MDMD(0): Sigmated Ampersand

[Sherwood, Harrison]

>From: 	davemarc 
>Subject: 	Re: MDMD(0): Sigmated Ampersand
>
>> From: Sherwood, Harrison <hsherwood at btg.com>
>> 
>> So Jody is actually correct, at least as far as the dictionary stuff
>> goes. And you gotta admit, that derivation _is_ a tad circular.
>> 
>> The "curlicue licking eastward" gambit is reaching. A smidge.
>> 
>Yet it's worth noting that the ampersand & the two ns curl around the long,
>unbound edge of the cover, & the & is the only fully represented character
>on the paper, or middle layer of the cover (counting the transparency, the
>paper, and the hard board).
>
Oh, no, don't get me wrong: I don't for a minute deny that the ampersand
is the centerpiece of the front cover: The whole composition is meant to
draw attention to it. You'll notice we're not yacketing on about the
broken "x" in "Dixon." (Though I get the feeling we soon will!)

I'm pushing for an interpretation that emphasizes the ampersand as
Symbolick substitute for the word "and." Jody was lapping at the edges
of it, there, pointing out that the literal meaning of the word
"ampersand" is circular: "[the symbol] '&' _is_ 'and.'" 

What that cover is calling attention to is the unity of Mason and Dixon
as opposites (and, come to think of it, the unity of Above & Below,
nicht wahr?),--Not this man or that man, but what connects them. And
what connects them is an ornate 18th-century  symbol that--when
expressed in words--is as tautological as "I am that I am."

>Harrison