non-verrbal does not mean non-linguistic or language based On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I thought contemplation was supposed to be nonverbal,at least > contemplation of the both stylish and profitable kind. Also sometimes > the verbal thought is a summing up of what has been concluded and not > the process of thought itself. The verbal part is merely a naming of > parts as it were. > Kate Sullivan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 12:10 pm > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > I'm not defending Arendt's position nor that of the idea that we are > prisoners of language - but only offering still another possible > position - > As far as the question of speechless thought - we do know children think > before they speak and we also know that the nature of the brains > activity > relative to thought changes with the acquisition of language - as for > your > example of contemplation eg reflection speechless thought it is not an > act that forgoes language for it referrs to "thinking about something > seriously and at length, in order to understand it more full" - in > most > cases while contemplation is non verbal - it involves speaking to > one's > self. On the other hand perception,cognition, and recognition may > constitute speechless thought - as well as the workings of the > unconscious, > which Freud among others argued had no language of its own and therefor > manifested itself by other means - dreams and slips of the tongue as > well > as what might be considered thoughtless acts. > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a message dated 8/21/12 11:18:23 AM, [email protected] writes: >> >> >> > all communicable/ transmitttable thought is speech thought - the >> > source > >> > and >> > nature of all other thought is moot given it can not be transmitted >> > but > >> > only speculated upon - >> > >> No, other thought is not moot. It is to the very point point of >> > Arendt's > >> muddled assertion. The line by Arendt that I was commenting on was >> > this > >> categoric: "Speechless thought cannot exist." I think that's >> categorically >> wrong. In any case, she did not say, "The only thought that is >> > communicable > >> must be speech-thought." I imagine there are painters, dancers, >> > composers, > >> even >> architects who would say their works "communicate thought" -- in the >> > sense > >> that when their works are contemplated they occasion thought in the >> contemplators. And they can do this with no "speech" involved. >> >> >> > > -- > S a u l O s t r o w > > > *Critical Voices* > > 21STREETPROJECTS > 162 West 21 St > NYC, NY 10011 > [email protected] > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 St NYC, NY 10011 [email protected]
