Schizophrenia

[molendijk]

Answer this:

If you are me, and I am you,
Then who is the maddest of the two?
===
Arie Molendijk

[TheJoshMan]

based on your question, there isn't two... so "we're" both the maddest.

[molendijk]

Please just answer by 'me' ('I') or 'you'.
===
Arie.

[rangana]

You are.

[molendijk]

Then you are, because I am you.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

No, I am me, and you are you and also you, by which you refer to in the 2nd and 1st person due to your center of discourse (yourself). It's a confusing bit of pragmatics, but in the end you're insane and I'm not... hehe.
//just wrote a paper on grammatical person

[magicyte]

You are me ..

and I am you ..

1st: You'd be me. It was listed first. But you are still yourself, as Daniel said.

2nd: If I were you, and you are still yourself and technically NOT me, but at the same time ARE me (since there are two of you), we're both crazy, I guess.

3rd: I know I'm wrong. Daniel, could you explain more?

-- Heh, I guess I'm crazy 'cause I'm just not getting it... :D

-magicyte

[jscheuer1]

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_the_Walrus

[molendijk]

No, I am me, and you are you and also you, by which you refer to in the 2nd and 1st person due to your center of discourse (yourself). It's a confusing bit of pragmatics, but in the end you're insane and I'm not... hehe.
//just wrote a paper on grammatical person
As you say, you're insane...ha!

I would say it's not necessarily pragmatics, but confusion of reference (an aspect of meaning) and 'form'. Or better perhaps: playing with variable reference. It's the opposite of 'the Morning Star is the Evening Star' (constant reference: Venus).
===
Arie.

[djr33]

pragmatics is the branch of linguistic that deals with the use of semantics (meaning) in any given situation wherein it implies or means something different due to USE, not literal meaning. That would be exactly it-- the confusion of reference. Literally it's just semantics-- but in context, it's pragmatics, of use.
"The morning star is the evening star" is two ways to refer to the same thing, with different meanings (the path to the reference).
"you" is one way to refer to any number of people, because the reference changes based on context.
Person in languages is interesting. Care to read the paper I just wrote on it? I'd email it if you want.
The most relevant portion to this deals with the idea that first and second person are different from third in that they are based on the speech, where third is just everything else. "I" is the speaker (which varies with each speech event), and "you" is the listener, which also varies. "He" does not vary. (If "He" becomes the speaker/listener, it is usually superseded by the others, but there is no grammatical error in referring to either "I" or "you" as he-- just strange because you expect the more speech-based reference.)

[molendijk]

pragmatics is the branch of linguistic that deals with the use of semantics (meaning) in any given situation wherein it implies or means something different due to USE, not literal meaning.
Correct.


That would be exactly it-- the confusion of reference. Literally it's just semantics-- but in context, it's pragmatics, of use.
I don't agree. The 'pragmatic message' contained in an utterance varies from one situation to another. Example: 'it's cold in here' (the message may vary: 'close the door please', or: 'close the window, please', or: 'put on your coat, please', etc.; the meaning is invariable: 'the temperature is below a certain degree'). Now, in the case of 'you are me and I are you', we are dealing with contradictions in every situation in which the utterance is used. They are contractions by virtue of the separate meanings of 'I' (FIRST person) and 'you' (SECOND person). They remain contradictions if we change the context/situation in which they are used. So the situation doesn't affect the message here. So we are dealing with a semantic oddity, not with a pragmatic one.


"The morning star is the evening star" is two ways to refer to the same thing, with different meanings (the path to the reference).
Agree.


"you" is one way to refer to any number of people, because the reference changes based on context.
I agree, but that does not mean that 'you are me' and 'I am you' are just pragmatically odd; they are semantically odd, because, whatever the denotation of 'you' may be (depending on the situation), it always semantically conflicts with the denotation of 'I' (whatever the denotation of 'I' may be in a geven situation).


Person in languages is interesting. Care to read the paper I just wrote on it? I'd email it if you want.
Please do!


The most relevant portion to this deals with the idea that first and second person are different from third in that they are based on the speech, where third is just everything else. "I" is the speaker (which varies with each speech event), and "you" is the listener, which also varies. "He" does not vary. (If "He" becomes the speaker/listener, it is usually superseded by the others, but there is no grammatical error in referring to either "I" or "you" as he-- just strange because you expect the more speech-based reference.)
I completely agree even without having read your paper first. There's interesting evidence for your assumptions in French. In that language, the opposition 'passé simple / imparfait' has been replaced in spoken language by 'passé composé / imparfait'. Exception: you DO still find the 'passé simple / imparfait' opposition (in spoken language!) in sentences in which the subject 'is' third person. The reason probably is that the third person is not directly based on 'speech', which is exactly true for the passé simple, as each linguïst of French will tell you (passé simple: 'distanced from speech').
===
Arie.

[magicyte]

Oh, I get it! It's kind of like you is both a second-person singular object pronoun and also a second-person plural object pronoun. Am I right?

-magicyte

[djr33]

Now, in the case of 'you are me and I are you', we are dealing with contradictions in every situation in which the utterance is used.Not if you are talking to yourself.
Look in the mirror and say "wow, you're looking handsome today", and follow with "I am you and you are me."


Oh, I get it! You is both a second-person singular object pronoun and also a second-person plural object pronoun. Am I right?That's right, but not really the point here. The question is one of identity. It's more similar to saying "1 is 2 and 2 is 1", but with the confusion of a conversation. "I" and "you" are defined by the speech environment, not anything in the real world. "He" refers to someone or something you PICK. You cannot choose who "I" is, and though you can choose to whom you speak, that person is always "you", and never "I" or "he". But in this case, "I" == "you", and we have what looks like a problem. The only case in which that can be true, though, is when they actually ARE the same entity. And thus we have a factual statement-- address myself ("you") and speaking as myself ("I"), my entity represents both the speaker and the listener. (Or, as the situation was, molendijk's entity.)
Note that it isn't really an issue of "object" or "subject" (called, grammatically in languages across the world, "case"), but rather just of use.
So in German we can say "Ich bin dich" (or "Ich bin du"-- see below), and also "du bist mich" (or "du bist ich"). And in Spanish, "[yo] soy tu", "[yo] soy te", or even "te soy", but that's getting complex, and I'm not really that certain on the spanish grammar (and it's implications) to figure out which one matches here. ("soy tu" seems the best, I guess.)

On a sidenote about case, here's something to consider: this is equating two things, and thus the predicate is the same as the subject, and that should be a predicate nominative. Things get even more confusing when you "fix" the sentence to read "I am you and you are I." (Just like you "should" say "It is I", not "It is me" when answering the phone.)
The other thing to consider is the use of the verbs: are we talking about the literal "I", the speaker?-- then "I am you and you am I", or the literal "you", the listener: "I are you and you are I", or a mix, as above. (In many languages, that's very possible, but not really in English because word order is so restricted.)
But, now, one could propose the idea to strip person from the verb entirely, because neither is particularly relevant any more: "I is you and you is I", when referring to the more abstract entity of "I" and of "you", rather than their typical semantic roles, just as one would do when referring to a word: "Run is good.", if you LIKE the WORD "run", and aren't using it in it's typical verbal state. Third person is the default, after all. But on the other hand, if we look at it as a hierarchy of markedness, it's very easy to claim that BOTH should be "am", because 2nd person takes precedence over 3rd and likewise 1st over 2nd; since both parts of the sentence refer to the speaker, then the logical assumption is "I am you and you am I", with the second very strangely phrased (sorta poetic), or maybe just plain wrong-- you cannot predicate "you" to be "I", because "I" is in that stronger.


Anyway, I'll send the paper along.

[jscheuer1]

The other day upon the stair,
I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish to hell he'd go away!

[molendijk]

The other day upon the stair,
I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish to hell he'd go away!
Yeah, beautiful lines. There's beautiful schizophrenia, but keep away from the drugs.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

Yeah, beautiful lines. There's beautiful schizophrenia, but keep away from the drugs.
===
Arie.

Which drugs? Life is a drug. All matter has its chemical makeup such that if it impinges upon an organism provokes a reaction ranging from negligible to profound.

I am assuming that you meant drugs specifically meant to treat schizophrenia, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

Schizophrenia is a sort of garbage diagnosis anyway. There is no definitive definition. All of the symptoms may occur individually or in a partial grouping in a given person without there being any cause for concern. But if said person happens to enter into 'intake', they may receive (rightly or wrongly) a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Go figure.

[molendijk]

It was just a joke. I meant that the Beatles were probably in their 'drugs-using-period' when they wrote 'The other day upon the stair...'. But I may very well be wrong there.
===
Arie

[jscheuer1]

The Beatles (Lennon actually, attributed to Lennon/McCartney) wrote the lines about the walrus:


Originally Posted by Lennon/McCartney from 'I am The Walrus'
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

However, the 'on the stair' poem (perhaps paraphrased), was something I was often told, and it may be anonymous in attribution. Sounds like e e cummings to me.

Nevertheless, it is apropos to the discussion.

Somewhat analogous to:

Wherever you go, there you are.

But, if you were just joking . . .

Why bother?

Perhaps you have issues/experiences that the common explanations for which are unsatisfying, and that you haven't found any decent personal understanding of.

If so, do tell.