[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] fetishism | word meaning { saudade do ainda nao



We are affected by our vocalizations. How does that effect influence how we conceive of our world? Do we know how are vocal sounds affect us? Do we accept the premise that they do? Does not everything we perceive affect us? Is not perceiving being affected? Can we perceive without being affected? A sense of relative meaning, not absolute meaning is supplied by words. Words offer us a sense of the meaning of our world only by means of the affect of their sounds. Each different language offers its practitioners its own version of the meaning of the world. Different languages = different cultures. Different cultures = different values. Different values = different behavior. Each of us takes a role in our society based on our perception of ourselves as being able to play that role successfully. That perception is founded upon how we interact with our culture - (our societies world-view). Do you agree that we are affected by our vocal utterances? If so, then how?

   Joseph Gilbert

On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:

As a song by the Brazilian popular artist Rita Lee was playing in the background, it came to me that desire plays into how words do their meaning, through a kind of saudade do ainda nao~.

I could offer "nostalgia for what has not yet been" as a translation for "a saudade do que ainda nao~"; but that does not seem to ring the same. Vocal sounds do participate in the being of words, _pace_ the death wishes of analytical philosopers who long for a mastery of meaning as mere content of the propositional residues, or shadows, of speaking / writing / etc.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Joseph Gilbert wrote:

Words are vocal sounds. Vocal sounds are meaningful.

		Joseph Gilbert

On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:

Peirce explicitly contended that the meaning of any sign (including words, thoughts, arguments, feelings, or whatever), _qua_ signs, lies in the virtuality of potential future interpretations (just by virtue of the fundamental nature of what it is to be a sign, i.e., in the activity of sign-relations). Also, notice that I'm using "meaning" as something that we -- and our words, thoughts, etc. -- DO, not something they contain, convey, etc. I recently noticed similar usage in the title of Jay's MCA review of Sfard's book, which speaks of "Meaning Mathematically," not "mathematical meaning." The latter locution could mean the same as Jay's, but it also would allow the more familiar reading of "meaning" as a noun. If we need to begin meaning differently than how we might be heard to mean in positivist discourse, I think we need to begin choosing speaking that resists assimilation to that discourse.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, mike cole wrote:
The poem is neat and your explication brings to mind a recurrent thought when I encounter the core idea of "the thought is completed in the word." I (think I) know what LSV and Mandelshtam are saying, but I always have this thought that the thought is not yet completed, not in so far as it is taken up, perhaps transformed, and comes back again at a later time, in some new,
albeit related, form, to begin that side of the cycle over again.
mike
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
I clipped the wrong line from Martin's post in that last message. I meant the Dickinson verse in reponse to the line that now appears below from
Martin.
In Dickinson's verse, what's not timeless is not merely the meaning that a word does as a lexical unit in a language (i.e., in the philological sense), but even in a specific utterance the word spoken continues meaning, as it
continues living, non-timelessly.
On Sun, 1 May 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:
 On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Martin Packer wrote:
For LSV word-meaning is not timeless. It changes over time; he didn't
study philology for nothing!
 A word is dead
    When it is said
  Some say.
I say it just
Begins to live
 That day.
     --Emily Dickinson
I find it helpful to think of meaning as something that words do -- not
something they contain, convey, etc.
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                 -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca