File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0302, message 215


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:59:13 EST
Subject: Topic



--part1_1cb.3401c04.2b865551_boundary
Content-Language: en

on 20/2/03 12:36 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:



Michael from the pulpit:



Jud, I shall not respond to the array of insults contained elsewhere within
this post, rather, perhaps I could dig up an old differentiation employed in
both sociological and some linguistics circles: that of topic/resource (aka,
mention/use).



Jud:

They're not insults Michael - just light [even fond] banter.



Michael:

Topic: one may speak about the subject of, say, 'metaphor', one may mention
'metaphor', describing its forms, giving examples, references to quotable
uses of 'metaphor' in the literature, comparing 'metaphor' to metonymy and
simile, etc; one makes 'metaphor' a topic of the speech, one speaks about
'metaphor'.



Jud:

A typical Pennamacoorian attempt at flannel Michael, but I'm afraid you're
wasting your time. You said words to the effect that as Being didn't exist -
it couldn't truly be a topic of conversation. This was the thrust of it
anyway - I can't access your actual message (I'm in a friend's house on his
computer.] The topic of a conversation is the subject matter of such a
conversation or discussion. According to you "Being" can't be talked about.
I'll dig out the actual message when I return home later.



Michael:

Resource: instead of speaking about 'metaphor', topicalising it, one could
instead speak metaphorically, from 'metaphor' if you like, using, employing
'metaphor'. In both cases, 'metaphor' is addressed, is central to the speech,
is brought to appearance, but in different directions.



Jud:

WRONG your flannelling Michael. If you are addressing a subject say =E2=80=9CStamp
Collecting,=E2=80=9D then that subject is the topic of the discussion or
conversation. The fact that you employ metaphor in relation to the topic of
discussion does not mean that metaphor is the topic of discussion, but merely
that metaphor is employed as a way of talking ABOUT the topic of discussion=20-
 which is stamp collecting.

If the topic of conversation is =E2=80=9CStamp Collecting=E2=80=9D and I use irony,
circumlocution, misquotation, metonymy, litotes, inversion, innuendo,
metaphor or any other figure of speech in my descriptions or observations
upon the topic of =E2=80=9CStamp Collecting,=E2=80=9D then that does not mean that the
subject of any of those ways of speaking becomes the topic of discussion.
Heidegger (if he believed this) was patently in dire need of a visit from the
men in white coats.



I'm afraid you are having what could be described as philosophical bad-hair
day.



 Michael:

This distinction is perhaps better displayed in, say, political speech: say,
one is a committed socialist; one can then speak about socialism,
('socialism' as topic) or speak as a socialist, from socialism, about
whatever ('socialism' as resource); and of course, one can do both at the
same time in the same speech (e. g., much of Marx...).



Jud:

Haahah! I Michael you are an old fox - but I'm afraid the hounds have
overtaken you on this occasion. It doesn't matter a damn if you are a
committed socialist or a Member of the Monster Raving Loony Party (note to
readers in the USA and elsewhere - such a party actually exists in Britain
and has done for many years. The founder was Screaming Lord Such [now dead]
and even now they still put forward candidates in most elections) if the
topic of discussion is "socialism" then the topic of discussion is
"socialism" What we are addressing is TOPIC not RESOURCE. Michael: In this
context, perhaps, it might be possible to again raise the question (and this
is my question however mad it sounds to some) as to how ontological speech is
possible, although one must speak ontically; whereas one may not speak,
simply, about being, making being a topic, but must speak about beings,
perhaps in the speech about beings one might be allowing, opening to, being
as resource? This is not exactly anything like an answer, more a focussing of
the question further... [must remind myself of that phenomenological
sociology and socioliguistics, ethnomethodology, where the above distinction
was both topic and resource]



Jud: In order to address the question you pose it would be necessary to
jettison rational language and resort to speaking what Paul calls
Psychobabble or to give it its correct clinical name "parphrasis" which is an
attested mental condition. So I'm afraid that I can't be of any help to you
Michael, for I am not willing to make that leap from rationality to
irrationality or semantic madness. Your only hope lies with the Roy Rogers of
this world - fellow Psychobabblers who may be saddling up and putting their
feet in the stirrups and heading your way? Maybe the thunder of hooves of the
Heideggerian Hussars will soon be heard echoing around the cognitive canyon
in which you are trapped, and you will be rescued and taken to the safety of
their Barracks in the Huttes that dot the mountainside?



