Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:38:29 +1000 From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> Subject: Re: totalizing This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Pa033cxv0SiNnY4d6SI6ZA) Re: totalizing ----- Original Message ----- From: Lois Shawver To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:22 AM Subject: RE: totalizing Yes, it is very similar. I tried though, to emphasize that our scientific knowledge of the human animal, indicates far more complexity than was known to W and others about seventy years ago. I think meanings arise from memory/learning - life-history, experiences, memories are different for each individual, and that memory is the source of meanings. This is personal opinion of course, but I don't think it really contradicts what you and the others are saying here. Thanks, Hugh ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hugh, you say, "My interpretation of Lyotard and Wittgenstein (and Alice in Wonderland) is that a word or words, such as "totalizing" means what those who use it mean it to mean. Of course. Wittgenstein really points the way for how an author can explain the meaning of the way a term is used in her own writing when he introduces the term "language game" (aphorism #7) in the Philosphical Investigations. Don't you think it serves as a good model? (Refresh your reading. this is the last part of aphorism #7) 7 We can also think of the whole process of using words in (2) as one of those games by means of which children learn their native language. I will call these games "language-games" and will sometimes speak of a primitive language as a language-game. And the processes of naming the stones and of repeating words after someone might also be called language-games. Think of much of the use words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses. I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven, the "language-game". Of course, people like Lyotard, Kripke, Hugh, Lois, Judy, pick up the term and change the meaning slightly (at times at least). Otherwise, it will all be very simple, wouldn't it? And the logical positivists would have won the war that still goes on between different factions.Everything could be tied down to definitions. But in their place we need not place nothing at all (unless we want to leave our terms undefined). Wecan follow Wittgenstein's lead and explain how we each usethe term, and talk a little about the differences and similarities between the way we use the term and the way others use the term. I take it this is similar to what you were saying? ..Lois Shawver --Boundary_(ID_Pa033cxv0SiNnY4d6SI6ZA)
HTML VERSION:
--Boundary_(ID_Pa033cxv0SiNnY4d6SI6ZA)------- Original Message -----From: Lois ShawverSent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:22 AMSubject: RE: totalizingYes, it is very similar. I tried though, to emphasize that our scientific knowledge of the human animal, indicates far more complexity than was known to W and others about seventy years ago. I think meanings arise from memory/learning - life-history, experiences, memories are different for each individual, and that memory is the source of meanings. This is personal opinion of course, but I don't think it really contradicts what you and the others are saying here.Thanks,Hugh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hugh, you say, "My interpretation of Lyotard and Wittgenstein (and Alice in Wonderland) is that a word or words, such as "totalizing" means what those who use it mean it to mean.Of course. Wittgenstein really points the way for how an author can explain the meaning of the way a term is used in her own writing when he introduces the term "language game" (aphorism #7) in the Philosphical Investigations. Don't you think it serves as a good model? (Refresh your reading. this is the last part of aphorism #7)7 We can also think of the whole processof using words in (2) as one of those gamesby means of which children learn their nativelanguage. I will call these games"language-games" and will sometimes speakof a primitive language as a language-game.And the processes of naming the stones andof repeating words after someone might alsobe called language-games. Think of much ofthe use words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses.I shall also call the whole, consisting of languageand the actions into which it is woven, the "language-game".Of course, people like Lyotard, Kripke, Hugh, Lois, Judy, pick up the term and change the meaning slightly (at times at least). Otherwise, it will all be very simple, wouldn't it? And the logical positivists would have won the war that still goes on between different factions.Everything could be tied down to definitions.But in their place we need not place nothing at all (unless we want to leave our terms undefined). Wecan follow Wittgenstein's lead and explain how we each usethe term, and talk a little about the differences and similarities between the way we use the term and the way others use the term.I take it this is similar to what you were saying?..Lois Shawver
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005