This is a difficult question. Some are boojums, which, if one is a baker, is rather a problem. Resolution will have to wait for another day. For now, prompted by a post at Angela’s, some Lewis Carroll.
For download, Alice in Wonderland read aloud.
I’ve not downloaded them, if someone tries and they fail please let me know and I’ll take down the link.
Some Carroll poems, including that famous council communist allegory which is the Walrus and the Carpenter.
The wikipedia entry on Carroll includes links to his works (the complete works and invidual works) in PDF form.
The entry also includes a link to a summary of a dialog Carroll wrote as a piece on the philosophy of logic. I’ve not seen this before and find it quite interesting. It’s called “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.”
The point of the dialog is summed up as follows: “the actual process of drawing an inference, which is after all at the heart of logic, is something which cannot be represented as a logical formula … Learning to infer is not just a matter of being taught about explicit logical relations between propositions; it is learning to do something” such that “the proper application of rules governing a form of human activity cannot itself be summed up with a set of further rules” which means “a form of human activity can never be summed up in a set of explicit precepts.” It seems to me that this should actually read “never be adequately summed up,” where “adequate” is meant in the sense of a summation which doesn’t leave out important bits.
The actual dialog summarized at wikipedia is here. I’m told Deleuze makes much of it in Logic of Sense, and that it occurs in Difference and Repetition. I must give those another look then.