Let us not slip to easily into dualities or dialectics - human and inhuman are not necessarily antithetical - inhuman may be thought of as the sign of incompleteness - those aspects as yet unincorporated, or re-formed and therefore outside, or beside our present conception of our self
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
