Alison:
<snip>
the alternative is that proposed by early Rorty, that a baby has no
language, therefore a baby has no real experience of feelings (that's where
I threw the book across the room) [AC]
<snip>
Which proves, to state the obvious, that a book has language but no
feelings. *No language > no feelings* is the counterpart of Searle's *No
understanding > no intelligence*
<snip>
However, since poetry is an act of communication in every instance I think
of, a transference of energy, if you like, it very much inhabits the domain
of language. [AC]
<snip>
What about this from Wittgenstein's *Zettel*: 'The way music speaks. Do not
forget that a poem, even though it is composed in the language of
information, is not used in the language-game of giving information'?
If by *act of communication* you mean the (re-)creation of emotional states,
rather than 'giving information' then I'm with you. Music has physiological
effects which in turn generate emotional states. Poetry does this as well
(and that isn't linguistic per se), but the proairetic codes I mention in
another post certainly _are_ a part of language. And then there are the
elements _outside_ the text about which I wrote before.
CW
|