The Reactionary Epicurean, as far as I can tell the only other mathematically inclined Yalie on the blogosphere, has posted a very nice rebuttal; of my first post, “Undefined Terms.” (While you’re on his blog, check out the video about Mobius Transformations for a nice bit of beautiful math.) While I intended the post primarily as a semi-ironic statement criticizing the possibility of my blog being as logical as I would want it to be, I still would like to counter a few of his claims.
The Reactionary Epicurean makes the assertion: “I’d submit the possibility that the form of communication has an effect upon the act of perception itself, leading us to the conclusion that Nietzsche, Hofstadter, and Marshall McLuhan were right all along: “The medium is the message.”" This is one of the primary reasons I distrust poetry, for example. Indeed, our perception is altered by their utterly non-deductive nature. As a form of art unto itself, I might enjoy poetry, but I consider it dangerous to look for any “truth” therein. In a world where people were cognizant of language’s power to manipulate and consciously avoided using it, I posit that we would be rid of many stupidly destructive ideas. (Religion is the best example, in my opinion.)
I also would like to dispute his simplistic gathering of Nietzsche and Douglas Hofstadter in the same camp. In the introduction to Godel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter gives a very good one sentence summary of his views on language- “Meaningless symbols take on meaning in spite of themselves.” I certainly agree that, as Hofstadter also says, “In form, there is content.” However, I do not think this gives imprecise, flowery language a green light. To me at least, it provides evidence of the terrifying powers of a society which communicates illogically.