Is this supposed to mean something? It seems opaque, and quickly checking Google tells me that the phrase “grandeur of delusion” is so uncommon that this comment shows up as result #3. Was it merely a typo? Even if it was, how does one ‘gain’ anything of the sort?
But I like to do things thoroughly, så let me try to explain.
English is no longer my first language, so my language use can probably become a little private. A private language is of course no language at all. So maybe you are right, that I wrote something without any meaniing at all (other than to me).
But on the other hand—it does mean a lot to me.
I am using a rhetorical device—playing on the upper sentence—“delusion of grandeur”. Such rhetorical reversals add something or other, though I would gladly agree that it is something of a darkish art and perhaps a type of meaning-illusion—adding meaning without in itself having meaning. But meaning is such a slippery thing based on leaps of intuition and not in any way digital that such devices and “armies of metaphors” are the very stuff of communication.
And what was I trying to communicate?
What I am more and more coming to regard as Eliezers meglomania, which surely must be baed on an illusion. But saying the “deluded largeness of self-importance” is not a very effectful phrase.
So I was indulging in the art of “suggestion”—in some uncontrolled sense priming the reader´s associations.
Is this supposed to mean something? It seems opaque, and quickly checking Google tells me that the phrase “grandeur of delusion” is so uncommon that this comment shows up as result #3. Was it merely a typo? Even if it was, how does one ‘gain’ anything of the sort?
Thanks for replying!
I think I have mostly given up on this site....
But I like to do things thoroughly, så let me try to explain.
English is no longer my first language, so my language use can probably become a little private. A private language is of course no language at all. So maybe you are right, that I wrote something without any meaniing at all (other than to me).
But on the other hand—it does mean a lot to me.
I am using a rhetorical device—playing on the upper sentence—“delusion of grandeur”. Such rhetorical reversals add something or other, though I would gladly agree that it is something of a darkish art and perhaps a type of meaning-illusion—adding meaning without in itself having meaning. But meaning is such a slippery thing based on leaps of intuition and not in any way digital that such devices and “armies of metaphors” are the very stuff of communication.
And what was I trying to communicate?
What I am more and more coming to regard as Eliezers meglomania, which surely must be baed on an illusion. But saying the “deluded largeness of self-importance” is not a very effectful phrase.
So I was indulging in the art of “suggestion”—in some uncontrolled sense priming the reader´s associations.
Which many times gives a boomerang-effect.
Also here.
OK?