On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:02:12 +1000 Rob Schaap <rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >To say that no means no is to say, precisely, that no *never* means no
> >(which >is why you have to negate the first no with a second). The second
> >no "returns >to itself" in a destructive fashion: in other words: WE
> >BELIEVE THAT NO MEANS >NO - BUT WE DON'T TRUST ANYONE WHO SAYS NO!
> Er, hope you're not under the impression you've explained this, Ken! I
> thought 'no no means no' means 'no never means no', whilst 'no means no'
> means 'all nos mean no'. How daft am I?
First, it is obvious that we situated completely within the field of meaming here: no means no is a tautology. The first "no" is the polite no, the gentle no, the no that says, please... maybe. The second no is the adamant no, the no of the law, of force and might. There is a scandalous character of these kind of propositions (boys [nice] will be boys [violent]) which actually serves to undermine the foundations of their own power (ie. they are foolish in a peculiary way). At the beginning of the first no, there is a hidden yes, a "sometimes no means yes" which coincides with the act itself (the occassion of the no as the ecstatic no of, "yes, more damn it, yes!"). The second no is the concealed yes, a yes that must be concealed at any price, because it concealment is the positive condition of the functioning of "no" in the first place. Are we permitted to even say, "Does no means no" actually mean yes?" No, of course not. We are condemned to silence by the second no. What is forbidden in the statement is precisely a questioning of its origins. This is why the statement is so scandalous: it hides its own illegitimacy: it forbids something which is already in itself posited as impossible (the no meaning yes).
take for example, a cookie.
"Can I have a cookie?"
"No." [ie. I'm thinking about it]
"Ah, please, I really want a cookie!" [ie. that no might really mean yes]
"NO!"
"But..."
"NO BUTS!" [do not question my authority, you will lose - NO MEANS NO!]
ken