|
Post by prplprsn on Sept 18, 2013 0:57:57 GMT
The problem with avoiding a semantics debate is that semantic debates are all that Coyote's particular brand of fae-truth run on. So if "Coyote doesn't lie" doesn't work, let's just call it something like "Coyote tells fae-truths", defining fae-truths as "things that are always interpretable as at least sort of, kind of 'true', for maximally-inclusive definitions of 'true', if you tilt your head and quibble at it really, really hard", such as Obi-Wan Kenobi telling Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader killed Luke's father. The red herring in all of these recurring discussions is that people insist on reading Jones' "Coyote is no liar" to say "Coyote never lies", which is not the same thing, or even "Coyote is incapable of lying", which is not the same thing either. You can lie on occasion without "being a [habitual] liar". Pig and Per are gettin' it. See, this is the main problem I have with the whole idea that Coyote never lies, that people are clinging to said idea so tenaciously even though it has only a thin foundation in the first place. It's based on a statement made by someone who may not be in possession of all the facts (as I said before, just because Coyote may not have lied in Jones' experience does not mean he has never or is not capable of lying), and even if she were, "Coyote never lies" is not the only or even the most likely interpretation of her statement. But the attachment to this idea is still there, so much so that when it's demonstrably shown that, yes, Coyote actually has lied before - and not by some flexible, more expansive definition of the word "lie" but by its actual, rigid definition - folks start trying to move the goalposts. Oh, well, he can lie like that but he can't lie like this, you see . . . but Jones never gave any qualifications at all as to what kind of lies Coyote could or couldn't tell. And even if it were the case that he absolutely couldn't lie in one particular way, he did still lie in another, and that ultimately means he can, in fact, lie. Further, I could go on to argue that he has indeed lied directly, but I feel pretty certain at this point that someone would still try to back even further into that corner with yet another argument about how that particular instance doesn't count on some etheric technicality. But these technicalities and the goalpost moving, it's all predicated on the same kind of justifications and rationalizations that liars use to justify and rationalize their own lies. Semantics games that try to confuse the issue while not actually changing it. Coyote does indeed tell the truth more often than not, I will agree with that. His truths can be dangerous for the unwary, I agree on that point as well. But he is capable of lying, and neither Jones nor anyone else in the comic ever said that he wasn't. First off, SEMANTICS! I LOVE THEM!!! Ok, in order for this to have any merit, this being your assertion that your highlighted second definition of "lie" occurs in the excerpt, you would have to ignore a few things. One, Coyote could've just intercepted her AS COYOTE with zero problems. Two, the fact that Annie knows him as Coyote, and that he provides some glimpse of his Coyote form to ease Annie's concerns, does not at all make "Coyote" his original or true form. This creature chose to use the Jolly Elfsberry form, and Jolly Elfsberry, for the entirety of its existence, possessed the abilities of "Coyote". The fatal flaw lies in claiming the Jolly Elfsberry form to be false. The forms of Coyote mirrors the whims, as by being a shapeshifter he's very much being true by way of exercising his... godity? (What word applies to gods the way "humanity" does to us?) Yes, while Eggs could've been and was led to believe that this creature was not Coyote, not only was the goal of appearing as Jolly Elfsberry (LAUGHING ON LINE) unrelated to Egg's response, especially considering how he seemed more interested in Annie's, but Egg's education may very well be what's at fault here. If Jolly's purpose is merely an interceptor, then Coyote's re-emergence does not negate the truth of his existence. Nothing I've seen has convinced me that the purpose was to do anything but provoke a (possibly historical, considering the resemblance to Jeanine's lover) response. Needlessly to say, when dealing with the identity of a lie, intent is EVERYTHING. AFTER ALL THAT, there's the "he never said he wasn't Coyote" thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 18, 2013 1:15:24 GMT
(What word applies to gods the way "humanity" does to us?) "Godhood", I think.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 18, 2013 1:37:42 GMT
Ok, in order for this to have any merit, this being your assertion that your highlighted second definition of "lie" occurs in the excerpt, you would have to ignore a few things. Pretty much none of the points you bring up have been ignored, because in fact just about everything you've said has already been addressed in earlier posts. Absolutely. But he didn't. Two points have already been brought up on this. First, Coyote has been upfront about the fact that he may in fact not exist at all except as a figment of humanity's imagination. But while he may or may not be speaking the truth on that particular level, it's also irrelevant because his underlying true nature is not the lie brought up in the pages linked. The lie is the second point here, that he implants the notion that Jolly and Coyote are not the same being. Whatever (state of) being sits under the skin of Coyote doesn't matter to this conversation unless at some point that being pops up and lies about whatever relation he/she/it has with Coyote, or vice versa. As mentioned before, the idea that Jolly is a completely separate mentality from Coyote is shown as almost certainly false by the second page linked, where Coyote reveals himself to Annie. And even if Jolly wasn't false, it doesn't matter because Coyote was still using him as a mask for his own identity and thus it is still a part of Coyote's lie. And also mentioned before, the fact that Coyote is so good at making such disguises to the point that they are imperceptible as disguises and hypothetically could have the full essence of reality to them does not excuse him from having made such a disguise. Being an exceptionally good liar does not make someone not a liar. Indeed, and his intent was either to pull one over on Eggers or - going with what you seem to be positing here - to see what Annie's response would be to him pulling one over on Eggers. Either way, his intent was to lie, which he did. As stated several times before - and backed by the definition of lie that I posted - a lie by misdirection and/or omission is still a lie. And this is another of the reasons I detest these sorts of debates. Having to repeat the same things over and over again. I don't think I'll do it again. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Sept 18, 2013 2:41:56 GMT
[rant]
God, I hate these arguments (much better than the arguments elsewhere on the internetz, but still). They're good as sources of info and rational debate, and often contain clever points and good arguments, but they simply CONTINUE FOR TOO LONG. Everything here has been beaten to death within the first couple of replies.
[/rant]
|
|
|
Post by msouth on Sept 18, 2013 4:32:32 GMT
Looks a bit like a fly, maybe. I kinda see a horse in this. There was a human-esque shape in the earlier one I thought. Maybe it's just shapes-in-the-clouds.
|
|
|
Post by msouth on Sept 18, 2013 4:37:30 GMT
I suppose now's as good a time as any to throw my theory into the ring: This Seed Bismuth is exactly who it says it is, and totally trustworthy to boot! That "LIARLIARLIARLIAR" is just Coyote trying to confuse the issue. Notice that Coyote hasn't actually specified who the liar is? But ... if the SB is not lying ... and Coyote does not lie ... that leaves ... ... Annie as the "LIAR"? :-\ When you say "SB" like that it screams at my little brain that Sb is the symbol for antimony (my chemistry teacher mnemonicked this as follows: antimony looks like anti-money, and if you're anti-money you're probably stone broke. sb. RIP Jack Buffington). Probably doesn't mean anything but it would be funny if it was intentional.
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Sept 18, 2013 4:49:58 GMT
Perhaps it's significant that the chemical elements antimony and bismuth happen to be in the same group on the periodic table, and as such are chemically similar. This has some interesting implications for their relationship, if indeed this is the real seed.
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Sept 18, 2013 5:17:15 GMT
Bismuth is typically used in alloys to lower the melting point of said alloys. Supposedly, this means the fire elementals are the enemies of Bismuth.
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Sept 18, 2013 5:30:06 GMT
Huh, I never knew that. I wonder if this thermoelectric effect I keep reading about regarding bismuth-antimony alloys is anything related to that. Isn't she only partly a fire elemental, however?
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Sept 18, 2013 5:52:16 GMT
Huh, I never knew that. I wonder if this thermoelectric effect I keep reading about regarding bismuth-antimony alloys is anything related to that. Isn't she only partly a fire elemental, however? Unless Antimony is going to be subjected to several giga-volts of current, I wouldn't read too much into it Interesting property though.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 18, 2013 7:08:44 GMT
There is no such thing as an "actual" definition of a word. You're getting hung up on prescriptivist language. Try to discuss the underlying concepts, words are always only approximate fits.
There is a thing Coyote can't do. This has been demonstrated many times. Call that limit whatever you want; the limit clearly exists.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Sept 18, 2013 7:12:51 GMT
This could get very meta, very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Sept 18, 2013 7:23:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 18, 2013 7:25:41 GMT
The part I like best is that earlier I was accused of using too broad and flexible of a definition for the word "lie" but now I'm being called out for adhering too closely to a rigid and by-the-book one.
Some days ya just can't win no matter what ya do.
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Sept 18, 2013 7:46:47 GMT
The part I like best is that earlier I was accused of using too broad and flexible of a definition for the word "lie" but now I'm being called out for adhering too closely to a rigid and by-the-book one. Some days ya just can't win no matter what ya do. I fundamentally agree that we haven't seen proof that coyote is incapable of lying (though there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, including from the trickster archetype which as some have pointed out, often cannot lie) I think though that Jolly Elfsberry just isn't a very good example of lying (and therein lies the main point of contention); if Barry Humphries turns up and introduces himself as Dame Edna is he lying?
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 18, 2013 8:16:54 GMT
There is a thing Coyote can't do. I thought the consensus (such as it is) was that Coyote is absolutely capable of lying. He just chooses not to, for reasons we can only guess at.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 18, 2013 8:43:21 GMT
That's kinda like saying God is absolutely capable of creating a mountain so big not even He can lift it. He just chooses not to, for reasons we can only guess at.
(Because that would totally blow our minds, would be my guess.)
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 18, 2013 9:49:34 GMT
The entire point of the "Can God create an X so Y that he can't do Z to it?" paradox is to poke holes in the concept of omnipotence. I don't see how it's relevant to Coyote, whose full -potence has not been established. But the distinction between can't and won't is an important one.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 18, 2013 9:57:49 GMT
When "can't" and "won't" are absolutes, it's a distinction without a difference.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 18, 2013 15:46:47 GMT
The part I like best is that earlier I was accused of using too broad and flexible of a definition for the word "lie" but now I'm being called out for adhering too closely to a rigid and by-the-book one. Some days ya just can't win no matter what ya do. Did someone really accuse you of using too broad and flexible a definition of "lie" That's really really weird. From what I understand, this argument has been that Coyote gets to use a really broad wiggle-room idea of " it's not breaking the no-lying rule unless he does this very specific thing", and you've been against that wiggle-room, sternly saying " well, it IS lying if it's deceptive in any way, it says so in the dictionary". I mean, my point has always been " coyote has some sort of limitation, I like to call it 'he cannot lie' but if you think those words don't apply to the limitation, just use different words for it." My point is "don't get hung up on what the word LIE means, words are merely best-approximate-fit representation of ideas. If I use the wrong word for an idea, that's not proof that the idea doesn't exist". Wait... That's some kind of flexibility and some kind of rigidity on both sides. Hah! Words are fun! And headachey. This is why we need to invent some kind of direct-thought-communication in the near future, and leave words as something only for literature and poetry and other purposefully-messy communication.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 18, 2013 16:59:40 GMT
I think though that Jolly Elfsberry just isn't a very good example of lying (and therein lies the main point of contention); if Barry Humphries turns up and introduces himself as Dame Edna is he lying? Hmm, I wonder if it counts as repeating myself if I simply link to the relevant post.Did someone really accuse you of using too broad and flexible a definition of "lie" That's really really weird. Well, I will admit that looking back on it, it wasn't a direct accusation or anything. But before I put up the Dictionary.com definition of "lie", the argument was apparently that he only lied if I were using a more reasonable, flexible view of the word, and after I put it up, the argument became that I only think he lied because I was using too unreasonable and prescriptivist a view. Firstly, I've already pretty much addressed the existence of the limitation in previous posts, but I'll restate the basic theme here: There is no proof that the limitation does exist. Secondly, I do understand how language works. It shifts and bends and sometimes even breaks with time as people use it. That is fine, such an evolution is necessary for a language to remain useful and relevant. However, there also do need to be rules for language to follow, a common basis on which it can lean, or it will become chaotic and garbled and completely useless as a communication tool between people. During a discussion that relies heavily on the meanings of certain words, it is important to pay attention to those rules rather than fling them aside and ignore them. It is even more important during such discussions not to discard those rules simply because they become inconvenient to your argument. Willful ignorance in the face of definite proof of a specific, relevant definition of a word does not strengthen your stance, it weakens it. In order to discuss underlying concepts, words must be used, and if the generally accepted and standardized rules governing those words cannot be agreed upon by all parties, then there is little reason to try to discuss those concepts. But ultimately, that part is largely irrelevant against the fact that nowhere in the comic is it stated or authoritatively shown that Coyote has such a limitation, by your definition or otherwise. It's a nice hypothesis (perhaps even theory), but it's based primarily on a bunch of purely circumstantial evidence and a statement which could be interpreted in a number of different ways.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Sept 18, 2013 17:10:55 GMT
Did someone in the comic previously say that Coyote cannot lie? Because I can't recall, and it would seem to me that he has already made several lies of omission in the story to-date.
Also, on an unrelated note, I like the sudden shift back to color from the greyscale of the previous page. That is really going to pop in book form.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 18, 2013 17:40:56 GMT
Did someone in the comic previously say that Coyote cannot lie? Nope. The closest it's come, as Per mentioned before, is Jones making the statement " Coyote is no liar." Folks apparently built this - and the fact that Coyote almost exclusively uses lies by omission - up into "Coyote cannot lie". Even now it's basically become "Coyote cannot tell a direct lie", but that isn't really what Jones said either and there's still no hard evidence otherwise that it's the case.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 18, 2013 21:53:01 GMT
When "can't" and "won't" are absolutes, it's a distinction without a difference. And what reason do we have to think that either is an absolute with Coyote? Considering how awful his attention span is, it wouldn't surprise me if Coyote eventually reneges on all his promises just because they bored him.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 18, 2013 23:06:51 GMT
I said "kinda like", but well: If Coyote doesn't lie, he's created by the thoughts of men. A complex idea, with etheric substance: Not a simple ideal, but ideal in its way. If any rule applies to the ideal, I think we have reason to think it's absolute. If the idea exists that Coyote does not lie, and this is true (hah!), I expect that rule to be absolute. Plus, it's a common theme among (mythical, fictional) supernaturals. If Coyote absolutely doesn't lie, it matters not if he is so constrained by his will or by his abilities. But what reason do we have to think that Coyote's attention span is so awful? Seems to me he always completes what he sets out to do ...
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Sept 19, 2013 1:02:41 GMT
I said "kinda like", but well: If Coyote doesn't lie, he's created by the thoughts of men. A complex idea, with etheric substance: Not a simple ideal, but ideal in its way. If any rule applies to the ideal, I think we have reason to think it's absolute. If the idea exists that Coyote does not lie, and this is true (hah!), I expect that rule to be absolute. Plus, it's a common theme among (mythical, fictional) supernaturals. Yeah, that's why I brought up fae/sidhe. If anyone has that type of "lying by not lying" covered, it's those guys.
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff Cookie on Sept 19, 2013 7:45:49 GMT
I think it would help to draw a difference between a lie and a deception.
For anyone that reads the One Piece manga, Ussop is a liar. He is such a liar that he bleeds the word LIAR when he's cut. You can't really trust him to be straight with you even as a friend. Lying is an innate part of how he copes with the world. He's such a liar that a major plot point revolves around his ability to apologize openly and honestly in order to stay on as a crew member. His innate nature is that of a liar. He doesn't just omit facts. He actively shifts the truth about and makes up events and facts in casual conversation. This is the liar.
Coyote is a fan of deception, but he is not a liar. If Coyote sits down and goes "okay it's serious talk time" then you can bet he's telling you the truth. He will omit information if it suits him, but he will not say something like the sky is peach colored or the grass is made of marshmallow while he's having an important conversation with yo... on the rare occasion he deigns to do so, anyway. Coyote will play angles, but he is not a liar. He will not invent truths or shift truths to suit him.
Pretending to be someone else is a bit different, though. It would help to look at it more of a child's game of pretend. You could consider a child a liar for pretending to be a mother/father in a game of house, but that would be a bit silly. At least this is how I imagine Coyote views it when he does it. As of yet, Coyote has never used his shape shifting to achieve a major goal. Not that we know of, anyway. He's done it as part of pranks and self amusement. Lying as part of a game is different than lying to achieve your own ends. One is a prank. The other is just scummy.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 19, 2013 8:17:00 GMT
But what reason do we have to think that Coyote's attention span is so awful? Seems to me he always completes what he sets out to do ... Coyote offered to put the stars in the sky for the Great Spirit, then got bored halfway through and halfassed the rest of the job. He had meant to put his own picture in the stars, but he completely forgot. Coyote tried to make humans of his own, but he screwed up part way through, and wound up with flawed not-quite-humans. Who he then completely snubbed, leaving them to eke out an existence in the shadows and to resent the original humans. Coyote can do anything he sets his mind to. Coyote is terrible at keeping his mind set.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 19, 2013 11:25:26 GMT
Good points all; thanks. I'll keep them in mind when next I ponder Coyote's character.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Sept 21, 2013 4:19:43 GMT
A distinction that often gets glossed over is the one between lying and being mistaken.
If you are certain that what you are saying is true, or if you have reason to believe that it's probably true, but in fact it isn't true, then you are not lying. You are merely mistaken.
Coyote is not omniscient. Therefore he can be mistaken.
|
|