Dear Ibrtchx
Re your 1st email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:01 AM, UTC+2):
i. Re "no grammar": in reality. It's "made up" of (post-hoc) analyses and
normative values from language judgment based on (more/less) well-formed
data. [Of course, most of us who entered the language space didn't see it
as such in the beginning. Many just took/take it for granted, as some
necessary part of language. For me, at least, I've always had my
reservations about e.g. syntax or much from syntactic theories, but it is
not until I reflected further on my results did things become clearer to me
(or did I realize that I just had a computational proof for dissolving
"words").]
(There can be a weaker formulation to "no grammar" --- that its existence
being in the mind of the beholder, subject to each person's "belief" in the
matter.
There is also the interpretation of "no grammar" as an imperative/request:
that we shouldn't use/endorse grammar (esp. to judge ourselves and others).
For ethical reasons, one may benefit from the "grammar as style guide /
mnemonics"-interpretation in communication. That is, take it easy with
"grammar", in a way, it's just "recycled peer pressure", a "2nd/3rd/n-th
hand emotion" :).)
ii. Re "something 'magical' about language": it depends on one's def of
"magical" too, I suppose. I just used it in the sense that there isn't that
much that can't be explained away wrt language. Of course, there is a limit
to human knowledge and one has to be(come) at peace with some things being
just the way they are, e.g. our "initial conditions".
But, sure, some people may find some things to be more
"magical"/extraordinary than others. I don't see reason for disagreement
here.
iii. Are the Hegel links supposed to inform me of the concept of
"Zeitgeist"? Just checking here. :p
iv. I don't quite understand your point(s)/opinion(s) re the US or your
experiences described in the last few paragraphs of this email.
*A disclaimer: my views and opinions here on this forum / mailing list are
not politically driven or oriented ("politics" here in the sense of
government-related). When I mention "language politics", it usually has to
do with language ideology and identity politics ("politics", as in, e.g.
[from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics>]: "[t]he often internally
conflicting interrelationships among people in a society" (American
Heritage Dictionary), "any activity concerned with the acquisition of
power, gaining one's own ends" (Collins), or "the use of strategy or
intrigue in obtaining power, control, or status" (Random House); that is, a
more general, vanilla, "stateless" interpretation of "politics", similar to
a more general interpretation of "language" on which I'd prefer to
theorize). Note that "language" does not have to relate to "nation".*
That having been expressed, sure, there can be all kinds of
"propaganda" *everywhere
and anywhere*, I can imagine. The intent behind my interaction with you all
on this thread/forum, however, is to get people to do better science.
Re your 2nd email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:34 AM, UTC+2):
Re "Now, if "words don't matter", how could we understand poetry?
figurative meaning?": do you really think that if you understand all
character strings in a poem, you'd understand it?
Re your 3rd email (Jul 27, 2023, 12:17 PM, UTC+2), aka your "latest mini
rants":
No prob.
(Yes, I prefer a more comprehensive, holistic view as well.)
Best
Ada
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:17 PM Albretch Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Once again, I found wikipedia lacking:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne
>
> doesn't mean "art" (Latin translation which meant something different
> to them, closer to the Greek concept) or "craft" (at least not in the
> mundane sense of doing things manually, more like a "skill").
>
> I think (quite forcefully, in the least amount of words) technê
> pertains to: "the functionally intersubjective aspects of productive
> knowledge".
>
> In addition to the recommended book: "Productive Knowledge in Ancient
> Philosophy: The Concept of Technê", by Johansen, Thomas Kjeller; I
> would suggest: "Of Art and Wisdom" by David Roochnik (which I
> recommend not only as a necessary complementary reading to Johansen's,
> but I found much better at explaining the concept and its very
> interesting historical grounding from pre-Socratic times to Plato).
>
> You will also need to understand well the mathematical concept of
> function, which has been cannibalized by all other scientific
> endeavors; not in the "post-modern" way in which it is explained on
> wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)
>
> but in the "Geometric" (which in those times didn't mean "visual" but
> more like -logical-) way Ancient Greeks understood the concept as they
> used it in the best corpus ever build:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
>
> all the way to Descartes.
>
> When I have had to teach that concept to high school students I
> explained it "the old way":
>
> https://ergosumus.wordpress.com/2021/11/09/nerds-gang-math-functions/
>
> showing to my students how even month old ravens understand that
> concept without having to sit years in school ;-), also proving that
> our mind-body link is semiological (supervening on the negentropy
> brought about by our quite Saussurean neurons), not anatomical or
> physiological. As Kant explained to us, even when we dream, we dream
> "functionally".
>
> Sorry for my latest mini rants. I decided to be more explicit about
> what I meant by technê, functions, ... because to my understanding it
> is not only more enlightening, but downright profitable when it comes
> to corpora research. I don't want for other people to be carried
> adrift as it happened to silly me with "tensors". I promise I won't
> say a word for the next five minutes or so ;-)
>
> lbrtchx
>
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list -- [email protected]
https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
