Andy
As I read Taylor's article I was reading his version of context as how
perspectives on phenomena [in this case speech acts] are understood
from particular frameworks. Speech acts, when viewed from an
atomistic perspective START with words and then build up to
sentences. Bransom and Taylor criticize this form of analysis.
Bransom privleges the assertive aspects of language [the giving and
receiving of reasons] as the foundation of language. This giving and
receiving of reasons is produced within specific practical forms of
activity.
Charles Taylor suggests this is a profound move to locate language use
within practices and involves embedding language use in a more
inclusive context exploring multiple uses of language. However,
Taylor is cautious that Bransom does not make a move to an even more
expansive context which Taylor refers to as a "form of life" What
Taylor is pointing to is the recognition that the particular
assertoric language uses are generated within particular historically
constituted forms of life. Taylor is suggesting that Bransom's
privileging the assertoric language use [REASON ALONE] as adequate to
explain language is itself a position embedded within a particular
historically constructed "form of life" Taylor is suggesting
Bransom's position on language use can only emerge within a particular
historical context. Taylor uses the term context to suggest Bransom is
working within a particular context which is narrower than "form of
life". Bransom's narrower context of language use as judgements and
assertions is too restrictive. Taylor is suggesting that to make
sense Bransom's position must be embedded within a wider context of
the whole range of symbolic forms [which includes gestures, music,
etc] Taylor references Wittgenstein for the suggestion that
particular perspectives and actions such as assuming "reason alone" is
sufficient to solve our predicaments are assumed within a particular
way of life. Taylor is trying to make the point that Bransom's
position CANNOT exist within Bransom's own self-imposed
boundaries. We need to look to "ways of life" to situate Bransom's
position as making "sense".
Andy, Taylor returns to the central question, Is reason ALONE
adequate to solve predicaments. Bransom brilliantly articulates the
pragmatic processes of giving and askinf for reasons. But for
Taylor, Bransom has not moved far enough into the more inclusive "form
of life" without which Bransom's more narrower perspective would NOT
make sense and Bransom's reasons ALONE could not exist on their own.
Taylor is pointing out that each form of life makes particular "cuts"
or uses "scissors" to make particular distinctions. For Taylor the
"assertoric/disclosive" cut [from withIN his theoretical perspective]
is a central distinction. Reason ALONE is not a self-sufficient
language use. In our particular historical period we may narrow the
range of operations we include as language and the reason Taylor
suggests for embracing this narrower context [reasons as
self-sufficient] is to FACILITATE finding common conclusions. By
focusing on reasons alone, using neutral terms to explain phenomena
and predicaments we move to a stance of disengagement from the
disclosive forms of language use [dismissed as merely private and
subjective] This form of practice of dismissing the disclosive
dimension is accomplished by stating that the disclosive realm is
without any "real object" and is therefore "metaphysical".
Andy, Taylor's explanation of how our current "form of life" as
dismissing certain language uses as merely metaphysical does seem to
be a boundary marker or a particular way of "cutting" the world
[making distinctions] For Taylor the disclosive realm is what "moves
us" in our predicaments and language use is central within this
disclosive realm. Taylor is suggesting that Bransom may be
"ontologizing" a particular METHOD of giving and asking for reasons as
a "form of life" and as THE method to resolve all our predicaments.
This reductive move may segregate the disclosive realm into being
merely within the private sphere and separate it from the public
sphere [in our historically situated form of life]. As I understand
Taylor this form of demarcation is a boundary marker [form of cutting]
that separates the disclosive from the assertoric speech
acts. Taylor's question to Bransom is,
"Is there more contextualization we have to make?"
The answer for Taylor is that the practice of giving and receiving
answers only makes sense within a broader contextualization which
views the assertoric and disclosive language uses as intetwined within
a particular form of life. To narrow the context to "reason alone" is
to confuse a "method" for an "ontology" The disclosive realm is the
ESSENTIAL background for our most immediately practical discourse. The
disclosive cannot be excluded from the public giving of and asking for
reasons. Even within science, mathematics, and logic "there is a
continuing and irremovable presence of the articulative-disclosive".
The kind of person who attempts to operate under the ethic of using
reason alone "is inseparable from the development of a particular
kind of self-consciousness and self-examination and self-scrutiny. For
Taylor THIS points to a "way of life" [context] Within THIS way of
life your words may be disqualified if you are violating the "reason
alone" precepts. For Taylor THIS particular KIND of language game can
only be operationalized within a particular way of life [broader
context] that includes disqualifying articulative-disclosive
considerations in the giving and asking for particular kinds of
reasons. This particular way of life is understood within a particular
ethic of how we should proceed. Science when following this kind of
narrowed language use is participating in "science-fiction" For
Taylor we are not capable of being guided by reason alone.
