I agree with Saul's framing of the issue and what he then says about it. I'm not sure is the part of human-ness that is incomplete is therefore inhuman if we presume it to be the contrary of human. One may have a capability to do what has never been done. Is that capability therefore contrary to what has been doe as proved ability? wc
----- Original Message ---- From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 9:26:51 AM Subject: Re: is list dead? will get to both of these as soon as possible in that they both raise important points - one thing I want to clarify is my use of incompleteness has less to do with the ability of a medium to fulfill a task than it does with the idea that the task is never in itself complete (perhaps even in its formulation) and therefore whatever the goal was, it is left unfinished - and that we fool ourselves when we tell ourselves we have finished something, as opposed to having accomplished it as best we can given our ability, means and understanding (which is in all ways incomplete)- so perhaps in the context of being human we should consider what part of ourselves remains inhuman, or what value lies in what we believe being human means when we model our "self" (this use of language to fool ourselves by asking the wrong question is an intrinsic aspect of the Whorfe-Sapir Hypothesis concerning language and perception) On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM, caldwell-brobeck < [email protected]> wrote: > Certainly most image making is conditioned by language; but there are many > other contributing factors, particularly other images, as well as our > intrinsic, inherited visual processing system. The question really is to > what degree different factors contribute, which will vary greatly from > individual to individual. > > As for the ineffable - I'm all in that camp. That there might be always > something pertinent to be said does not mean that words cover the territory > of what can be communicated. > Cheers; > Chris > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, William Conger <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > This exchange below between Saul and Cheerskep reminds me of Derrida's > term > > 'differance' He claims that any statement is incomplete and that nothing > > can be > > fully explicted. There is always a remainder, something left over, to be > > noticed by someone...ad infinitum. > > > > i don't think I said that drawing is superior to language, or if I did, I > > erred. > > I do think drawing is a fundamental form of communication. It might be > a > > product of language and not its antecedent. I don't know and I don't > think > > anyone knows for sure. Did the early man grunt and point at the same > > time to > > tell his pal that the bison is just ahead? Was that pointing a mode of > > drawing? > > Was his grunting a performative act of 'drawing sound' or was it > language > > and > > was language therefore born with 'drawing'. In the practical terms of > our > > daily > > lives, I think that the drawn or performed images we make are likely > > conditioned > > by language. I think historical man is so deeply immersed in language > that > > all > > of his concepts are shaped and limited by language. Whatever shape we > make > > as a > > 'drawing' (again, I use the term in its broadest performative sense ) > > already > > has a name and many names. We 'draw' what we say; we say what we draw. > > This > > leads me to side with those who do not accept the ineffable in aesthetic > > experience. I think we are forced to explicate experience and what we > say > > is > > merely tacit is that which cannot be firmly explicated but is 'explained > > away' > > or 'talked around' or said and re-said until every word known has been > > used and > > the matter is still incomplete. There is always something pertinent to be > > said, > > not enough, but no experience is truly 'speechless'. > > wc > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
