[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Consciousness "only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness "only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
- From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:57:40 +1000
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Windows/20080421)
you can't talk of "Language *aside from* the modality in
which it is embodied" and then say "language is not
material." Of course, anything "aside from" its materiality
is immaterial. Show me a representational system which is
Haydi Zulfei wrote:
Language itself aside from the modality in which it is formed/embodied and as it is consisted of signs is ideal for the folowing reasons :
1. We have read on many occasions that it's a formant of the Cs . When you are dealing with the Cs as something catogirically distinct from the material which is quite quite true , why is it you could accept a formant of this something categorically distinct from *material* could be all the way *material* . This is just where Martin finds the opportunity to argue for a doubling of *materiality* . A statue as such is ideal the same way real talers as well as Gods are ideal for Marx (previous post) . Real talers or money paper are things palpable , corporeal , stuffy , substantial ; yet they are for Marx ideal ; the yardstick is that they are representations for something *esle* . The talerness of the talers and the statueness of a statue need a social thinking body to be recognized as such . Aside from the social thought/Cs , the whole things become just use values , valueless , lacking any exchange value as for Marx . And we shouldn't forget the second
condition Lenin mentions either . As of language , the ink , the carbon or the acoustics with which it is embodied does not make it *material* the same way *stone* , *bronze* , *cement* , *plastics* of a staue do not make the *form* -- not contrasting content here -- of the statueness *material* ; the form now indicates Lincoln , now Lenin , now so and so . But the stone , etc. remain the same all the time . This latter part you name categorically *material* to this day distinct from the *ideal* as Cs is . A clock consists of many many parts , that is , many corporals , materials , use values ; but all these should be organized in such a way to represent something else , time measurement . The palpability or the visuality of the clock should not take us where we could say it's something material . See what of the three divisions of Peirce fits this . When you take the ideality of the language away from it , the whole sentence/text/book becomes ink
spilt/scattered over the paper out of neglect . Your example of *carved in stone* incidentally helps us to get the gist quite easily ; you , in fact , take some materiality away from the stone so that a language becomes eligible for the readers . What remains as some markings or signs no longer have any materiality ; the remaining stone frame does not have anything to do with the language carved in it . This is also true with the braille texture . It's the organization/ordinance of the texture which is a language not the stuff therefrom . When you and Mike are on the screen lipreading each other in non-acoustics silence , you , in fact , have a telepathy version of language ; you're this way exchanging your mentalities with no materiality at hand . The computer is modality for your vision not for the language you are using .
And lastly , because a word is a sign , something for something else , in itself ! just a yelling or a marking denoting nothing as referring to the objects of the world which you so philosophically / inexaustively are defending !
--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness "only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
To: "Haydi Zulfei" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 12:26 AM
Language is a material representational system, Haydi.
Language may be in speech (vibrations in the air), text (markings on a surface or optical projections on a screen or carved in stone) or texture (as in Braille), but there is no mental telepathy version of language that I know of.
Why do you think the written and spoken word is not material?
Haydi Zulfei wrote:
Now you ask Martin to tell you a representational system which is not *material* . I tell you *language* is a system which is not material.
xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
xmca mailing list