Andy, this extended answer may be "too general" and too repetitive or
may be so obvious and "common sense" within the CHAT community.
However, I continue to be engaged by John Shotter's perspective of
speech acts as "con-scientia" [knowing with]. If this is "merely"
metaphysical "ideality" I am willing to consider other perspectives.
However, I sense a common thread between Taylor and Shotter's
understanding of speech acts as intertwining reasoning and the
disclosive. When reading Ingold's development of his themes from
"production" to "history" to "dwelling" and now exploring "lines" as
paths of wayfaring I also see an exploration of the disclosive
dimension of speech acts.
I'm willing to concede that Taylor's use of the term "contexts" may be
too fuzzy and indistinct and needs further articulation.[or use a
different phrase. However the theme which Taylor, Shotter, Rey,
Ingold, Merleau-Ponty and others are exploring of "ways of life" or
"dwelling in the world" seems to have some merit. Boundary
demarcation seems to have a place in these ways of observing and
participating in the world and what is considered important to notice
and observe. Everyday expressions within communicative practices
need from Taylor's perspective can only be understood within
particular "ways of life"
Larry
Larry
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Larry, I think the issue which the debate you are reporting fail
to examine is *what is meant by context*? And the talk about
boundaries, and whether they should be soft or hard points to the
problem with this vagueness. The point is to conceive of the
interaction, be it dialogic or mediated, in the same concept with
the context (and vice versa); only then can these conundrums be
unravelled, in my view.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
Hi Arthur and Andy
Arthur, Your mentioning Bransom's theory of inferentialism
left me curious
to know more. I found on Google an edited book titled
"Reading Bransom -On
Making it Explicit" In the book numerous authors have
responded to Bransom
and then Bransom replies in the 4th section of the book. One
particular
chapter was written by Charles Taylor and I believe it has
relevance to the
discussion on Fernando Rey's article for discussion [in a
round about way]
It also has relevance for reading John Shotter's article on
interpreting
Vygotsky through analyzing speech acts and the multiple uses
of language.
This is the reason I'm going to summarize Taylor's perspective
on the
multiple contexts of language use.
Taylor agrees with Bransom's basic premise that concepts are
relevant within
situated contexts and those concepts justify MULTIPLE
inferences. What is
crucial in thought and language is these multiple possible and
potential
inferences within activity. Taylor points out Bransom's notion
of holism
[grasping the whole of things through the unity of
apperception shares
Merleau-Ponty's notion of holism.]
Taylor then reads Bransom as sharing Wittgenstein's
perspective that
meaningful language always requires a context of practices and
actions.
Taylor suggests THIS form of consciousness has been
historically developing
for the last 2 hundred years gradually undoing the "abstracting"
epistemology of Descartes and Hobbes. In this development of
awareness of
the primacy of practices and actions within language use
"judgements" and
"inferences" are central concepts. However, at this point
Taylor draws our
attention to Wittgenstein's notion that "judgements" are only
ONE PARTICULAR
KIND of language game. There are a family of such language
games that put
in play combinations of reference and prediction which are
used to make
"empirical claims", "to ask how things are" "to give
commands". Bransom
articulates this family of language games with clarity and
illumination. It
is at this point that Taylor opens up a new line of inquiry
which supports
Shotter's exploration of the uses of speech acts.
For Taylor lots of other language games are going on. For
example we use
language to establish intimacy or distance. To open contact or
close it off.
To cry for, and give or withhold sympathy, and in multiple
ways DISCLOSE the
world. We disclose the depths of our feelings, we disclose
the beauty of
the world, we disclose the virtues of the good [ethics].
Taylor suggests we
won't grasp these disclosive aspects of language if we only
focus on
reference and prediction of judgements. By FIXING CLEARLY AND
DISTINCTLY
through reference and prediction we focus on determinate
illumination.
However, Taylor suggests that disclosive uses of language
sometimes depend
on the uncertainty and indeterminancy of disclosures.
Taylor is pointing to the boundaries we construct to help us
determne how we
understand the uses of language. To see language use as only
ASSERTIVE is
too restrictive a boundary marker. To understand the
centrality of the
disclosive uses of language Taylor suggests it is analogous to
the other
disclosive symbol forms such as music, painting, dance, and
gesture.
