ポール・ド・マンは『読むことのアレゴリー』(原著、P. de Man, "Semiology and Rhetoric", in Allegories of Reading, 1979, p.9、2007年時点では未邦訳。注：その後冒頭に掲げたように2012年岩波書店より邦訳が刊行された)で、言語、というよりも読むことの難しさ (=決定不能性)について説明する際の例として、アメリカのテレビドラマ「ALL IN THE FAMILY」を挙げている。柄谷行人は『隠喩としての建築』で以下のように紹介している。
＜アーチー・バンカーが、女房に、ボーリングシューズのひもを上結びにしてほしいか下結びにしてほしいかと聞かれて、"What's the difference?"と答えたとき、女房はその違いを説明しようとする。亭主は「そんな違いがどうだっていうんだ」といったのに、女房はそれを「どういう違いがあるか」という問いとして受け取ったわけである。ド・マンは、これを、これを文法的に同一な文が相互に排他的な意味を生み出す例として挙げている。われわれは、その文がはたして問うているのか、問うことを拒んでいるのかを、形式主義的な観点の下では説明できない。＞（『隠喩としての建築』岩波版104頁より）
All in the Family S3 E14 - Archie and the Bowling Team
こういった西欧哲学における問題、つまり行為と言説との矛盾、形式と内容の錯綜（「自己言及のパラドックス」）、といった課題をアイルランド系の移民がフィジカルな笑いに転化しているのを見るのは痛快である（同じ主題を「学童たちのあいだで（Among School Children）」で謳ったイエーツもアイルランド人だった）。
ボーリング・シューズの紐を上結びにしたいか下結びにしたいかを妻に訊ねられ、アーチー・バンカー（Archie Bunker）は"What’sthedifference？"という質問で応じる。極めて単純な読解者（reader）である彼の妻は、辛抱強く上結びと下結びの違いを説明するのだが、どう説明しても夫の怒りをそそるばかりである"What’sthedifference？"〔どう違うんだい？〕は違いを訊ねているのではなく、"Idon’tgive a damn what the difference is．"〔どう違おうとどうでもいいよ〕を意味しているのである。同一の文法的パターンが相互に排他的な二つの意味を生む。字義どおりの意味（literal meaning）は概念（違い）を求めているが、その存在は比喩的な意味（figurative meaning）によって否定されてしまう。事がボーリング・シューズの問題に留まっていれば、結果はそう大したことではない。アーチー・バンカーは起源の権威（無論、正しい起源でなければならないが）を大いに信頼しているので、不愉快を感じないわけではないが、字義どおりの意味と比喩的な意味が互いに邪魔し合う世界を何とか切り抜ける。だが、ここで"What’sthe Difference？"と問うのが「バンカー」ではなく、否定する人（de―Bunker）であり、起源（arche／origin）の"de―bunker"、たとえばニーチェやジャック・デリダのような"archie Debunker"だとしてみよう。彼の文法からは、彼が「実際に」「どんな」差異を知りたがっているのか、あるいはそんなものは見出そうとさえすべきではないと言っているのかが分からないのである。文法とレトリックの差異という問題に直面するとき、文法はわれわれに質問を発することを許すが、われわれが質問を発するために用いる文は、まさに質問の可能性そのものを否定してしまうかもしれない。というのも、私はそれを問いたいのだが、ある質問が問うているのか問うていないのかを明確に決定することさえできないならば、質問を発することはそもそも何の役に立つというのだろうか（pp.９―１０）。
Lyrics - Van Morrison - Educating Archie Lyrics EDUCATING ARCHIE LYRICS - VAN MORRISON
You're a slave to the capitalist system Which is ruled by the global elite What happened to, the individual What happened to, the working class white
They filled his head with so much propaganda Entertainment on TV and all kinds of shite What happened to the individual When he gave up all of his rights
Tell you up is down and wrong is right Nothing to hang your hat on, can't even get uptight
You're controlled by the media Everything you say and do What happened to, the individual Tell me what happened to you Tell you up is down, not able to fight Keep you docile and complacent, can't even get uptight Controlled by the media and you don't know what you can do They took away your constitution you don't even know what happened to you
Waffle is the language that they taught you, taught you to talk But you can't even get any angle because you forgot how. Keep on walking the walk
You're a slave to the capitalist system and it's controlled by the global elite Double dealing with the banks, behind your back, just can't fight
ポール・ド・マンは『読むことのアレゴリー』(原著、P. de Man, "Semiology and Rhetoric", in Allegories of Reading, 1979, p.9)で、言語、というよりも読むことの難しさ (=決定不能性)について説明する際の例と して、アメリカのテレビドラマ「ALL IN THE FAMILY」を挙げている。柄谷行人は『隠喩としての建築』で 以下のように紹介している。
