He's gnomically talking - in his usual numbered way - about sentences
needing "riders", gestures and other sentences to interpret them, and my
attention is wandering, when he says "It would almost be like settling
how much a toss is to be worth by another toss." Dead right. He might
have said "It would be almost like calling a character witness for your
character witness." What I like is that "almost" - only escape route
from the mindless regress of a sentence needing a sentence needing a ...
. The way I see it: you can have too much of a good thing, and that
certainly includes interpretation. Satiety. Enough is as good as a
feast. Economic law: the closer a need comes to being satisfied, the
larger an increment of additional gratification required to produce the
same satisfaction. In other words: You can't get no satisfaction. And
that is a huge relief. Because most of the time I can't even get three
increments of additional gratification myself. I mean: Play? Great.
Play within the play? Nice one. Play within the play within the play?
Far out. Play within... Enough - my eyeballs have disappeared. Same with
ice-creams and sex. All things dissipate under repetition of themselves.
And interpretation is certainly one of them. I'll buy a rider creature -
gesturing away on top of my sentences - and I'll buy sentences
interpreting all that moving of the creature's tiny arms and legs, but
that's it. No further riders sitting on their sentences like so many
witches on sticks screaming at me ....