Cheers,



Jud



--part1_1cb.3401c04.2b865551_boundary

HTML VERSION:

Content-Language: en on 20/2/03 12:36 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:

Michael from the pulpit:

Jud, I shall not respond to the array of insults contained elsewhere within this post, rather, perhaps I could dig up an old differentiation employed in both sociological and some linguistics circles: that of topic/resource (aka, mention/use).

Jud:
They're not insults Michael - just light [even fond] banter.

Michael:
Topic: one may speak about the subject of, say, 'metaphor', one may mention 'metaphor', describing its forms,=20giving examples, references to quotable uses of 'metaphor' in the literature, comparing 'metaphor' to metonymy and simile, etc; one makes 'metaphor' a topic of the speech, one speaks about 'metaphor'.

Jud:
A typical=20Pennamacoorian attempt at flannel Michael, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. You said words to the effect that as Being didn't exist - it couldn't truly be a topic of conversation. This was the thrust of it anyway - I can't access your actual message (I'm in a friend's house on his computer.] The topic of a conversation is the subject matter of such a conversation or discussion. According to you "Being" can't be talked about. I'll dig out the actual message when I return home later.

Michael:
Resource: instead of speaking about 'metaphor', topicalising it, one could instead speak metaphorically, from 'metaphor' if you like, using, employing 'metaphor'. In both cases, 'metaphor' is addressed, is central to the speech, is brought to appearance, but in different directions.

Jud:
WRONG your flannelling Michael. If you are addressing a subject say =E2=80=9CStamp Collecting,=E2=80=9D then that subject is the topic of the discussion or conversation.=20The fact that you employ metaphor in relation to the topic of discussion does not mean that metaphor is the topic of discussion, but merely that metaphor is employed as a way of talking ABOUT the topic of discussion -  which is stamp collecting.
If the topic of conversation is =E2=80=9CStamp Collecting=E2=80=9D and I use irony, circumlocution, misquotation, metonymy, litotes, inversion, innuendo, metaphor or any other figure of speech in my descriptions or observations upon the topic of =E2=80=9CStamp Collecting,=E2=80=9D then that does not mean that the subject of any of those ways of speaking becomes the topic of discussion. Heidegger (if he believed this) was patently in dire need of a visit from the men in white coats.

I'm afraid you are having what could be described as philosophical bad-hair day.

Michael:
This distinction is perhaps better displayed in, say, political speech: say, one is a committed socialist; one can then speak about socialism, ('socialism' as topic) or speak as a socialist, from socialism, about whatever ('socialism' as resource); and of course, one can do both at the=20same time in the same speech (e. g., much of Marx...).

Jud:
Haahah! I Michael you are an old fox - but I'm afraid the hounds have overtaken you on this occasion. It doesn't matter a damn if you are a committed socialist or a Member of the Monster Raving Loony Party (note to readers in the USA=20and elsewhere - such a party actually exists in Britain and has done for many years. The founder was Screaming Lord Such [now dead] and even now they still put forward candidates in most elections) if the topic of discussion is=20"socialism" then the topic of discussion is "socialism" What we are addressing is TOPIC not RESOURCE. Michael: In this context, perhaps, it might be possible to again raise the question (and this is my question however mad it sounds to some) as to how ontological speech is possible, although one must speak ontically; whereas one may not speak, simply, about being, making being=20a topic, but must speak about beings, perhaps in the speech about beings one might be allowing, opening to, being as resource? This is not exactly anything like an answer, more a focussing of the question further... [must remind myself of that phenomenological sociology and socioliguistics, ethnomethodology, where the above distinction was both topic and resource]

Jud: In order to address the question you pose it would be necessary to jettison rational language and resort to speaking what Paul calls Psychobabble or to give it its correct clinical name "parphrasis" which is an attested mental condition. So I'm afraid that I can't be of any help to you Michael, for I am=20not willing to make that leap from rationality to irrationality or semantic=20madness. Your only hope lies with the Roy Rogers of this world - fellow Psychobabblers who may be saddling up and putting their feet in the stirrups and heading your way? Maybe the thunder of hooves of the Heideggerian Hussars will soon be heard echoing around the cognitive canyon in which you are trapped, and you will be rescued and taken to the safety of their Barracks in the Huttes that dot the mountainside?

Cheers,

Jud
--part1_1cb.3401c04.2b865551_boundary-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005