as such not level and not bound On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:18 PM, saul ostrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
