We need to be very specific about the instance in which we examine 'defference'. I say 'differance', and I don't recall which anglicized translation from Derrida is right. Can we start with up-level-down? How can we do this without resorting to ordinary logic? Level means not up and not down, but not precisely. If we construct a square diagram as up, down, not up, not down and go through all the possible connections we find the ambiguous duality up-not down or down-not down. This shows that something is indeed deferred in any duality. But that's logic and the terms could be replaced by numbers or letters to emphasize the stability that's assumed for each. With ordinary language no such stability can be assured since any word springs from some subjectivity, a hidden well, as it were. Even in daily life it's easy to be fooled by up-level-down. I have walked paths that can't be noticed as uphill or downhill until a substantial distance has been covered; it seemed level at each step and maybe it was insofar as ordinary experience is concerned. Anyone who has flown in airplanes also knows the difficulty of knowing up-level-down. Anyone who uses scuba equipment and does not look at instruments has had the sensation of not knowing which direction is up-level-down in deep water. But these are probably not salient points in this context. In any communication there is always a 'yes, but' response, no matter how thorough we aim to be. Is this what you speak of? wc
----- Original Message ---- From: saulostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 1:18:15 PM Subject: Re: is list dead? 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
