>My
>point is rather that by expressing anything in just one single medium, or
>even by exchanging influence on just one channel, one runs a higher risk of
>becoming enslaved by particular connexions of referents and signs, some of
>which we like to call thruths or laws etc. Being instigated by that kind of
>participation to express any idea or feeling or argument twice, i.e. in two
>different forms, helps in getting those clearer, more sensible. Sometimes
>it also contributes to becoming (perhaps over)sceptical in view of the
>modern sciences being so much victim of nominalims, of taking words and
>their operationalisations in terms of supposed categories of facts for
>reality.
And then one that made me really stop and think (a very useful function):
>when language
>resists, you realize, a text is a version of something beyond, a form of
>some set of conditions and a phase of some ensuing effects.
-- yes, I can agree that there is something good in the resistance of
language. When the relation between me and words doesn't always run
smoothly that's a signpoint of contact with reality, I guess. But how tell
the difference from the effects of nominalisms and worship of definitions?
Eva