[lit-ideas] Re: Erin's Course Dilemma

On 2005/01/18, at 16:09, Eric Yost wrote:

> John: No language, no meaning.
>
>
> Eric: Can we say that, without language, objects are their own =
meaning?
>
> John Ashbery seems to be saying something like this in his famous =
poem,
> copied below. (Check out the second and third stanzas particularly.)
>
>

Do note, however, that he had to write a poem=81\there's that damned=20
language again.

Personally speaking, I have myself begun to pull back a bit from the=20
extreme position that without language there is no meaning, which I=20
take to be grounded in the notion that there is no "meaning" apart from=20=

linguistic coding.

On the pragmatic view that "meaning" is a function of "action" more=20
broadly construed, I am willing to entertain the idea that, for=20
example, a lover's caress is meaningful, though nary a word is spoken.

I am also intrigued by Lakoff and Johnson's suggestion that all=20
language is grounded in metaphor, itself largely determined by the=20
structure of the human body and its relation to the natural world=81\which=
=20
might be construed as opening a door for "meaning" experientially and=20
logically prior to language.

What I haven't seen and couldn't begin to provide myself is a=20
convincing theory of "meaning" with these possibilities taken into=20
account.

Yours, awaiting enlightenment,

John=

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: