I think you misunderstood me. My take is that when language is being used,
that is, when meaning is being performed then that is when language is.
When we ask what a word means we are no longer performing meaning nor
language, we are performing a philosophical (logical) investigation into
the nature of mind. In the latter we are no longer doing language but using
language as a case study in the analysis of mind. With my earlier post I
was separating the intention of the users of language and the logical
grammar of language. The proper logical grammar is not subject to personal
tastes or whims, it is foundational. However, people can use logical
grammar to what ever ends they intend. These are two different issues.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:57:12 +0800, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>From: fshck@UMAC on 12/02/2001 09:57 PM
>
>
>this smells a bit platonic to me
>... just because one cannot always and easily put a finger on the
connection
>between ends and means and claim a transparent and univocal understanding
of
>their relation ... does not mean that language is anything apart from its
>instances or anything apart from the action of meaning
>
>...call me a Hallidayan if you like but I go along with Merleau Ponty when
he
>says ... the meaning isn't on the words like the butter on the bread
>
>langue and parole are aspects of an entity which is indivisible if that
>conception of it is of any use...
>dialectical progression is a way of going somewhere, so is language...
dualising
>and reifying are the same sort of risk... each as unavoidable as the
other ...
>unless one keeps one's big trap shut
>
>
> Christopher Kelen,
> Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
> University of Macau, P.O. Box 3001
> Taipa, Macau S.A.R., China
>
> telephone:
> 853 3974 212 (office)
> 853 3974 621 (home)
> 853 838 312 (fax)
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>ps - apologies to anyone who is still having trouble with my emails having
>something attached to them - i assure you i'm not attaching anything ...
it is
>somethign about making it readable for a chinese computer even though
there's
>nothing chinese in these ....mavens, nurds and others at this end have
found no
>solution ... so if it's not coming through properly sorry about that
>
>pps - Daniel - Library of Chinese Classics editions published in the PRC
are
>pretty good - parallel text - and very reasonably priced too... maybe
Amazon has
>them or a university library ?
>
>
>
>
>
>We are talking at cross-purposes here. My statements were referring more to
>philosophical nature of language. How it stands in itself, not how it used.
>There is a big difference. The use of language, that is, the intention of
>the user, acquires all sorts of ends and means but this has nothing to do
>with the logical grammar of language as it is. It is similar to the
>different uses one can get out of a baseball. One can play baseball with it
>or one can throw it at someone.
>
>
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:59:20 -0500, John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>language is made by the use of language, therefore, if the use is
>>political then so is the language...
>>
>>best,
>>jk
|