Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:55:14 -0800 From: Lois Shawver <rathbone-AT-california.com> Subject: Re: the rest is silence Anita, Your last post makes good sense to me. Let me follow your distinction between a "what" understanding and a "why" understanding. I think in doing so we are negotiating a language-game that is local and provisional, in the way that Lyotard talks about in the beautiful last section of his essay, the Postmodern Condition. I believe the fact that our language is local and provisional, however, does not limit the scope of our topic. We are just setting up our language tools with no commitment to carrying these particular definitions into other arenas. May we continue? "What understanding" is (perhaps not exclusively) the understanding of terms or rules of the game. "Why understanding" is an understanding of the other's subjectivity. To achieve "what understanding' I might just say "What do you mean by 'going out for dinner?'" But to achieve a "why understanding" I might invite you to tell me the narrative of some critical events in your past and I would listen not only to your words but I would let your words enlarge my imagination as to the scene of these critical events in your life. Nothing so imaginatively picturesque would be involved in the negotiation of terms in a "what" understanding. The "why understanding" seems much more profound but I let's not dismiss the 'what understanding" too rapidly. Don't you think my accepting your definition of things enhances the possiblity that i can glimpse some hint of your subjectivity? That the calibration of our language tools has the power to facilitate the deepening of our powers to appreciate each other's experiential self? ..Lois Shawver
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005