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