>> No comment? OK.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You've misunderstood. The context was Martin inferring I was a   
   >>> literalist because I quoted Genesis.   
   >>>   
   >> In this particular case, context is irrelevant; you made a   
   >> declarative statement regarding the measure of literalism.   
   >> That statement was incorrect; literalism allows NO   
   >> interpretation. Stop trying to wiggle out; your were wrong.   
   >> Admit it and move on.   
   >>>   
   >I'm a bit of two minds about this. The usual complaint about the misuse   
   >of "literal(ly)" is associated with a counter-factual. ie "I literally   
   >died when he said that." Clearly NOT literal. In other cases there is   
   >clear room  for interpretation. Language is not unambiguous. Take the   
   >statement "God exists". What is the literal meaning? It is not clearly   
   >counter-factual (even though I believe it is not true for many/most   
   >interpretations of 'God') It surely depends on how both 'God" and   
   >"exists" are defined and so interpretation is required.   
   >   
   OK, I take your meaning, but I wasn't commenting on the   
   *content* of what he was designating as literal, but on the   
   meaning of the word itself. In your example ("God exists"),   
   there is room for interpretation of the statement, but not   
   for whether the statement itself is unambiguous; it   
   definitely is, and which particular God is irrelevant. If I   
   say "The clear daytime sky on Earth is a shade of blue" it's   
   unambiguous and  meant to be taken literally, but if I say   
   "The sky is pretty" it's an interpretable statement of   
   opinion, and thus is objectively neither unambiguous nor   
   literal.   
      
   I realize this is arguable, but when I see "this is   
   literally true" it's intended to be taken for exactly what   
   the words mean; the fact that it may express something   
   delusional ("X is literally Hitler!" or "I literally died   
   when X happened!") doesn't alter the meaning.   
      
   My 20 mills, and YMMV.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)