[lit-ideas] Re: The Order of Aurality
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:58:52 -0500
Oh I see how it is. Now we have to make our comments pertinent to the
discussion at hand. Very well, then, I'll try. The question as I took it
to be -- at least partially is whether or not language is a sine qua non of
what it means to be human. Certainly other animal species have vocal
signals and use them to great advantage, but I've never seen nor heard a
chimpanze challenge another about the ramifications of language. Show me
the cat Barthes. But my niece, it seems to me,screams out (impossible to
understand her though) that language is us and we are language. Profoundly
death since 6 months old -- she has no concept of spoken language, she sees
lips moving, but it has no meaning to her. And yet she "speaks" and she
"hears" in her dreams. Since she cannot hear her own self, she cannot
report to us what her dream language sounds like. That fascinates me.
Language is so much a part of us that we create a language when we must.
And of course the incidents of ideosympathic languages of some twins,
speaks to us -- perhaps -- of the failure of language to encompass all
things, all thoughts, all experence. OK, I've run out of words.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So how does any of this fit into this discussion? I don't know.
>
> Probably the way "blindsight" figures in discussions of perception: more
> primitive modes backing up later modes.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
