 |
 |
Hi Chris, Firstly i never stated that freedom was a linguistic concept, but then again what concept isn't essentially linguisitcally known and articulated. What exactly is outside language? Furthermore I didn't say that the rules of language define what freedom is. I suppose I should clarify my position. Freedom presupposes limitation, not to itself but in itself. Let us consider the game of chess. If all the pieces could move any way they pleased, then there would be no game and hence no play, but a meaningless assortment of pieces on a board. Though the game of chess is not the rules, the rules surround the game, they show us where to "play chess". The game is sought in play and only in play is the freedom expressed but without the rules that form the boundaries of the game, then we would not know where to seek the game of chess in playing it. The rules are not the game but they serve the freedom of the game by showing us what chess is not. I don't know if you are familiar with Wittgenstein conception of language. What I am talking about is a serious game, but a game nonetheless because it serves our purpose to speak of it in this way. Are not all rules in this manner? And without the rules, where we know to look for the freedom we seek. If we didn't have a conscience, what would this world be like. Have you considered that? If one does not have a mastery of language, that is if one does not know that language serves him and not that he is subservient to language, then one can not even overcome the rules of language in order to use it for his own true thought. If you still see language as apart from your own thought then you will not get out of the "bewitching" state that Wittgenstien talked about, indeed you will not even know what he meant. This is evident in that you didn't even realize that John's statement was full of nationalistic fervor. And I don't know why women came into this discussion but you'll have to clarify your point. All the best, Daniel (by the way, do you attend Cambridge in Cambridge?) On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:59:01 -0000, Chris Hamilton-Emery <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi Daniel, > >> If you really want to use language for the purposes of freedom, you will >> see that the structure of language is the basis for all the rules and >hence >> it is in playing the game of language well that one is then able to find >> the tools to effectively challenge the structures of the State, which >> include Society. One must master language in order to use it with force. > >I don't quite follow this, which is more a comment on my reading skills than >your note! Are you saying that freedom is a linguistic concept and that the >rules of language define what freedom is? I find that rather hard to >believe. I don't really think of language as a game, and I wonder what rules >we are trying to uncover here. The last sentence is patently false, often >the most forceful language is not language mastered, it's often submitted >to. I would never claim to have mastered language, and I would hate to >consider myself impotent in the face of that inevitability. People do have >power and can exert it. > >I read your note as an almost circular statement that one cannot discuss >what one opposes because by doing so one supports what one denigrates. >Surely that's not true. John Kinsella's work does not betray any of the >qualities you seem to be inferring; John is hardly a nationalist. And we >mustn't forget that not all man-made structures are filled with shameful >intentions. I got a bit lost here. Nor must we forget that women are in the >world too. Truth doesn't belong to our species either. > >All best >C