chris,
i'm not kidding you here, but i really didn't understand this!!
Chris wrote:
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> You know anotherbasic notion in Communications Theory and Hallidayan
> Linguistics, Speech Act do dahs and so on is that "meaning is
> negotiated".
>
> I think I am writing clearly at the moment.
i'm with you this far.
> If I say something like "he is a bastard", well I'm going to have to
> clarify that. You might not realize that what I am *intending* to send
> is a message that could be rephrased "his parents were not married at
> the time of his birth". Or maybe, if I simply meant "he is a bastard"
> I will need to clarify - "he is only interested in himself" or maybe
> just that "he killed Kenny".
>
> People rarely *understand* each other in a first encounter.
from this point on i can't follow what you're saying.
however if i take your sentence " I think I am writing clearly at the
moment" as an example, my only point here is how is it that i understand
you? every word is ambiguous and indeterminate if i choose to make it so
- (what is signified by "i", when is "the moment" what is "clear" etc
etc to infinity...) - but obviously i "know what you mean".
which is my point. language often appears as that final barrier we
cannot pass beyond, because when we speak "clearly" we are plugged back
into the dominant significations, back into the social. hence - the
unconscious cannot be represented by or through language, it cannot be
in language, it cannot be made with language: it doesn't have a
language, language cannot navigate it. but the unconscious is not
unobtainable because language is not so important after all.... because
you have a body that language cannot talk about... as well as one that
it can.
hmmn. lost my point there... rambling a little. damn.
could you explain to me the rest of this email, or at least what you
were getting at?
> Take the gift. There is an old satire (that may be "relevant"):
>
> Other kings give a horse for a fine poem
> He gives a cow [sic]
>
> There is a formula at work in the gift, in the exchange. This *code*
> is itself a process of negoatiation that began before we were born and
> will contunue long after we are buried.
>
> And everything I have said here is from the most conventional and
> Limited Inc. discourses I know, those most interested in the
> determination of meaning..
>
> So even from the most clarifying position, clarity looks most
> uncertain, even from the most deterministic position, meaning seems
> quite underdetermined.
>
> And the longer the duration of this negotiation the further it gets
> from the event, the longer I have been dead, the less likely it is
> that I will be understood. And I was dead for a long time before I was
> born.
>
> LOL
>
> - Chris
>
> One day, years ago, you wrote me this that I, the amnesiac, know by
> heart, or almost: "it is curious to see that generally i do not answer
> your letters, nor you mine
>
> or are we delirious, each alone, for ourselves? Are we waiting for an
> answer or something else? No, since at bottom we are asking for
> nothing, no, we are asking no question, The prayer . "Okay, I'll call you
> right away. You know everything, before me.
>
> you will always precede me.
> - Derrida
i like this quote!
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.
i'm not kidding you here, but i really didn't understand this!!
Chris wrote:
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> You know anotherbasic notion in Communications Theory and Hallidayan
> Linguistics, Speech Act do dahs and so on is that "meaning is
> negotiated".
>
> I think I am writing clearly at the moment.
i'm with you this far.
> If I say something like "he is a bastard", well I'm going to have to
> clarify that. You might not realize that what I am *intending* to send
> is a message that could be rephrased "his parents were not married at
> the time of his birth". Or maybe, if I simply meant "he is a bastard"
> I will need to clarify - "he is only interested in himself" or maybe
> just that "he killed Kenny".
>
> People rarely *understand* each other in a first encounter.
from this point on i can't follow what you're saying.
however if i take your sentence " I think I am writing clearly at the
moment" as an example, my only point here is how is it that i understand
you? every word is ambiguous and indeterminate if i choose to make it so
- (what is signified by "i", when is "the moment" what is "clear" etc
etc to infinity...) - but obviously i "know what you mean".
which is my point. language often appears as that final barrier we
cannot pass beyond, because when we speak "clearly" we are plugged back
into the dominant significations, back into the social. hence - the
unconscious cannot be represented by or through language, it cannot be
in language, it cannot be made with language: it doesn't have a
language, language cannot navigate it. but the unconscious is not
unobtainable because language is not so important after all.... because
you have a body that language cannot talk about... as well as one that
it can.
hmmn. lost my point there... rambling a little. damn.
could you explain to me the rest of this email, or at least what you
were getting at?
> Take the gift. There is an old satire (that may be "relevant"):
>
> Other kings give a horse for a fine poem
> He gives a cow [sic]
>
> There is a formula at work in the gift, in the exchange. This *code*
> is itself a process of negoatiation that began before we were born and
> will contunue long after we are buried.
>
> And everything I have said here is from the most conventional and
> Limited Inc. discourses I know, those most interested in the
> determination of meaning..
>
> So even from the most clarifying position, clarity looks most
> uncertain, even from the most deterministic position, meaning seems
> quite underdetermined.
>
> And the longer the duration of this negotiation the further it gets
> from the event, the longer I have been dead, the less likely it is
> that I will be understood. And I was dead for a long time before I was
> born.
>
> LOL
>
> - Chris
>
> One day, years ago, you wrote me this that I, the amnesiac, know by
> heart, or almost: "it is curious to see that generally i do not answer
> your letters, nor you mine
>
> or are we delirious, each alone, for ourselves? Are we waiting for an
> answer or something else? No, since at bottom we are asking for
> nothing, no, we are asking no question, The prayer . "Okay, I'll call you
> right away. You know everything, before me.
>
> you will always precede me.
> - Derrida
i like this quote!
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.