The Stapler

A classic favorite for our class has been to look at the stapler on Mr.Lazarow's desk and say that its not a stapler. While this may be true in a Hayakawan universe, this is not truly possible. The problem of Hayakawa's theory is that it assumes a perfect objectivity and ability to separate oneself from perception that doesnt exist. Hayakawa's claim that the symbol is not the thing symbolized is flawed because he assumes that it is actually possible to separate these things in one's mind. No matter how much we say that the stapler is not a stapler, no one actually believes it. While it is an interesting mental excercise to assume the possibilty of separating symbol and symbolized, it is impossible. My theory on this is that our basic biology is based on the signal reaction. Even the most simple organisms (as we all learn in bio) have some form of response and this continues up through us. Our most basic responses to burns, pain, pressure, etc. are all signal reaction. Our more complex reactions such as language, etc. are simply multitudes of these simple reactions mashed together. Therefore, our very act of forming a language is to participate in a signal reaction. When we see the word "PIG'', our first action is not to say, "Its three discrete geometric figures composed of lines and arcs." We say its a pig and immediately recall the characteristics of a pig.
Furthermore, we all know that Hayakawa argues that no two words mean the same thing twice. However, these differences must be so small as to be negligible in most thought - otherwise any meaningful communication is impossible if we cannot even agree on some representation of a thing. It is important to stress that everything is at some level of abstraction.
Tying this to our current discussion, while we can say that notions such as the american dream or pride, etc. cannot be defined, in a sense this is to some extent all farce. We all carry some innate definition of what we feel these words mean, and despite our best efforts, we cannot separate our definition from the term. However, we assume to be able to operate at this level when in reality we cannot. The question that now arises is if we can pretend something false is true in order to come to some greater truth. Can we pretend that we all somehow have the ability to be true symbol reactors in order to learn some higher knowledge? In fact, can this be done in any discussion? Mathematicians invented the imaginary number i, the square root of -1, in order to solve higher equations. Similarly, can we invent truths to get true truths? And finally, if we can now invent truths to arrive at truth, what is truth?
The stapler, for being as ordinary, grey and red, and stapler-ish as it can be, has proven to be much more complicated than we first thought.