＜アーチー・バンカーが、女房に、ボーリングシューズのひもを上結びにしてほしいか下結びにしてほしいか と聞かれて、"What's the difference?"と答えたとき、女房はその違いを説明しようとする。亭主は「そんな違 いがどうだっていうんだ」といったのに、女房はそれを「どういう違いがあるか」という問いとして受け取っ たわけである。ド・マンは、これを、これを文法的に同一な文が相互に排他的な意味を生み出す例として挙げ ている。われわれは、その文がはたして問うているのか、問うことを拒んでいるのかを、形式主義的な観点の 下では説明できない。＞（『隠喩としての建築』岩波版p104より） 該当シーン（30秒） http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlV4MdnZ4lE DVD:All In the Family: The Complete Third Season (1971) episode14. Archhie and the Bowling Team 1972年12月16日放送
paradox is introduced, all of these structures -algebraic, =z We must now look at this "self-referential formal system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com- munication is far more complex than semiologists usual- ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu- ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is question- ing or refusing questioning itself. Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit- com implies that we stand on a meta -level. A more seri- ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology ofMind:
paradox is introduced, all of these structures -algebraic, =z We must now look at this "self-referential formal
paradox is introduced, all of these structures -algebraic, =z We must now look at this "self-referential formal system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com- munication is far more complex than semiologists usual- ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu- ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is question- ing or refusing questioning itself. Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit- com implies that we stand on a meta -level. A more seri- ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology ofMind:
system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com- munication is far more complex than semiologists usual- ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu- ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is question- ing or refusing questioning itself. Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit- com implies that we stand on a meta-level. A more seri- ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology of Mind:
| Deconstruction | Plato - Scribd https://www.scribd.com/.../Karatani-Kojin... Karatani, Kojin...Architecture as Metaphor - Free download as PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free. ... De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over o r under, ...
We must now look at this "self-referential formal system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com- munication is far more complex than semiologists usual- ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu- ally exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is question- ing or refusing questioning itself.
We must now look at this "self-referential formal system" in the context of communication. Natural communication is far more complex than semiologists usually understand it to be. De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or refusing questioning itself.
When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or refusing questioning itself.
3:24 …When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, “What's the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or refusing questioning itself.
