Thanks! This brings to mind the song "You Are So Beautiful (To Me)", in which the singer, by explicitly bracketing his own perceptions as subjective rather than objective, undermines the very woo he is pitching. For, if his love-object were so beautiful to him, would he not be so overwhelmed by admiration as to be unable to calmly compare said love-object to societal canons of beauty? Jim Propp On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Mike Stay <metaweta@gmail.com> wrote:
Dropping the "old" part, here's Colbert's analysis of "you're beautiful because you don't know you're beautiful".
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/9wdqkq/the-2012-people-s-party-congres...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Andy Latto <andy.latto@pobox.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
Andy
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <javascript:;> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com <javascript:;> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <javascript:;> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun