ABSTRACT
Much in this book has been described in narrative terms. The constructions employed could be understood if the language were known to conform to the conventions of spelling orthography, print, grammar. Are those rules to be understood as applying only to the domain of articulate speech, or is it possible that they derive from and apply to some domain of which we are unaware? Are the rules according to which I conform also to be understood to be a part of the representation to which some yet undisclosed realization approximates? The matter obtrudes if I am working with someone who does not pay attention to, or attach importance to, the verbal content of what I say, but interprets the 'flatus', the breath with which I say it. I may be under the impression that my articulate, verbal formulations are what is important; he may be concerned with the breath with which I say it.