19 Comments:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Educating-Archie-lyrics-Van-Morrison/320141C8E2E374E448257A93007B3546
Lyrics - Van Morrison - Educating Archie Lyrics
EDUCATING ARCHIE LYRICS - VAN MORRISON
You're a slave to the capitalist system
Which is ruled by the global elite
What happened to, the individual
What happened to, the working class white
They filled his head with so much propaganda
Entertainment on TV and all kinds of shite
What happened to the individual
When he gave up all of his rights
Tell you up is down and wrong is right
Nothing to hang your hat on, can't even get uptight
You're controlled by the media
Everything you say and do
What happened to, the individual
Tell me what happened to you
Tell you up is down, not able to fight
Keep you docile and complacent, can't even get uptight
Controlled by the media and you don't know what you can do
They took away your constitution you don't even know what happened to you
Waffle is the language that they taught you, taught you to talk
But you can't even get any angle because you forgot how. Keep on walking the walk
You're a slave to the capitalist system and it's controlled by the global elite
Double dealing with the banks, behind your back, just can't fight
その後2012年岩波書店より邦訳が刊行された
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4000254634
読むことのアレゴリー――ルソー、ニーチェ、リルケ、プルーストにおける比喩的言語 [単行本]
ポール・ド・マン (著), Paul de Man (原著), 土田 知則 (翻訳)
単行本: 432ページ
出版社: 岩波書店 (2012/12/22)
ISBN-10: 4000254634
ISBN-13: 978-4000254632
発売日： 2012/12/22
アーチーに関しては後にアイルランド人のヴァン・モリソンが曲の題名に無知の代名詞？として使っている。
Lyrics - Van Morrison - Educating Archie Lyrics
EDUCATING ARCHIE LYRICS - VAN MORRISON
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Educating-Archie-lyrics-Van-Morrison/320141C8E2E374E448257A93007B3546
考える名無しさん[sage] 投稿日:2010/08/13 09:30:11
284 名前: 考える名無しさん Mail: sage 投稿日: 2010/08/10(火) 02:12:12
ポール・ド・マンは『読むことのアレゴリー』(原著、P. de Man, "Semiology and Rhetoric", in Allegories
of Reading, 1979, p.9)で、言語、というよりも読むことの難しさ (=決定不能性)について説明する際の例と
して、アメリカのテレビドラマ「ALL IN THE FAMILY」を挙げている。柄谷行人は『隠喩としての建築』で
以下のように紹介している。
＜アーチー・バンカーが、女房に、ボーリングシューズのひもを上結びにしてほしいか下結びにしてほしいか
と聞かれて、"What's the difference?"と答えたとき、女房はその違いを説明しようとする。亭主は「そんな違
いがどうだっていうんだ」といったのに、女房はそれを「どういう違いがあるか」という問いとして受け取っ
たわけである。ド・マンは、これを、これを文法的に同一な文が相互に排他的な意味を生み出す例として挙げ
ている。われわれは、その文がはたして問うているのか、問うことを拒んでいるのかを、形式主義的な観点の
下では説明できない。＞（『隠喩としての建築』岩波版p104より）
該当シーン（30秒）
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlV4MdnZ4lE
DVD:All In the Family: The Complete Third Season (1971)
episode14. Archhie and the Bowling Team 1972年12月16日放送
ド・マンがこのテレビ番組を見ていたかと思うと、別の意味で感慨深いものがある。
ちなみに、『読むことのアレゴリー』の巻頭論文「記号論とレトリック」には柄谷行人による邦訳が存在する
（『現代思想』1981.7/1981．8 ）。
73
考える名無しさん[sage] 投稿日:2010/08/13 10:05:59
前近代文明の三重構造の地政学的型（参考：『世界史の構造』Ｂ-２-２）：
亜周辺｜ ヨ 亜周辺｜ ｜中心 ｜ 朝 ｜
アテネ ＿＿＿＿｜ ｜ 西ヨーロッパ＿＿＿＿｜ ｜ ｜ 鮮 ｜
／ア ｜ ロ ／バ ｜ ｜ 中国 ｜ 半 ｜
古 ローマ ／ ナ 周辺｜ ッ ／ ル 周辺｜ ｜ ｜ 島 ｜
典 ／ リト ｜ パ ／ 半カ ｜ ｜ ／ ／
古 ／ ア ＿＿｜ 中 ／ 島ン ＿＿｜ ｜＿＿／ベ ／
代 ／キ ／ ｜ 世 ／イ ／ ｜ ｜ ト ／
社 ｜ プ ／ペルシア 社 ｜ ベ ／イスラーム ｜周辺 ナ ／ 日
会 ｜ ロ ｜帝国 中心 会 ｜半リ ｜帝国 中心 ｜＿＿＿ム／ 本
＿＿｜＿ス＿＿｜＿＿＿＿｜ ＿＿｜島ア＿＿｜＿＿＿＿｜ ｜亜周辺＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
ユーラシア西１ ユーラシア西２ ユーラシアの東
（中心） ｜ペルシア帝国 ｜イスラム帝国 ｜中国
（周辺） ｜キプロス・アナトリア ｜バルカン半島・イベリア半島 ｜朝鮮半島・ベトナム
