Spaghetti Hermeneutics
I thought this comment made by eddy (sic) on Mike Cope’s blog was thought-provoking.
We had a spaghetti supper Sunday nite. Amazing how many different ways spaghetti was interpreted--some unfamiliar with the law of exclusion added meatballs and mushrooms. No mention of sauce had been made but evidently, sauce was necessarily inferred. It was a good dinner for our community and most folks humbly admitted each recipe was good.
posted by Anthony Parker @ 4:47 AM
3 comments
Provided by 
3 Comments:
Anthony, you're going to have to comment what "law of exclusion" is, especially in relation to a spaghetti supper. :)
Jenna,
Maybe it's a good thing if an "insider" like you doesn't recognize that language. When I was growing up, I was told that the unwritten "law of exclusion" meant that, in a general category, if one thing is specifically authorized, other things in that category are excluded. I'm not sure what the author of the quote had in mind here--maybe "food" is the general category and, since "spaghetti" was authorized, additions like meatballs, mushrooms, and sauce should have been excluded. Of course, some may have considered these as "aids" to the "spaghetti," and not adding other foods. So, there are really two questions here: (1) Is there really a such thing as the law of exclusion? and (2)What constitutes an "aid" (condiment?) and what constitutes an additional food that would violate the will of those who planned the meal. And if none of this makes any sense, it's because I'm using categories that nobody thinks in anymore.
I think I understand. I have to admit, that's one reason I visit Mike's blog so rarely -- there are lots of intellectuals over there with a tinge of cynicism that I just don't get.
I should probably go over there and read what it was about, I might learn something, and maybe even get a new spaghetti recipe. ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home