Then let us consider defference - the term that joins these dualities together up-level- down, in-between-out, etc.
of late I have been thinking about anomalies, Cases (arguments that recognize exceptions), and rules (both of inclusion and exclusion) On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:54 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > How about ahuman? I doubt we can escape linguistic dialectical/dual > implications because they underlie the words themselves. Up/down, in/out, > etc. > Our language relies on such divisions and we need to find alternatives > with > modifiers when we want to go beyond the usual scope of a word without > actually > denying it. But I think your modification is fine if we all agree. Human > and > Inhuman ...or ahuman. I suppose ahuman is too clumsy. > wc > ----- Original Message ---- > From: saulostrow <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 12:09:36 PM > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > 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: saulostrow <[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 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
