Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:22:19 +0100 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: powerlessness Lois/all My favorite story of Wittgenstein and cats is the comment of John Aspinall (the great conservationist and savior of tigers) - who said commenting on Wittgenstein and Tigers - referring to the statement that Wittgenstein made regarding that even if Tigers spoke english we wouldn't understand them said something to the effect that "...Wittgenstein obviously didn't spend very much time with Tigers..." The evidence does suggest that Aspinall is probably correct and Wittgenstein is wrong. There is remarkably little evidence that a human consciousness is more complex than a cat or a dolphin - there is however an extraordinary amount of specism involved in the choice of a 'human' over the non-human. regards steve Lois Shawver wrote: >Steve, thanks for reflecting on the different ways of understanding what I >wrote. > >The idea that different people are locked in private worlds of understanding >and can't, by the nature of things, have their intentions read is, to my way >of thinking, a mistaken view. There is a quote from Wittgenstein on this >very matter that I like: > >647 What is the natural expression >of an intention?-Look at a cat when >it stalks a bird; or a beast when it >wants to escape. > >We read the intention of the cat. The "intention" is not a private thing. >That is, whatever is in the cat's mind, the word "intention" doesn't refer >to a phenomenological consciousness in the privacy of the cat's mind. The >intention is the goal directedness that animates the action. That is how >the word "intention" is used in our language game of intention. > >But in humans things are much more complicated. Intentions emerge in >conversation, are discerned through complicated analysis of context, and are >generally debatable. And once the author is dead there is the practical >question of when the analysis of intention is the most productive use of the >text. The other day, I was stating a spontaneous judgment on that matter. >As an alternative one can learn to use the author's text to nourish one's >own creative voice, and to educate one's understanding so as to speak from >one's understanding apart from other people's intended meanings. > >..Lois Shawver > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU >[mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of >steve.devos >Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:13 AM >To: lyoptard list >Subject: Re: powerlessness > > >All > >This is an odd statement - on reading it again this morning (as I >prepare for work) it occurs to me that it can be understood as at best a >recognition of our 'misreading' of texts due to the very different >social and political experiences we bring to texts, and at worst the >belief that all readings are so deeply subjective that a consensual >understanding of the meaning of a text cannot be achieved. > >I believe the intention is towards the latter variant because of the >denial that we can know and represent what the writer, an 'author' >intended - but it is important to note that Lyotard is not Cervantes or >Machivelli living in a time that has extraordinary social differences >from our own historical period, indeed most of the planet was alive when >he wrote the 'differend' and some 300 million people in western europe >have had not dissimilar social experiences to his own. > >Am I then wrong to believe that we can understand what a text, what a >writer intends in sufficient depth to discuss a text meaningfully ? > >regards >steve > >Lois Shawver wrote: > > > >>BUT that doesn't mean that I think that Lyotard 'intended' >>this in a conscious and deliberate sense of 'intend'. As far as I'm >>concerned, the text stands on its own because the author lives, after he is >>dead, only in the echoes of our living minds. >> >>..Lois Shawver >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
HTML VERSION:
Steve, thanks for reflecting on the different ways of understanding what I wrote. The idea that different people are locked in private worlds of understanding and can't, by the nature of things, have their intentions read is, to my way of thinking, a mistaken view. There is a quote from Wittgenstein on this very matter that I like: 647 What is the natural expression of an intention?-Look at a cat when it stalks a bird; or a beast when it wants to escape. We read the intention of the cat. The "intention" is not a private thing. That is, whatever is in the cat's mind, the word "intention" doesn't refer to a phenomenological consciousness in the privacy of the cat's mind. The intention is the goal directedness that animates the action. That is how the word "intention" is used in our language game of intention. But in humans things are much more complicated. Intentions emerge in conversation, are discerned through complicated analysis of context, and are generally debatable. And once the author is dead there is the practical question of when the analysis of intention is the most productive use of the text. The other day, I was stating a spontaneous judgment on that matter. As an alternative one can learn to use the author's text to nourish one's own creative voice, and to educate one's understanding so as to speak from one's understanding apart from other people's intended meanings. ..Lois Shawver -----Original Message----- From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of steve.devos Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:13 AM To: lyoptard list Subject: Re: powerlessness All This is an odd statement - on reading it again this morning (as I prepare for work) it occurs to me that it can be understood as at best a recognition of our 'misreading' of texts due to the very different social and political experiences we bring to texts, and at worst the belief that all readings are so deeply subjective that a consensual understanding of the meaning of a text cannot be achieved. I believe the intention is towards the latter variant because of the denial that we can know and represent what the writer, an 'author' intended - but it is important to note that Lyotard is not Cervantes or Machivelli living in a time that has extraordinary social differences from our own historical period, indeed most of the planet was alive when he wrote the 'differend' and some 300 million people in western europe have had not dissimilar social experiences to his own. Am I then wrong to believe that we can understand what a text, what a writer intends in sufficient depth to discuss a text meaningfully ? regards steve Lois Shawver wrote:BUT that doesn't mean that I think that Lyotard 'intended' this in a conscious and deliberate sense of 'intend'. As far as I'm concerned, the text stands on its own because the author lives, after he is dead, only in the echoes of our living minds. ..Lois Shawver