File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0203, message 66


Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:09:10 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: totalizing


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_5BmMyaVFtiMmc9K7D9NUmw)

Re: totalizing

  Hugh, you lost me.  Are you saying that the concept of "meaning" has something to do with "totalizing"?
   
  ..Let's try one step at a time,  to increase our mutual understanding..
      I tried 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 DNA was discovered in the 1950's.  I don't know when the estimate of cells in a human body went to 75 trillion or more.  Or that an ordinary cell may contain 2000 different proteins.  Stem cells, were discovered quite recently.

    Much more is known now about how the brain works and how memory works than was known even 20 years ago - for example, experiments now show how the density of brain connections is increased by repetition and learning.

    I think bio-scientists have often tried to imitate physicists who portray a Cosmos of fields,forces,and atomic particles which are the same everywhere, obeying the same laws of nature.  

    But biology isn't like that. Each of hundreds of  millions of species of organisims, living or extinct is/was different from each other species.

    Social scientists and biologists, can work effectively for some purposes with averages and statistical measures. Some individual behaviors and reaction times can be measured 
    and compared with measurements of others, but each mind has capabilities and possibilites of thought and action that cannot be quantified.

    And each individual of a given species differs every other individual of that species.

    I think body/brain/mind culminates in consciousness and an accumulation  experience, i.e.a life-history of memories reinforced by repetition/learning.  

    For each mind, meanings were produced and stored throughout that history.  Each mind is a different instrument from other minds, and can only interpret objects and events, words and meanings  in accordance with its history. 

    Consider that people of the same age, living in the same family, brought up in the same community, share all the above in common, yet some will have radically different opinions of themselves (self-image) as well as radically different opinion of the people they know.

    Then think of people coming from different age groups, different families, communities, religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, perhaps people on the Lyotard List,
    and you find great differences in life-histories, beliefs, interpretations of words and meanings.

    This doesn't invalidate language theory of Wittgenstein, Lyotard and others, but I think it shows that difficulties in understanding and communicating which they recognized in principle, may be even greater in fact.

    Best,
    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_5BmMyaVFtiMmc9K7D9NUmw)

HTML VERSION:

Re: totalizing
 
 
Hugh, you lost me.  Are you saying that the concept of "meaning" has something to do with "totalizing"?
 
..Let's try one step at a time,  to increase our mutual understanding..
  I tried 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 DNA was discovered in the 1950's.  I don't know when the estimate of cells in a human body went to 75 trillion or more.  Or that an ordinary cell may contain 2000 different proteins.  Stem cells, were discovered quite recently.
 
Much more is known now about how the brain works and how memory works than was known even 20 years ago - for example, experiments now show how the density of brain connections is increased by repetition and learning.
 
I think bio-scientists have often tried to imitate physicists who portray a Cosmos of fields,forces,and atomic particles which are the same everywhere, obeying the same laws of nature. 
 
But biology isn't like that. Each of hundreds of  millions of species of organisims, living or extinct is/was different from each other species.
 
Social scientists and biologists, can work effectively for some purposes with averages and statistical measures. Some individual behaviors and reaction times can be measured 
and compared with measurements of others, but each mind has capabilities and possibilites of thought and action that cannot be quantified.
 
And each individual of a given species differs every other individual of that species.
 
I think body/brain/mind culminates in consciousness and an accumulation  experience, i.e.a life-history of memories reinforced by repetition/learning. 
 
For each mind, meanings were produced and stored throughout that history.  Each mind is a different instrument from other minds, and can only interpret objects and events, words and meanings in accordance with its history.
 
Consider that people of the same age, living in the same family, brought up in the same community, share all the above in common, yet some will have radically different opinions of themselves (self-image) as well as radically different opinion of the people they know.
 
Then think of people coming from different age groups, different families, communities, religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, perhaps people on the Lyotard List,
and you find great differences in life-histories, beliefs, interpretations of words and meanings.
 
This doesn't invalidate language theory of Wittgenstein, Lyotard and others, but I think it shows that difficulties in understanding and communicating which they recognized in principle, may be even greater in fact.
 
Best,
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_5BmMyaVFtiMmc9K7D9NUmw)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005