（亜周辺）｜アテネ・ローマ ｜西ヨーロッパ ｜日本
｜ ＝古典古代社会 ｜ ＝ヨーロッパ中世社会 ｜
（湯浅 赳男 『 「東洋的専制主義」論の今日性―還ってきたウィットフォーゲル 』より）
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200712/20/41/a0024841_1803330.jpg [画像をインライン表示]
ローマという中心の亜周辺にゲルマン，西ヨーロッパがあるとも考えられる（１８０頁他）。
考える名無しさん[sage] 投稿日:2010/08/13 10:05:59
前近代文明の三重構造の地政学的型（参考：『世界史の構造』Ｂ-２-２）：
亜周辺｜ ヨ 亜周辺｜ ｜中心 ｜ 朝 ｜
アテネ ＿＿＿＿｜ ｜ 西ヨーロッパ＿＿＿＿｜ ｜ ｜ 鮮 ｜
／ア ｜ ロ ／バ ｜ ｜ 中国 ｜ 半 ｜
古 ローマ ／ ナ 周辺｜ ッ ／ ル 周辺｜ ｜ ｜ 島 ｜
典 ／ リト ｜ パ ／ 半カ ｜ ｜ ／ ／
古 ／ ア ＿＿｜ 中 ／ 島ン ＿＿｜ ｜＿＿／ベ ／
代 ／キ ／ ｜ 世 ／イ ／ ｜ ｜ ト ／
社 ｜ プ ／ペルシア 社 ｜ ベ ／イスラーム ｜周辺 ナ ／ 日
会 ｜ ロ ｜帝国 中心 会 ｜半リ ｜帝国 中心 ｜＿＿＿ム／ 本
＿＿｜＿ス＿＿｜＿＿＿＿｜ ＿＿｜島ア＿＿｜＿＿＿＿｜ ｜亜周辺＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
ユーラシア西１ ユーラシア西２ ユーラシアの東
（中心） ｜ペルシア帝国 ｜イスラム帝国 ｜中国
（周辺） ｜キプロス・アナトリア ｜バルカン半島・イベリア半島 ｜朝鮮半島・ベトナム
（亜周辺）｜アテネ・ローマ ｜西ヨーロッパ ｜日本
｜ ＝古典古代社会 ｜ ＝ヨーロッパ中世社会 ｜
（湯浅 赳男 『 「東洋的専制主義」論の今日性―還ってきたウィットフォーゲル 』より）
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200712/20/41/a0024841_1803330.jpg [画像をインライン表示]
ローマという中心の亜周辺にゲルマン，西ヨーロッパがあるとも考えられる（１８０頁他）。
これは上の図ではローマがイスラムに場を譲ることで説明される。
TOMOHISA SUZUMURA’S CRITICAL SPACE ー 鈴村智久の批評空間 ポール・ド・マンの「アレゴリー」、「隠喩」の概念について――『読むことのアレゴリー』第二部の読解記録（七章、十章）
http://borges.blog118.fc2.com/blog-entry-1735.html
命名については、字義的なのか、比喩的なのか、といった言明は不可能である。（p189）
言語とは、全て命名に関する言語、つまりは観念的・比喩的・隠喩的なメタ言語なのだ。こうした性格を有する言語は、隠喩が指示的な未確定性をある特定の意味単位に字義的に移し替える時、その隠喩の盲目性に加担することになる。言語のメタ言語的（あるいは観念的）な性質に関するこうした言明は、ルソーに直接由来する先の言明――それによれば、命名が形をなすには、差異という観念（あるいは考え）を仮定しなければならない――と同等の意味を備えている。（p194）
http://blog.livedoor.jp/yojisekimoto/archives/51758544.html
『イワン雷帝』と形式化の極限
一般に現代では、ダブルバインド的状況は蔓延しており、そこでは「笑い」＊が治療としてあるとさえ言える。
だが、そうした状況から逃避せずに、形式化を極限まで問いつめる柄谷のような思想家による著作があるし、映画ではエイゼンシュテインの『イワン雷帝』のような作品がある。（１０ミニッツ・オールダーというオムニバス映画のゴダールの作品の最後のワンカットは『イワン雷帝』第二部のものだった、、、）
これは、エイゼンシュテイン自身も分析しているシーンで、主人公の感情が受動的な悲しみから能動的な怒りへ展開するシーンである。
ジジェクも言及していたようにここにプーチンのプロトタイプを見出すことも出来るが、むしろ複数のモチーフの重なり合いを見出すべきだろう。
＊注
ちなみに、ダブルバインドを笑いとして捉えた映画に、黒澤明の『影武者』がある。
この映画には以下のように３つほど笑いのシーンがあるが、これらは皆自己言及のパラドックスを笑ったものである。
１、家臣の山縣が赤い顔をして信玄に我を忘れるとは何事かと、自ら我を忘れて説教をする。
２、隊列を組む兵士が見事な隊列だと感嘆したとたんに、列を乱すなと他の兵から説教される。
３、侍大将入場のために、砂場の足跡を消していたふたりの使用人が、自分の足跡を消すのを忘れる。
理解されなかったとはいえ、これらはみな同一性の希求とその不可能性という映画本来のテーマと呼応するものである-----同様のシーンは『乱』にもあるが(狂阿弥=いたずら小僧が神様を「いたずら小僧」と罵る)、こちらは悲劇的トーンで描かれる。
p.75
example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character
https://www.scribd.com/doc/26566416/Karatani-Kojin-Architecture-as-Metaphor
paradox is introduced, all of these structures
-algebraic, =z
We must now look at this
"self-referential formal
system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com-
munication is far more complex than semiologists usual-
ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from
the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well
sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced
over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining
the difference. Even though he meant,
"I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a
question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest
that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu-
ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is
impossible to decide whether this sentence is question-
ing or refusing questioning itself.
Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit-
com implies that we stand on a meta
-level. A more seri-
ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose
lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson
elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology ofMind:
paradox is introduced, all of these structures
-algebraic, =z
We must now look at this
"self-referential formal
paradox is introduced, all of these structures
-algebraic, =z
We must now look at this
"self-referential formal
system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com-
munication is far more complex than semiologists usual-
ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from
the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well
sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced
over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining
the difference. Even though he meant,
"I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a
question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest
that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu-
ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is
impossible to decide whether this sentence is question-
ing or refusing questioning itself.
Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit-
com implies that we stand on a meta
-level. A more seri-
ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose
lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson
elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology ofMind:
system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com-
munication is far more complex than semiologists usual-
ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from
the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well
sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced
over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining
the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a
question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest
that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu-
ally exclusive meanings.' At least within formalism it is
impossible to decide whether this sentence is question-
ing or refusing questioning itself.
Our ability to laugh at the undecidability of the sit-
com implies that we stand on a meta-level. A more seri-
ous situation is witnessed with schizophrenics, whose
lives are conditioned by undecidability. Gregory Bateson
elaborates on this in Steps to an Ecology of Mind:
Karatani, Kojin...Architecture as Metaphor
| Deconstruction | Plato - Scribd
https://www.scribd.com/.../Karatani-Kojin...
Karatani, Kojin...Architecture as Metaphor - Free download as PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free. ... De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over o r under, ...
We must now look at this "self-referential formal
system" in the context of con~munication. Natural com-
munication is far more complex than semiologists usual-
ly understand it to be. De Man offers this example from
the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well
sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced
over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining
the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a
question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest
that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutu-
ally exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is
impossible to decide whether this sentence is question-
ing or refusing questioning itself.
Karatani, Kojin Architecture as Metaphor p.75
We must now look at this "self-referential formal
system" in the context of communication. Natural communication
is far more complex than semiologists usually understand it to be.
De Man offers this example from the mass media: When Archie Bunker, the well
sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced
over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining
the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a
question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest
that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually
exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is
impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or
refusing questioning itself.
Karatani, Kojin Architecture as Metaphor p.75
When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question,
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually
exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or
refusing questioning itself.
Karatani, Kojin Architecture as Metaphor p.75
3:24
…When Archie Bunker, the well-known sitcom character from the 1970s, is asked by his wife
Edith whether he wants to have his bowling shoes laced over or under, he answers with the question, “What's
the difference?" His wife replies by patiently explaining the difference. Even though he meant, "I don't give a
damn what the difference is," his wife understood it as a question about the difference between lacing over and
lacing under. De Man uses this as an example to suggest that the same grammatical pattern engenders two mutually
exclusive meanings. At least within formalism it is impossible to decide whether this sentence is questioning or
refusing questioning itself.
Karatani, Kojin Architecture as Metaphor p.75
読むことのアレゴリー岩波書店2012
10頁
テレビ放送日まで付記
https://youtu.be/CtfQNaKpKY8
14話
岩波では15x
All in the Family S3 E14 - Archie and the Bowling Team
https://youtu.be/CtfQNaKpKY8
3:20
All in the Family S3 E14 - Archie and the Bowling Team
youtu.be/CtfQNaKpKY8
4:20〜 pic.twitter.com/o628UqbSpU
2021/08/26 10:27
https://twitter.com/_luminous_woman/status/1430703301138337793?s=21
コメントを投稿
<< Home