Taylor's broader boundary marking suggests the notion of
language as "speech
in words" as assertive [giving reasons] is too narrow a
boundary marker.
Speech must relate to the broader field of the whole range of
symbolic
disclosive forms.
Wittgenstein also points out that to take language as
judgements [speech in
words] is too narrow a boundary and he recognizes this form as a
specific type of practice or language game. Wittgenstein
suggests embedding
this narrower context in the wider frame of multiple practices
withIN the
all-encompassing frame OF a form of life. A form of life IS
the broader
context. Wittgenstein also emphasizes these language games can
only be
played as games of EXCHANGE. They can only be played with
others. [what
Bransom calls "giving and asking for reasons"]. Bransom
brilliantly
illuminates the dialogical perspective of language in his
explicating using
language for the giving and asking for reasons.
However, though Taylor agrees with Bransom's positions
rejecting monological
representationalist epistemology [up to a point] Taylor asks,
How far does
this embedding in contexts have to go? There is a context
where the goal
of language games is to make, exchange, and check claims ABOUT
factual
states of things and also in this family of games the drawing
inferences
ABOUT what to do. These practices are a family or set of
language games.
BUT IS THIS SET OF PRACTICES SELF-SUFFICIENT? OR do we need to
set this
family of assertive approaches withIN a broader context of
symbolic forms of
disclosure such as music, gesture, painting, and dance? WE
also give and
ask for reasons to do with beauty, ethics, and deep feelings
in dialogical
contexts.
What Taylor is drawing our attention to and attempting to
illuminate is the
ASSERTORIC/DISCLOSIVE DISTINCTION! as a way of marking a
wider more
inclusive understanding of the uses of language. Language
sometimes is used
to make accessible to us [show us] some phenomenon without making
assertions. The SENSE of this disclosive use of language can be
INDETERMINATE AND INDEFINABLE. The use of language is to draw
us into the
phenomenon without clarity or determinate boundaries as part
of our
disclosive world of symbolic form.
Taylor points out that for an immense range of language use
BOTH assertion
and disclosure are expressed. As Shotter emphasizes we can
speak of the
disclosive DIMENSION of speech acts. The speaker might be
articulating a
disclosive stance towards language use and we the listener may
respond with
an assertive judgement by DEFINING its ESSENTIAL features.
These are two
different dimensions of language use. But this assertoric
response was NOT
the description the speaker was expressing withIN his speech acts.
The contexts we create by boundary marking what are the
legitimate uses of
language [legitimate language games] extend to our notions of
scientific
discourse. Today there is a common sense zone of assertoric
language use
around our explanations of science and everyday practices.
This zone or
context can have harder or softer boundaries. Hard line
materialists reduce
all human phenomena to "natural" physical explanations [minds
reduced to
brains, feelings reduced to endocrinology] Moving to softer
more inclusive
boundaries certain philosophers want to fence in and contain
reasoning ABOUT
ethics and morals. [they explain and justify morals on the
basis of reasons
alone independently of disclosive uses of language.] They
stay within the
normative rules of particular practices or language games.
For Taylor a key question is What are the reasons for defining and
DETERMINING such a bounded and marked frame for
fact-establishing assertoric
discourse? The crucial boundary marker is asserting that
REASON ALONE is
the way we use language and leaving the disclosive uses of
language outside
the boundary. This "reason alone" use of language without
recourse to the
more inclusive context which also includes disclosive language
use has a
particular attraction. With the disclosive outside the
boundary then CANONS
OF ARGUMENT can be made much more RIGOUROUS [rigid] and
CONCLUSIVE and
DETERMINATE. Then we can more easily AGREE on the conclusions
of assertoric
science, and leave the disclosive use of language in our
speech acts aside.
Differences on the nature of deep feelings, beauty, and ethics
can be put
aside as outside the boundaries of language use. By narrowing
its boundary
and range of operations, speech acts as reasons become
effective in reaching
common conclusions by leaving behind the expressive as disclosive.
I believe Rey's article on sense& meaning, and John Shotter's
article on
speech acts as disclosive contexts is attempting to broaden
the context
beyond the assertoric to include the INTERTWINING of BOTH the
assertoric and
disclosive uses of language.
I apologize for the length of this post but I'm struggling to
"show" the
othe dimension of language use that is analogus to music,
gesture, dance,
and painting as EXPRESSING ways of life or ways to dwell in
the world
[Ingold & Merleau-Ponty]
Larry
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca