The Limits of Language

[Matt Chylak]

perhaps this isn't quite a politics thread, but it makes the most sense here.

i often argue with my roommates over the "limits" of language. there's a surprising variety of viewpoints amongst the four of us.

one roommate in particular favors an approach whereby language has no limits and correct grammar does not exist...society only has specific examples that are "generally accepted" as the proper way to articulate something.

personally, i'm of the persuasion that although we're certainly welcome to subvert existing grammatical and vocabulational structures (i do it all the time in poetry), there ARE clear constraints of the language. that's basically what grammar is - a series of rules - ergo a limitation.

he posted this video on my wall today:

J7E-aoXLZGY

do you think he's made a point in our ongoing argument, or is this video just confirming what i've already asserted?

[White]

[obligatory 'who gives a shit?' post]

[loveisdead]

Language is constantly evolving. I'd agree with your roommate.

[caveBEAR]

[obligatory 'who gives a shit?' post]

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/Revan9218/cool_story_bro.jpg

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Fuck your Yankee blue jeans

[Machu505]

I'm pretty totalitarian when it comes to language.

[perceptrons]

I agree with your roommate as well, could you give some example of things that you think would be off-limits?

[Juan Jose]

well if there were limits then languages wouldn't be constantly changing, most languages right now are vastly different from their forms only a couple hundred years back

[loveisdead]

well if there were limits then languages wouldn't be constantly changing, most languages right now are vastly different from their forms only a couple hundred years back

Much sooner than 100 years back. Think of all the words that have developed new meaning in our lifetime.

[Juan Jose]

Much sooner than 100 years back. Think of all the words that have developed new meaning in our lifetime.

didn't even think of that. I was thinking more about "formal" language as opposed to slang but yea that's a great example that's right under our noses

[The Personist]

Obligatory "read Plato's Pharmacy and stop being so Saussurean" post.

But seriously, language functions metonymically; it's a process, not something that can be boiled down and said to have a set of absolute "rules." OP, you studied with Charles fucking Bernstein and you're still a structuralist? Gimme a break.

[IntoTheSun]

Have a few things to say about this, maybe. But first, what exactly is structualism? Can someone give me a general idea? (Please don't be the asshole that tells me to wiki it, I already have before.)

[The Personist]

Have a few things to say about this, maybe. But first, what exactly is structualism? Can someone give me a general idea? (Please don't be the asshole that tells me to wiki it, I already have before.)

Structuralism generally assumes that language is a system of signs which is governed by a set of rules that determine what each signifier signifies. It is a system in which there is still possibility for overall, grounded "meaning"--as opposed to post-structuralism, wherein meaning is slippery and indeterminate.

[IntoTheSun]

Structuralism generally assumes that language is a system of signs which is governed by a set of rules that determine what each signifier signifies. It is a system in which there is still possibility for overall, grounded "meaning"--as opposed to post-structuralism, wherein meaning is slippery and indeterminate.

Alright, sweet, now I understand the semantics of what we're discussing. In that case, I'm actually taking a philosophy class right now on metaphysics & post-structuralism. Interested in the following discussion, I might jump in with some input later when I'm not fucking exhausted.

EDIT: 10,000th POST FOR THE SECOND TIME WHOOOT!!!

[The Personist]

Alright, sweet, now I understand the semantics of what we're discussing. In that case, I'm actually taking a philosophy class right now on metaphysics & post-structuralism. Interested in the following discussion, I might jump in with some input later when I'm not fucking exhausted.

I posted so I could subscribe and will doubtless be in here frequently (since I've already gotten into debates on the subject in other threads)

[loveisdead]

I posted so I could subscribe and will doubtless be in here frequently (since I've already gotten into debates on the subject in other threads)

Haha that's more or less why I posted.

[Theseventhson]

Me three!

[saysmydoctor]

There aren't so much rules to grammar, but rather just...grammar is native to us.

[The Personist]

There aren't so much rules to grammar, but rather just...grammar is native to us.

Explain.

[Matt Chylak]

Obligatory "read Plato's Pharmacy and stop being so Saussurean" post.

But seriously, language functions metonymically; it's a process, not something that can be boiled down and said to have a set of absolute "rules." OP, you studied with Charles fucking Bernstein and you're still a structuralist? Gimme a break.

I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I am a structuralist; that's not at all what I intended. I guess I didn't articulate correctly my position. By "rules," I meant that there exists in the world, agreed upon in books like "The Elements of Style," certain ways of doing things...we aren't at all forced to follow those rules, but they still EXIST in some form.

i.e. There could be no Post-Structuralism without Structuralism.

[saysmydoctor]

Explain.
It's called universal grammar, it's Chomsky's theory. I'm not a linguist so it's not like I can go on at length about it, but overall--there are certain hard-coded "rules" that are virtually inescapable.

It even explains why slang, which by most standards would be considered informal speech, even operates by the most basic of grammar rules.

[bNz719]

Perhaps, I'm understanding the question wrong but the way I see it, language does have certain limitations but are they in no way permanent. Language evolves as humanity does and thus those limitations shift, generally allowing more freedom within that language. Language is a tool to help humans communicate easier and more thoroughly, so as the need to communicate new concepts and needs arise, the limitations of a language are sure to shift/concede to accommodate those needs.

[Piieterr00]

Language limits us. I believe language is in fact limited itself.

[ace1112]

I'm pretty totalitarian when it comes to language.

lol at this combined with your avatar

[The Personist]

I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I am a structuralist; that's not at all what I intended. I guess I didn't articulate correctly my position. By "rules," I meant that there exists in the world, agreed upon in books like "The Elements of Style," certain ways of doing things...we aren't at all forced to follow those rules, but they still EXIST in some form.

i.e. There could be no Post-Structuralism without Structuralism.
Right. Structuralism says that in theory there are rules which govern all our thinking. Post-structuralism says there are not rules, or that the rules are not ubiquitous and are subject to critique. I would rather critique the rules--which can be insanely oppressive--than let them be and presume we are always to be subject to them.

It's called universal grammar, it's Chomsky's theory. I'm not a linguist so it's not like I can go on at length about it, but overall--there are certain hard-coded "rules" that are virtually inescapable.

It even explains why slang, which by most standards would be considered informal speech, even operates by the most basic of grammar rules.

Too logocentric for my tastes

[<*)))><]

Can you make a word that can describe something that someone else can't understand because they will never experience it?

[Matt Chylak]

Can you make a word that can describe something that someone else can't understand because they will never experience it?

assmunching

[<*)))><]

assmunching
I mean it more like I have a teacher who says she traveled to the 5th demension and can't describe it because it is nothing we can't fathom. And it is not the band

[Scrandon]

Fishbones has never made a coherent post on this site; yet somehow, people are able to communicate with him. Does that play into your discussion?

[Matt Chylak]

Right. Structuralism says that in theory there are rules which govern all our thinking. Post-structuralism says there are not rules, or that the rules are not ubiquitous and are subject to critique. I would rather critique the rules--which can be insanely oppressive--than let them be and presume we are always to be subject to them.

Too logocentric for my tastes

so...we agree is what you're saying

[jawstheme]

I mean it more like I have a teacher who says she traveled to the 5th demension and can't describe it because it is nothing we can't fathom. And it is not the band

Your teacher is just a hippie. They can't articulate anything.

[mattmatumbo]

Even with the constraints of a limited vocabulary, one can have an infinitely long sentence which is grammatically (in a prescriptive sense) correct.

[comfortwitness]

Because humans, though probably traceable to an earlier ancestor, developed language as a tool long before breaking into the subsets we have now it makes sense that modern homo sapiens would in fact have a common basis for the elements of language regardless of which branch their tongue resides in. This however does not mean that saying "the Lord is come" rather than "the Lord has come" is in an anyway insufficiently correct. Like your friend pointed out, who I feel if was represented better I would probably agree with, society defines/constrains the laws of grammar and relativity of semantics. I'm now thinking UPenn must not have as grand a linguistics department as I previously thought, assuming that is what you study.

[mattmatumbo]

It's called universal grammar, it's Chomsky's theory. I'm not a linguist so it's not like I can go on at length about it, but overall--there are certain hard-coded "rules" that are virtually inescapable.

It even explains why slang, which by most standards would be considered informal speech, even operates by the most basic of grammar rules.

Universal grammar isn't very limiting though, other than the relationship of syllables, consonants, and vowels. I thought that universal grammar stated that: every language has a plural and every language has a past tense. I can't think of the others right now, though, and we only discussed it for one class period. If you would like to expand and explain a little more for me.

To look at the big picture, there are about 8,000 languages on Earth, in 20 years or less, 70% or so will be extinct. That is limiting, we will have fewer languages to compare to, fewer ways of thinking about how language works in our mind, etc... It's also depressing.

But then again no one person can change a language hahahaha!

/Saussureanrant

[The Personist]

Universal grammar isn't very limiting though, other than the relationship of syllables, consonants, and vowels. I thought that universal grammar stated that: every language has a plural and every language has a past tense. I can't think of the others right now, though, and we only discussed it for one class period. If you would like to expand and explain a little more for me.

To look at the big picture, there are about 8,000 languages on Earth, in 20 years or less, 70% or so will be extinct. That is limiting, we will have fewer languages to compare to, fewer ways of thinking about how language works in our mind, etc... It's also depressing.

But then again no one person can change a language hahahaha!

/Saussureanrant

Saussure is nice, but Derrida's the best.

[mattmatumbo]

Saussure is nice, but Derrida's the best.

Fuck... i have to read him tomorrow night, then prepare a 3 minute personal presentation on him for next week, which i've only heard that he's confusing as all hell. Not like simple ol' Saussure with his football diagrams for signifier and signified...

[The Personist]

Fuck... i have to read him tomorrow night, then prepare a 3 minute personal presentation on him for next week, which i've only heard that he's confusing as all hell. Not like simple ol' Saussure with his football diagrams for signifier and signified...

Are you reading Plato's Pharmacy? It is BRILLIANT.

[mattmatumbo]

Are you reading Plato's Pharmacy? It is BRILLIANT.

I just checked my syllabus, and yes, it's Plato's Pharmacy. I hope that i don't have to sit around re-reading passages wondering WTF am I reading?

[The Personist]

I just checked my syllabus, and yes, it's Plato's Pharmacy. I hope that i don't have to sit around re-reading passages wondering WTF am I reading?

You should set aside a good long chunk of time--like, multiple hours--to read the whole thing. It's brilliant, but it will resist the kind of logic you want from an essay. That's part of the point. The form enacts the play Derrida is talking about. It's frustrating, but it's really quite amazing. Enjoy the experience of being frustrated and you'll be fine. Just don't expect anything neat and tidy from it.

(Derrida is probably my favorite theorist/philosopher, so I'm a bit biased)

[mattmatumbo]

You should set aside a good long chunk of time--like, multiple hours--to read the whole thing. It's brilliant, but it will resist the kind of logic you want from an essay. That's part of the point. The form enacts the play Derrida is talking about. It's frustrating, but it's really quite amazing. Enjoy the experience of being frustrated and you'll be fine. Just don't expect anything neat and tidy from it.

(Derrida is probably my favorite theorist/philosopher, so I'm a bit biased)

My prof said that no one every really get's Derrida their first time through, she said you need an etymological dictionary and someone who already understands Derrida... I am excited though, we haven't read much expository writing thus far, although, looking back I thought Saussure was an enigma, but then we read Lacan, so now Saussure seemed like a walk in the park.

[The Personist]

My prof said that no one every really get's Derrida their first time through, she said you need an etymological dictionary and someone who already understands Derrida... I am excited though, we haven't read much expository writing thus far, although, looking back I thought Saussure was an enigma, but then we read Lacan, so now Saussure seemed like a walk in the park.

My prof's field is post-structuralism/queer theory, so she knows Derrida up and down. If you google it, there's a helpful reading guide that'll shed a little light on Plato's Pharmacy. But seriously, at the end of the day Derrida is having fun. He's making fun of the reader and of himself. It's brilliant. What class, if I might ask, is this for? I adore Lacan. I'm assuming you read it in conjunction with Freud?

[Love As Arson]

"Language speaks. If we let ourselves fall into the abyss denoted by this sentence, we do not go tumbling into emptiness. We fall upward, to a height. Its loftiness opens up a depth. The two span a realm in which we would like to become at home, so as to find a residence, a dwelling place for the life of man."

[The Personist]

That's beautiful. Who said it?

[mattmatumbo]

My prof's field is post-structuralism/queer theory, so she knows Derrida up and down. If you google it, there's a helpful reading guide that'll shed a little light on Plato's Pharmacy. But seriously, at the end of the day Derrida is having fun. He's making fun of the reader and of himself. It's brilliant. What class, if I might ask, is this for? I adore Lacan. I'm assuming you read it in conjunction with Freud?

Yes, we spent one day on Freud and then one on Lacan. My professor said that if you think you've figured out Derrida, you're probably looking at it backwards, but then Derrida would look at your perception of it, and say "yeah, i think i was going for that" haha. She went to Princeton at 16, then began teaching there at 22, so i'm absolutely terrified of her when i speak in class. It is a Criticism and Theory class for English.

[mattmatumbo]

perhaps this isn't quite a politics thread, but it makes the most sense here.

i often argue with my roommates over the "limits" of language. there's a surprising variety of viewpoints amongst the four of us.

one roommate in particular favors an approach whereby language has no limits and correct grammar does not exist...society only has specific examples that are "generally accepted" as the proper way to articulate something.

personally, i'm of the persuasion that although we're certainly welcome to subvert existing grammatical and vocabulational structures (i do it all the time in poetry), there ARE clear constraints of the language. that's basically what grammar is - a series of rules - ergo a limitation.

he posted this video on my wall today:

J7E-aoXLZGY

do you think he's made a point in our ongoing argument, or is this video just confirming what i've already asserted?

In English, one can have a grammatically correct sentence which is infinite, despite limited vocabulary.

[The Personist]

Yes, we spent one day on Freud and then one on Lacan. My professor said that if you think you've figured out Derrida, you're probably looking at it backwards, but then Derrida would look at your perception of it, and say "yeah, i think i was going for that" haha. She went to Princeton at 16, then began teaching there at 22, so i'm absolutely terrified of her when i speak in class. It is a Criticism and Theory class for English.

Amazing. Yeah, I'm in a survey of literary theory. It's brilliant and wonderful. It's also really cool in terms of how I apply it to my poetry; it really makes me think of language in all new ways.

[mattmatumbo]

Amazing. Yeah, I'm in a survey of literary theory. It's brilliant and wonderful. It's also really cool in terms of how I apply it to my poetry; it really makes me think of language in all new ways.

I just shit bricks thinking about society after reading Althusser haha.

[The Personist]

I just shit bricks thinking about society after reading Althusser haha.

yeah, I basically am a changed person after every reading/class. Except this last one. Henry Louis Gates's Signifying Monkey is kind of blah to me.

[Theseventhson]

This thread has surprisingly stayed intelligent.

[mattmatumbo]

yeah, I basically am a changed person after every reading/class. Except this last one. Henry Louis Gates's Signifying Monkey is kind of blah to me.

Haha, had to laugh, i've not heard of that one. I know we have a class here at the U of U which reads Danielewski's House of Leaves. I just have to find out which one, so I can take it. I'm in English 3701, Old and Middle English, I only relate things through Barthes, since I can just make up the meanings of the poems and have a sound basis that my professors cannot refute haha!

[mattmatumbo]

This thread has surprisingly stayed intelligent.

Yeah, i was noting that as well. I love this thread, other than it's me and The Personist posting alone haha.

[The Personist]

Matt Matumbo and I are winners at life. He even likes Barthes! It's like a dream come true.

[Matt Chylak]

In English, one can have a grammatically correct sentence which is infinite, despite limited vocabulary.

i am aware of that piece of trivia, though i'm not quite sure how it extends to our debate.

[The Personist]

Also, thanks to Matt for making this thread. I think it's interesting and important...and now it doesn't bleed over into every other debate we might have.

[mattmatumbo]

i am aware of that piece of trivia, though i'm not quite sure how it extends to our debate.

I was merely making the point that language can not have limits that others do, Latin languages for example don't allow that redundancy. However, after reading your post, I agree, language is extremely limited, not through grammar of course, but simply through language itself. Lacan even said language is a lack thereof. That's my bit for the argument.

I think I'm trying to say that in a general sense, it's pretty limitless, but, to look at it linguistically it is limited. Considering Lacan's essay.

[mattmatumbo]

Matt Matumbo and I are winners at life. He even likes Barthes! It's like a dream come true.

We should start a theorist thread in the education thread.

[Theseventhson]

We should start a theorist thread in the education thread.

Nobody checks the education thread, though.

[mattmatumbo]

Nobody checks the education thread, though.

Oh... then let's leave it here haha.

[Nick Le]

This is quite the interesting thread and I'm intrigued. I might at the least look up some of the essays mentioned in this thread.

[Matt Chylak]

I was merely making the point that language can not have limits that others do, Latin languages for example don't allow that redundancy. However, after reading your post, I agree, language is extremely limited, not through grammar of course, but simply through language itself. Lacan even said language is a lack thereof. That's my bit for the argument.

I think I'm trying to say that in a general sense, it's pretty limitless, but, to look at it linguistically it is limited. Considering Lacan's essay.

oh, thanks for clearing that up. i agree that there are certainly many different ways to limit how we use words. grammar just seemed like the easiest example since it espouses "rules."

can you expand on your ideas from Lacan? i've never read him something i say all too frequently

[Matt Chylak]

Oh... then let's leave it here haha.

i was originally going to post this in education, but put it in here for precisely that reason. plus, the users who come through here are usually up for a good debate/discourse as opposed to some of the numskulls in other sections of the site.

[saysmydoctor]

Nobody checks the education thread, though.

i was originally going to post this in education, but put it in here for precisely that reason. plus, the users who come through here are usually up for a good debate/discourse as opposed to some of the numskulls in other sections of the site.
The Education thread is more policy focused anyway.

[Matt Chylak]

The Education thread is more policy focused anyway.

seems more "what major are you/is good" focused to me, but whatever

[saysmydoctor]

seems more "what major are you/is good" focused to me, but whatever
Oh you were talking about the forum.

I was talking about the thread.

Oops.

[The Personist]

oh, thanks for clearing that up. i agree that there are certainly many different ways to limit how we use words. grammar just seemed like the easiest example since it espouses "rules."

can you expand on your ideas from Lacan? i've never read him something i say all too frequently

Lacan was a terrible therapist, but a fabulous theorist. He's a wonderful reader of Freud and a lot of my professors love him. I do too. He's hard to "summarize" but i would suggest poking around and maybe reading his essay on the Mirror Stage, at least.

[Matt Chylak]

Lacan was a terrible therapist, but a fabulous theorist. He's a wonderful reader of Freud and a lot of my professors love him. I do too. He's hard to "summarize" but i would suggest poking around and maybe reading his essay on the Mirror Stage, at least.

doing it now. i love free time.

[mattmatumbo]

i was originally going to post this in education, but put it in here for precisely that reason. plus, the users who come through here are usually up for a good debate/discourse as opposed to some of the numskulls in other sections of the site.

Haha, yeah i agree, here is a good place for this discussion.

oh, thanks for clearing that up. i agree that there are certainly many different ways to limit how we use words. grammar just seemed like the easiest example since it espouses "rules."

can you expand on your ideas from Lacan? i've never read him something i say all too frequently

No worries, Lacan based his theory off of Freud's phallus which is not a penis which was basically a lack of something that someone needed, wanted, etc... Lacan took that and stated that language is phallic in that almost everything we say, think, and write is due to a lack of whatever it is that we are speaking of. For instance, i have to say the word tree when I don't have one in my immediate surroundings, for if I did, I would be able to point and say that. That is a very general basis of his argument, which I hope The Personist can expand upon. I'm currently reading Lucé Irigaray who, i believe, is arguing that language is not actually phallic at all, and is actually maternal. Although, she could be arguing that language is too phallic and can be more maternal. So, one could argue that due to a language's lack of connection, except its signifier/signified relationship, to the physical entity it represents, all one is ever doing is making up for that which they don't have. Lacking, or limiting, language to phantom of our own perception of the things we see, hear, think, discuss and much much more.

I'll be able to expand, or simplify once i get a chance to re-read Lacan.

[Matt Chylak]

Haha, yeah i agree, here is a good place for this discussion.



No worries, Lacan based his theory off of Freud's phallus which is not a penis which was basically a lack of something that someone needed, wanted, etc... Lacan took that and stated that language is phallic in that almost everything we say, think, and write is due to a lack of whatever it is that we are speaking of. For instance, i have to say the word tree when I don't have one in my immediate surroundings, for if I did, I would be able to point and say that. That is a very general basis of his argument, which I hope The Personist can expand upon. I'm currently reading Lucé Irigaray who, i believe, is arguing that language is not actually phallic at all, and is actually maternal. Although, she could be arguing that language is too phallic and can be more maternal. So, one could argue that due to a language's lack of connection, except its signifier/signified relationship, to the physical entity it represents, all one is ever doing is making up for that which they don't have. Lacking, or limiting, language to phantom of our own perception of the things we see, hear, think, discuss and much much more.

I'll be able to expand, or simplify once i get a chance to re-read Lacan.

read some mirror theory; interesting stuff. haven't read anything on language yet.

[mattmatumbo]

read some mirror theory; interesting stuff. haven't read anything on language yet.

Neither Mirror Stage, nor The Signification of the Phallus (where I drew my information) directly mention language. It's a tricky and convoluted connection between what they write about and all the things that people draw from it. Maybe one line will mention it in passing, and in a very very enigmatic fashion which, unfortunately, my professor must spoon feed me how to spot it when they actually mention the relation to language and linguistics. I really hate non-expository writings.

From The Signification of the Phallus (the name is mentioning Saussurean sign): "In men and through men the phallus speaks". Those are the only instances i remember him stating that the whole writing was about Saussure.

I was also thinking of the ways that language is limited while in my car, from a more realistic linguistic view, and it's quite apparent. Unless you've argued this to your roommate; we are set with a limited number of sounds we can make, our lexicon is limited, our dictionaries are limited, and how does one ever truly define an emotion, a feeling, or an idea?

[mattmatumbo]

Lacan was a terrible therapist, but a fabulous theorist. He's a wonderful reader of Freud and a lot of my professors love him. I do too. He's hard to "summarize" but i would suggest poking around and maybe reading his essay on the Mirror Stage, at least.

Love Lacan, favorite quotes are:
"... One must draw the line between reading coffee grounds and reading hieroglyphics"
"In other words, Freud never knew what he was doing."

I was the only one in the class who laughed when that was read aloud.

You should check my interpretation of Lacan's The Signification of the Phallus and give your insight, i always love seeing how other people view the same essay.

So you've read Barthes, so then you've read Foucault as well, correct? Who then would win in a fight haha! I jest, which theorist did you identify with?

[Matt Chylak]

Neither Mirror Stage, nor The Signification of the Phallus (where I drew my information) directly mention language. It's a tricky and convoluted connection between what they write about and all the things that people draw from it. Maybe one line will mention it in passing, and in a very very enigmatic fashion which, unfortunately, my professor must spoon feed me how to spot it when they actually mention the relation to language and linguistics. I really hate non-expository writings.

From The Signification of the Phallus (the name is mentioning Saussurean sign): "In men and through men the phallus speaks". Those are the only instances i remember him stating that the whole writing was about Saussure.

I was also thinking of the ways that language is limited while in my car, from a more realistic linguistic view, and it's quite apparent. Unless you've argued this to your roommate; we are set with a limited number of sounds we can make, our lexicon is limited, our dictionaries are limited, and how does one ever truly define an emotion, a feeling, or an idea?

ah, damn. i was hoping for a more specific viewpoint on the topic since i'm already unfamiliar with his work.

the lexicon limitation you're presenting gets away from our central argument, which mostly revolves around proper usage of words. i'm sure he would argue that new words being created is an assertion that language does not have a boundary, but i would counter that the limitations still exist by the mere fact that they are recorded. i believe in a more fluid interpretation of language, especially when related to creative endeavors, and though the creation of new words is nice i'd much rather have a reinvigoration of older definitions (which also occurs, of course).

[mattmatumbo]

ah, damn. i was hoping for a more specific viewpoint on the topic since i'm already unfamiliar with his work.

the lexicon limitation you're presenting gets away from our central argument, which mostly revolves around proper usage of words. i'm sure he would argue that new words being created is an assertion that language does not have a boundary, but i would counter that the limitations still exist by the mere fact that they are recorded. i believe in a more fluid interpretation of language, especially when related to creative endeavors, and though the creation of new words is nice i'd much rather have a reinvigoration of older definitions (which also occurs, of course).

Ah, i'll see the The Personist will give a little insight onto my post about The Signification of the Phallus, the gist of it is all that is truly necessary. Also, that can be the fun, throw The Signification of the Phallus in your roommates face, and say "here, this proves my point!" I doubt he'll have a rebuttal for a week.

And to your second paragraph, I agree that one can simply create new words for things, as English has proven very proficient, however, at the same time we lose words with similar, if not, synonymous meanings, which i think is your point overall. I think it was Saussure, the founder of linguistics, who said that one has control over speech, but not language. Which, for all to aid the change, is quite difficult.

[Matt Chylak]

Ah, i'll see the The Personist will give a little insight onto my post about The Signification of the Phallus, the gist of it is all that is truly necessary. Also, that can be the fun, throw The Signification of the Phallus in your roommates face, and say "here, this proves my point!" I doubt he'll have a rebuttal for a week.

And to your second paragraph, I agree that one can simply create new words for things, as English has proven very proficient, however, at the same time we lose words with similar, if not, synonymous meanings, which i think is your point overall. I think it was Saussure, the founder of linguistics, who said that one has control over speech, but not language. Which, for all to aid the change, is quite difficult.

hahaha you know me already. ps the personist's name is david

i like this quote.

[mattmatumbo]

hahaha you know me already. ps the personist's name is david

i like this quote.

I was starting to feel like a jackass, thank you.

That quote sums up the fact that we take from language as a whole, but individually we can give it nothing. You can call a tree a rock as much as you want or until you believe that is what it's called, but everyone else will still think you're nuts. But i think you got the idea of it haha, I just love the idea of someone on the street yelling that a tree is in fact called a rock, it's how my group member, also named Matt, described it.

I love this thread.

[oliviazhang]

well if there were limits then languages wouldn't be constantly changing, most languages right now are vastly different from their forms only a couple hundred years back
yes, I agree with you.

[The Personist]

I was starting to feel like a jackass, thank you.

That quote sums up the fact that we take from language as a whole, but individually we can give it nothing. You can call a tree a rock as much as you want or until you believe that is what it's called, but everyone else will still think you're nuts. But i think you got the idea of it haha, I just love the idea of someone on the street yelling that a tree is in fact called a rock, it's how my group member, also named Matt, described it.

I love this thread.

:buddies:

And unfortunately I can't do much to elucidate Lacan; he's a tough cookie, though I think you've done a really good job with him. Part of his project was to save Freud from being misinterpreted (Freud wrote with remarkable clarity and thus it was easy for people to take waht they wanted from Freud to support whatever they wanted to, however wrong they were). He wanted to write in a way that allowed for one way in and one way out. He was a huge Freud fanboy, too. He wrote him letters all the time which Freud never answered. He sent Freud his dissertation (on Freud) and Freud never read it. Hahaha.

[The Personist]

Also, language for Lacan represents (I think) a metonymic chain of desires.

What's important, though, isn't that he writes directly about language, but the implications of how the "self" emerges. Just like with Freud, Lacan's conception of the self is as something over which we have very little--if any--agency. It is determined by factors very much out of our control. The mirror stage is that moment when we experience the disconnect between our ideal image of our self (the "Ideal-I," what we see in the mirror) and the actual condition of our self. Though we see an autonomous, fully-functioning being in the mirror, we can't walk or speak or do anything without help at the age Lacan says the mirror stage occurs during (6-18 months). This causes a rupture, and also creates the Freudian psyche. The superego is the Ideal-I, our mirror image, and that toward which we spend our lives striving. The ego is formed in an attempt to mediate and help us achieve the Ideal-I, which we never CAN achieve. Thus, our life is a chain of desires (as I said above) which strives toward but can never reach the Ideal-I which we conceive in the mirror.

This goes back to what Matt M. was saying (and, I say again, he said it very eloquently I think) about language as created by a lack of something. I think I would extend his point a bit and say that part of the lack with which language grapples is our lack of agency and our lack of wholeness. From a young age the self is fractured, fragmented, and largely reliant on an image of something outside of our ability to control (an image in the mirror, metaphorically--an Other). Language is part of the way we combat that lack of desired unity in our identity. Desire is also important for Lacan, because--and I could be way off, as I'm just going based on notes I took in class--he says desire never fully finds closure. It only reproduces itself as more desire. It is, like I said, a metonymic chain, a shifting of desire from one object to the next. I think the initial desired object has something to do with metaphoric confusion (deferring the desire to have sex with one's mother), but I'm not entirely certain in that regard. What is important, though, is the lack which we try to compensate for and do away with. It is through that constant struggle to reconcile and remove that lack (which can never be fully removed) that we create our identity.

And now back to Henry Louis Gates Jr.

[mattmatumbo]

:buddies:

And unfortunately I can't do much to elucidate Lacan; he's a tough cookie, though I think you've done a really good job with him. Part of his project was to save Freud from being misinterpreted (Freud wrote with remarkable clarity and thus it was easy for people to take waht they wanted from Freud to support whatever they wanted to, however wrong they were). He wanted to write in a way that allowed for one way in and one way out. He was a huge Freud fanboy, too. He wrote him letters all the time which Freud never answered. He sent Freud his dissertation (on Freud) and Freud never read it. Hahaha.

Poor Lacan, all he wanted was a friend.

It's Derrida time for me, i'll post my findings/confusions etc... here when i've finished.

[Love As Arson]

That's beautiful. Who said it?
It's from Heidegger's "Poetry, Language, Thought".

[The Personist]

It's from Heidegger's "Poetry, Language, Thought".

I love it. I have to read more Heidegger...if only I had time...

[Love As Arson]

By the way, people should read Feminist Interpretations of Lacan.

[mattmatumbo]

It's from Heidegger's "Poetry, Language, Thought".

I'm watching Derrida and he's talking about Heidegger haha.

[mattmatumbo]

I love it. I have to read more Heidegger...if only I had time...

So... Plato's Pharmacy, or "pharmakon" haha, was pretty long and difficult to digest in one sitting. I read "Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences". Can you give me a little insight here, so language has a center at the center of the totality, but the totality is outside of the center? But, he's saying that language does not have a center, that's simply how it's been regarded since the time of the Greek philosophers? Also, wtf is play in the center?

Overall, I like Derrida's style, it's more like a game in his writing. He's like a walking etymological dictionary too.

I'm watching his movie as i write this.

But i like Irigaray too, i like her ideas of breaking away from phallic language. Which i understand "phallic language" but i don't know what the "mother language" is.

I hope these 6 pages have helped Matt haha.

[The Personist]

By the way, people should read Feminist Interpretations of Lacan.
Noted. I know Butler kind of recoups his theory as viable for feminism in Gender Trouble, doesn't she?
So... Plato's Pharmacy, or "pharmakon" haha, was pretty long and difficult to digest in one sitting. I read "Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences". Can you give me a little insight here, so language has a center at the center of the totality, but the totality is outside of the center? But, he's saying that language does not have a center, that's simply how it's been regarded since the time of the Greek philosophers? Also, wtf is play in the center?

Overall, I like Derrida's style, it's more like a game in his writing. He's like a walking etymological dictionary too.

I'm watching his movie as i write this.

But i like Irigaray too, i like her ideas of breaking away from phallic language. Which i understand "phallic language" but i don't know what the "mother language" is.

I hope these 6 pages have helped Matt haha.

There is no such thing as a "totality" and there is no "center." We assume language is centered in something because we assume when we say something it has to have meaning (which it doesn't; Derrida's style is very anti-logos, which is nice). Play is the slippage of signifiers that the Pharmakon represents in its signification of both poison AND remedy at once. So "play" in the "center" is slippage of meaning (I believe; I could be wrong).

Plato's Pharmacy seriously changed my life and the way I think about things. It was awesome.

[The Personist]

Nice avatar, Matt. I'm keeping Cy Twombly tho.

[mattmatumbo]

yes, I agree with you.

That doesn't espouse limitlessness, though.

[mattmatumbo]

Nice avatar, Matt. I'm keeping Cy Twombly tho.

Haha, i'm just a fan boy.

[mattmatumbo]

Noted. I know Butler kind of recoups his theory as viable for feminism in Gender Trouble, doesn't she?


There is no such thing as a "totality" and there is no "center." We assume language is centered in something because we assume when we say something it has to have meaning (which it doesn't; Derrida's style is very anti-logos, which is nice). Play is the slippage of signifiers that the Pharmakon represents in its signification of both poison AND remedy at once. So "play" in the "center" is slippage of meaning (I believe; I could be wrong).

Plato's Pharmacy seriously changed my life and the way I think about things. It was awesome.

Oh my god.

[The Personist]

Haha, i'm just a fan boy.

You and me both!

[Nevuk]

My school doesn't offer any real theory classes so I've just had overviews and what I read on my own.
Lost in the Funhouse is awesome. As is House of Leaves . Some books about the topic are pretty clearly uh not. Like Coetze's Foe.

I have the Lyotard reader lying around somewhere, but he deals with this issue less than others like Lacan.

[The Personist]

Oh my god.

What?

[mattmatumbo]

What?

You made that seem simple. I was think that the center was the singifier/signified relationhip, but play was just... fog in my brain.

[The Personist]

You made that seem simple. I was think that the center was the singifier/signified relationhip, but play was just... fog in my brain.

you flatter me. I hope I was right. I think so.

[mattmatumbo]

you flatter me. I hope I was right. I think so.

It seems right, it makes sense, i mean the center, from what i deduced, is the essentially a word and its meaning. Play he described was a meaning's, and i can see now how it can mean, its ability to morph or jump around. The first time I read one of these it is just like Chinese. The second time through is more like Spanish or French, and then finally English, by Derrida haha.

[The Personist]

It seems right, it makes sense, i mean the center, from what i deduced, is the essentially a word and its meaning. Play he described was a meaning's, and i can see now how it can mean, its ability to morph or jump around. The first time I read one of these it is just like Chinese. The second time through is more like Spanish or French, and then finally English, by Derrida haha.

Which is funny because he wrote in French.

[mattmatumbo]

Which is funny because he wrote in French.

I know haha, I've studied French now for four years, and it's a personal favorite. However, I'd like to learn Arabic too, since French and Spanish have distant roots in it.

Wasn't Derrida born in French occupied Algeria?

Have you read Luce Irigaray?

[The Personist]

I know haha, I've studied French now for four years, and it's a personal favorite. However, I'd like to learn Arabic too, since French and Spanish have distant roots in it.

Wasn't Derrida born in French occupied Algeria?

Have you read Luce Irigaray?

I miss French.

I think so.

No, I haven't; should I?

[mattmatumbo]

I miss French.

I think so.

No, I haven't; should I?

She's post-constructionalist and feminist, it's pretty rich. She's against the phallic nature of language and such.

Back to the main point though, although we been quite astray from it recently. I was thinking about UG, and if language is not limited, as many have stated, then why are we (everyone and every language on the planet) using verbs and nouns? Why is there not a reasonable alternative? Why has no one explained this in this thread? And moreover, why does the fact that new words arise even an explanation to the "limitlessness of language"?

[Love As Arson]

Also, language for Lacan represents (I think) a metonymic chain of desires.

What's important, though, isn't that he writes directly about language, but the implications of how the "self" emerges. Just like with Freud, Lacan's conception of the self is as something over which we have very little--if any--agency. It is determined by factors very much out of our control. The mirror stage is that moment when we experience the disconnect between our ideal image of our self (the "Ideal-I," what we see in the mirror) and the actual condition of our self. Though we see an autonomous, fully-functioning being in the mirror, we can't walk or speak or do anything without help at the age Lacan says the mirror stage occurs during (6-18 months). This causes a rupture, and also creates the Freudian psyche. The superego is the Ideal-I, our mirror image, and that toward which we spend our lives striving. The ego is formed in an attempt to mediate and help us achieve the Ideal-I, which we never CAN achieve. Thus, our life is a chain of desires (as I said above) which strives toward but can never reach the Ideal-I which we conceive in the mirror.

This goes back to what Matt M. was saying (and, I say again, he said it very eloquently I think) about language as created by a lack of something. I think I would extend his point a bit and say that part of the lack with which language grapples is our lack of agency and our lack of wholeness. From a young age the self is fractured, fragmented, and largely reliant on an image of something outside of our ability to control (an image in the mirror, metaphorically--an Other). Language is part of the way we combat that lack of desired unity in our identity. Desire is also important for Lacan, because--and I could be way off, as I'm just going based on notes I took in class--he says desire never fully finds closure. It only reproduces itself as more desire. It is, like I said, a metonymic chain, a shifting of desire from one object to the next. I think the initial desired object has something to do with metaphoric confusion (deferring the desire to have sex with one's mother), but I'm not entirely certain in that regard. What is important, though, is the lack which we try to compensate for and do away with. It is through that constant struggle to reconcile and remove that lack (which can never be fully removed) that we create our identity.

And now back to Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Look into Deleuze's concept of desiring-production.

[The Personist]

Look into Deleuze's concept of desiring-production.

Haha already read about it cursorily on Wiki. I saw Lee Edelman speak today. It was brilliant.

[Love As Arson]

She's post-constructionalist and feminist, it's pretty rich. She's against the phallic nature of language and such.

Back to the main point though, although we been quite astray from it recently. I was thinking about UG, and if language is not limited, as many have stated, then why are we (everyone and every language on the planet) using verbs and nouns? Why is there not a reasonable alternative? Why has no one explained this in this thread? And moreover, why does the fact that new words arise even an explanation to the "limitlessness of language"?
Other languages on the planet have different concepts. For example, some have four tenses that relate the meaning of time. Usually, when we translate other languages something is lost because we're trying to fit it into our own normative standards regarding communication, so even if there wasn't a verb-noun-adjective construct, we would form the language so as to fit it. I do not think we're going to form a language that brings us closer to reality because it will just be another set of approximations and I think any desire to create a language like that veers too close to the concept of the noumena (thing-in-itself). All we can do is be conscious of our language and its implications.

[open mind]

language is a horrible way to communicate......but we're stuck with it.....that's probably why we live in such a shitstorm of violent activity.

[mattmatumbo]

Haha already read about it cursorily on Wiki. I saw Lee Edelman speak today. It was brilliant.

I watched Derrida's movie, it's pretty fucking good. He gets pissed off because they ask him to reflect on how he met his wife, but interrupt him twice because the reflector for the lights was fucked up. He makes a few puns of reflecting and reflectors which was pretty rad.

[The Personist]

I watched Derrida's movie, it's pretty fucking good. He gets pissed off because they ask him to reflect on how he met his wife, but interrupt him twice because the reflector for the lights was fucked up. He makes a few puns of reflecting and reflectors which was pretty rad.

I need to watch it. he's amazing. I love this quote of his, which is the epigraph for Edelman's book Homographesis:

"...and in the homosexual phase which would follow Eurydice's death...Orpheus sings no more, he writes."

[The Personist]

I watched Derrida's movie, it's pretty fucking good. He gets pissed off because they ask him to reflect on how he met his wife, but interrupt him twice because the reflector for the lights was fucked up. He makes a few puns of reflecting and reflectors which was pretty rad.

Made a literary theory thread in Education. Check it outtttt

[TheReckoner]

In my opinion, what your roommate is saying is that there are truly NO limitations to expression, which language is simply a tool used in the expressive process. Limitations exist because others have made them so. It all leads back to an obsession with order and control.
If you were to misspell something, it would be considered wrong, but why?
You are still writing the word, you are still EXPRESSING yourself, just in a different and "wrong" way, by others' standards.
This actually plays a lot into my belief on the subject of religion.
Obviously there are an insurmountable amount of differences between religion and language, that's a given, but the connection I see is that you can express yourself in any way you feel the need to.
I hold the belief that whatever makes me myself happy, is what I shall pursue.
I don't need to follow already defined doctrines if I don't agree with them.
I could make my OWN language, for the simple act of expression for myself, and not for anybody else.
And with religion, I could create my own religion that makes me feel safe and content with what comes after life.

[Matt Chylak]

Has anyone else noticed that it is exceedingly difficult to write about "feelings" in poetry and literature?

For example, I'm working on a paper examining the poetic strategies by which Shakespeare's Sonnet 129 represents the inexorability of lust. Unfortunately, I'm constantly rewriting sentences to get the vague words "emotion," "sensation," and "feeling" out of an analysis of a poem that deals with those same concepts.

Is this just a personal problem, or is there some philosophical argument that explains my difficulty?

If anyone's interested, a link to the poem in question. It's quite good: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/129.html

[The Personist]

Has anyone else noticed that it is exceedingly difficult to write about "feelings" in poetry and literature?

For example, I'm working on a paper examining the poetic strategies by which Shakespeare's Sonnet 129 represents the inexorability of lust. Unfortunately, I'm constantly rewriting sentences to get the vague words "emotion," "sensation," and "feeling" out of an analysis of a poem that deals with those same concepts.

Is this just a personal problem, or is there some philosophical argument that explains my difficulty?

If anyone's interested, a link to the poem in question. It's quite good: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/129.html

Fuck you. Can you quote and remind me of this thread on Saturday night? I have a lot to say and not a lot of time (papers and shit, you know). BUT...

I agree with Derrida; there is nothing outside the text. Is not a feeling something gestured toward "outside" which means it is inimical to a post-structural mindset? On the other hand, desire is very closely linked to language if we are looking at someone like Lacan...

[Matt Chylak]

Fuck you. Can you quote and remind me of this thread on Saturday night? I have a lot to say and not a lot of time (papers and shit, you know). BUT...

I agree with Derrida; there is nothing outside the text. Is not a feeling something gestured toward "outside" which means it is inimical to a post-structural mindset? On the other hand, desire is very closely linked to language if we are looking at someone like Lacan...

But can the feeling occur within the text? Or rather, does common human experience make it seem so?

A poem like the one I'm referring to directly confronts the reader with a description of lust so extreme that it forces personal interaction. Say what you want about it only existing in the text, but it seems like we've got an internal, preset, biological idea of emotions that deal in pain and joy, and we identify with those feelings when we read the text rather than the text itself.

I'm writing papers too...Ugh. I'd rather talk about this shit and not write about it.

[Matt Chylak]

Fuck you. Can you quote and remind me of this thread on Saturday night? I have a lot to say and not a lot of time (papers and shit, you know). BUT...

I agree with Derrida; there is nothing outside the text. Is not a feeling something gestured toward "outside" which means it is inimical to a post-structural mindset? On the other hand, desire is very closely linked to language if we are looking at someone like Lacan...

quoted

[The Personist]

quoted

Do it again on Tuesday.

[Matt Chylak]

Do it again on Tuesday.

the epic re-quote

[The Personist]

Has anyone else noticed that it is exceedingly difficult to write about "feelings" in poetry and literature?

For example, I'm working on a paper examining the poetic strategies by which Shakespeare's Sonnet 129 represents the inexorability of lust. Unfortunately, I'm constantly rewriting sentences to get the vague words "emotion," "sensation," and "feeling" out of an analysis of a poem that deals with those same concepts.

Is this just a personal problem, or is there some philosophical argument that explains my difficulty?

If anyone's interested, a link to the poem in question. It's quite good: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/129.html

But can the feeling occur within the text? Or rather, does common human experience make it seem so?

A poem like the one I'm referring to directly confronts the reader with a description of lust so extreme that it forces personal interaction. Say what you want about it only existing in the text, but it seems like we've got an internal, preset, biological idea of emotions that deal in pain and joy, and we identify with those feelings when we read the text rather than the text itself.

I'm writing papers too...Ugh. I'd rather talk about this shit and not write about it.

OK, here goes:

I don't know if I agree with you about biological predetermination, nor do I think I agree withmyself about there being nothing outside the text in this context. I was tired and misspeaking. Basically, form is an expressive dimension, as structuralism and post-structuralism will attest. Language is itself a form. What is expressive is not content--that this is a poem about lust--but the way in which we TALK ABOUT lust. That's why clichés are clichés--they say the same things as less trite tropes, but they lack expressive force because they speak to a certain received form of that sentiment. We're used to it, we expect it, so it doesn't have the unsettling power of something like the Shakespeare because the language is recycled, received, part of our body of knowledge. It's not new, it's not interesting, it's not reason to pause; it's just THERE. We know what it should mean. So it doesn't work...unless you're someone like John Ashbery, who puts cliches in ridiculous and insane contexts, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Here, let's look at this:



Your body
I shall cherish and love
as a soldier,
amputated by war,
unwanted
and friendless,
cherishes his last remaining leg.


Why is that effective? The sentiment is really, really clichéd. WHAT he is saying is trite--I love you and will cherish your body. However, HOW he's saying it is horrifyingly new--I will cherish your body like a soldier does his remaining leg. It adds a different dimension to what's being expressed. Also, I just think this is a monumental moment in love poetry. But we can discuss that elsewhere.

So I would say language itself is an expressive medium.

I don't like the biological argument, though, because emotional expression isn't universal; that sonnet would mean something completely different to someone in Africa or China.

[Matt Chylak]

OK, here goes:

I don't know if I agree with you about biological predetermination, nor do I think I agree withmyself about there being nothing outside the text in this context. I was tired and misspeaking. Basically, form is an expressive dimension, as structuralism and post-structuralism will attest. Language is itself a form. What is expressive is not content--that this is a poem about lust--but the way in which we TALK ABOUT lust. That's why clichés are clichés--they say the same things as less trite tropes, but they lack expressive force because they speak to a certain received form of that sentiment. We're used to it, we expect it, so it doesn't have the unsettling power of something like the Shakespeare because the language is recycled, received, part of our body of knowledge. It's not new, it's not interesting, it's not reason to pause; it's just THERE. We know what it should mean. So it doesn't work...unless you're someone like John Ashbery, who puts cliches in ridiculous and insane contexts, but that's a whole 'nother story.


Why is that effective? The sentiment is really, really clichéd. WHAT he is saying is trite--I love you and will cherish your body. However, HOW he's saying it is horrifyingly new--I will cherish your body like a soldier does his remaining leg. It adds a different dimension to what's being expressed. Also, I just think this is a monumental moment in love poetry. But we can discuss that elsewhere.

So I would say language itself is an expressive medium.

I don't like the biological argument, though, because emotional expression isn't universal; that sonnet would mean something completely different to someone in Africa or China.

the majority of your posting was an explanation for why cliches are cliches.

about the end part though; i've got to disagree. perhaps "biological" is the wrong word, but i think there are universal emotional expressions. i think anyone with a basic understanding of what lust is would respond to the sonnet's expression of the dual shame/joy emotions that come with sexual yearning.

[The Personist]

the majority of your posting was an explanation for why cliches are cliches.

about the end part though; i've got to disagree. perhaps "biological" is the wrong word, but i think there are universal emotional expressions. i think anyone with a basic understanding of what lust is would respond to the sonnet's expression of the dual shame/joy emotions that come with sexual yearning.

I was explaining how language works as a formal and expressive entity. The easiest way to do that is by using clichés. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I guess, except not really because I don't know what you were expecting from me.

There are absolutely not universal emotional expressions. Emotions are the lived, "subjective" (again, I hate this term but it works) component of experience. There may be, universally, biological processes that create similar states in people. However, how we interpret those chemical or biological stimuli is different, and thus at the level, at least, of reading a poem like this, you can't say there is a universal response.

[Matt Chylak]

I was explaining how language works as a formal and expressive entity. The easiest way to do that is by using clichés. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I guess, except not really because I don't know what you were expecting from me.

There are absolutely not universal emotional expressions. Emotions are the lived, "subjective" (again, I hate this term but it works) component of experience. There may be, universally, biological processes that create similar states in people. However, how we interpret those chemical or biological stimuli is different, and thus at the level, at least, of reading a poem like this, you can't say there is a universal response.

sorry, didn't fully get what you were going for. adding that first sentence in would have helped.

you haven't convinced me. find me someone who doesn't feel pain when their supposedly faithful spouse cheats on them. or at least explain the difference

[The Personist]

sorry, didn't fully get what you were going for. adding that first sentence in would have helped.

you haven't convinced me. find me someone who doesn't feel pain when their supposedly faithful spouse cheats on them. or at least explain the difference

Well now you're presuming that the same structures of family prevail around the world, which just isn't true.

[Matt Chylak]

Well now you're presuming that the same structures of family prevail around the world, which just isn't true.

ugh. damn it, david. fine. that doesn't preclude more generalized responses. frustration, for example, is a common emotional response to opposition. we can extrapolate many more from there.

edit: although i'm sure you're going to say something along the lines of "everyone's interpretation of language is different" though.

[The Personist]

ugh. damn it, david. fine. that doesn't preclude more generalized responses. frustration, for example, is a common emotional response to opposition. we can extrapolate many more from there.

Common and universal aren't synonymous. And "more generalized responses," from the way you've been talking so far, are confined to a person from a Western culture's responses. :shrug:

Can you be more specific about the kind of generality you're talking about?

[Matt Chylak]

Common and universal aren't synonymous. And "more generalized responses," from the way you've been talking so far, are confined to a person from a Western culture's responses. :shrug:

Can you be more specific about the kind of generality you're talking about?

i meant common as in common to the human experience. so yeah, i guess i meant universal. you shouldn't be so nitpicky

general as in unspecific as in devoid from the specific example i presented earlier.

[The Personist]

i meant common as in common to the human experience. so yeah, i guess i meant universal. you shouldn't be so nitpicky

general as in unspecific as in devoid from the specific example i presented earlier.

There is no common human experience as you are describing it.

[odizzle_word]

Interesting thread. Just picked up Guy Deutcher's "Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages." It's cool how we use language to express our thoughts, and how at the same time language shapes our thoughts and the way we perceive.

[Love As Arson]

the majority of your posting was an explanation for why cliches are cliches.

about the end part though; i've got to disagree. perhaps "biological" is the wrong word, but i think there are universal emotional expressions. i think anyone with a basic understanding of what lust is would respond to the sonnet's expression of the dual shame/joy emotions that come with sexual yearning.
There are potentialities for common emotions. In what way they are expressed is something which is constructed. Further, it is not as though emotions are merely explosions, over which one has no control. Generally, there is stimuli, one assesses the situation and determines the way in which they will respond; it takes seconds, but the process underlies all of our emotional responses.

[mattmatumbo]

Doing my final, i have to relate these authors with Battlestar Gallactica, or Public enemy: Saïd, Adorno, Richard Burton or Baudrillard, i have an option of which i can choose with what, and in what combination of authors. Then I have to explain one of the following: Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, or Derrida. There are two other sections to the final but they are basically the same as the two i just listed. Pretty sweet, eh?

[The Personist]

RAHHHHHHHH LET ME TAKE YOUR FINAL FOR YOU

except I haven't read anyone from the first group and would just wank about Derrida. But that's awesome.

[mattmatumbo]

So glad that you got back to this thread so quickly haha. I'm on Irigaray explaining that "language has been controlled by men for so long that women do not possess words capable of describing their emotions or feelings, and therefore, do not actually speak, but mimic men's speech" haha, hopefully that'll get me an A.

[mattmatumbo]

Some how I left this out:

Part III (10 min.): Imagine a dialogue between any two of the following: Fanon, Achebe, Kamau Brathwaite, Edward James Olmos (based on BSG and his UN speech). The topic: A syllabus for a high school English class.

[badkid]

My reality != Your reality.

[mattmatumbo]

My reality != Your reality.

Only because we both inhabit Salt Lake Shitty! haha.

[The Personist]

i meant common as in common to the human experience. so yeah, i guess i meant universal. you shouldn't be so nitpicky

general as in unspecific as in devoid from the specific example i presented earlier.

The introduction to A Lover's Discourse by Barthes deals with expressing emotions in language, I think. I'm rereading it now and am on page one so I don't really know if I'm right, but even so it's worth a gander because Barthes rules.

[Matt Chylak]

The introduction to A Lover's Discourse by Barthes deals with expressing emotions in language, I think. I'm rereading it now and am on page one so I don't really know if I'm right, but even so it's worth a gander because Barthes rules.

perhaps i'll read that over break, after these papers are over. oh wait, i won't, because i'll be reading whatever books i get for christmas!

in other news: fuck this, i know nothing about victorianism and i'm writing half a paper on it.

[The Personist]

perhaps i'll read that over break, after these papers are over. oh wait, i won't, because i'll be reading whatever books i get for christmas!

in other news: fuck this, i know nothing about victorianism and i'm writing half a paper on it.

Use it to segue into something you know more about.

[Matt Chylak]

Use it to segue into something you know more about.

no, it dovetails too nicely with the poem. i can't think of a transition. i'd rather just bullshit another 1.5 pages.

[The Personist]

no, it dovetails too nicely with the poem. i can't think of a transition. i'd rather just bullshit another 1.5 pages.

I always bullshit by segueing into things I know about.

[Matt Chylak]

I always bullshit by segueing into things I know about.

oh. i do it by talking confidently about things i know nothing about.

[The Personist]

oh. i do it by talking confidently about things i know nothing about.

Eh, I've done that, too, but my way of segueing works better. You get away with more.

[Matt Chylak]

Eh, I've done that, too, but my way of segueing works better. You get away with more.

until they realize you're not talking about what you're supposed to be talking about. with enough research, my shit sounds legit. especially if i put enough sources at the bottom.