William, look below again. I did not say you said any experience can be communicated. The exchange went like this:
WC: whatever we experience can be verbalized in some way even if > unsuccessfully. Cheer: Again, it depends on what you have in mind when you say "verbalized". [I was admitting right there I couldn't sure what you had in mind. 'Verbalized' occasions various notions. I respond to none of Saul's messages because he uses one phrase after another that could be read numerous different ways, and yet he never stops to describe as clearly as he can the notion behind his words/phrases. For someone like me, colloquy with someone who writes the way Saul does is fruitless. ((Saul: Don't come out swinging. Just dismiss me. All I'm saying is that a mind like mine isn't able to make fruitful sense of your writing. Figure this way: Anyone with the mind of a moron could say that about all "sophisticated" writing.))] Stupidly, I did not make clear enough that my next lines were solely an attempt to supply two possible interpretations of your usage 'verbalize': Cheer: "Much experience can be "talked about", but it would seem much of it cannot be "conveyed". " All language about language is tricky. Phrases like "put into words" are confounding to anyone who peers at them closely. What can that speaker possibly have in mind? It's important that we not too quickly infer that what comes to our mind when we read another writer is surely what that writer had in mind. It's important to realize that when we write, the notions that arise in our readers' mind will not be a function of any absolute, mind-independent "meanings" that our words have. When you read "apelsin", or "milk", or " democracy", or "Cleopatra", what comes into your head are solely bits of memory retrieved and mosaicked by your racy brain as it processes the familiar sound. So, in a serious non-kitchen conversation, we have to describe to the extent we can the notions we have behind our key words. Saul is not alone in his apparent confidence that without his "explaining" them, all the phrasings he comes up with surely occasion in his readers the notions Saul is hoping for. As for Roy Harris, I unreliably recall making a pass at explaining why I think his analyses are effectively confused and inadequate. I think I referred you to his 4,600 word summary of his theory. If indeed you read his summary and found it clear and logical throughout, you and I have different minds. I did write myself a 3,000 word critique of his theory. I found Harris so inadequate I resolved not to spend any further time on him. I know -- a response like that is a pain in the neck. But the alternative for me would be to spend yet more hours attacking what is for me -- to use your phrase -- beating a dead horse. In a message dated 7/25/12 3:49:23 PM, [email protected] writes: > Now Cheerskep, you go too far acting as the List Contrarian. I did not > say any > experience can be 'communicated'. I merely said it could be verbalized in > some > way, however unsuccessfully. I do admit that by using the word > 'unsuccessfully' > I imply some intent for communication but I didn't explicitly limit the > word to > communicating between persons (the usual use of the term) since one can > easily > communicate with oneself unsuccessfully or successfully, as in mulling > over > thoughts without any intent to express them to others. I do agree that > words > cannot be relied on as context-free signs to convey meaning from one > person to > another. Remember, I'm the fellow who has praised Roy Harris (who you > dismiss, > inexplicably) and other word people, like Stanley Fish (his > 'reader-response' > theory). In different ways they claim that meaning is constructed outside > the > text or not by the text alone. Everything you say about language agrees > with > that idea, too. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 2:28:33 PM > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > In a message dated 7/25/12 3:07:49 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > whatever we experience can be verbalized in some way even if > > unsuccessfully. > > > Again, it depends on what you have in mind when you say "verbalized". Much > experience can be "talked about", but it would seem much of it cannot be > "conveyed". Our degree of success at conveying it would depend on our > conjuring > apt comparisons -- and then hoping the auditor had experienced the thing > we > were comparing it to. No verbal description of a color red we are seeing > would be useful in conveying it to a person blind since birth. A > mathematician, enthralled by the beauty of a certain formula, would be > hard put > to > > convey his experience to an innumerate person.
