[lit-ideas] : The Order of Aurality

  • From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:51:06 +0200

** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 3/2/2012 (Friday) **

usque tandem......
 
רקשי אל לארשי חצנ 
palma
University of KwaZulu-Natal 
Howard College Campus, philosophy department
Durban 4041 South Africa
Tel off: [+27] 03 12 60 15 91 Fax [+27] 03 12 60 30 31
(sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk : [+27] 03 12 60 22 92)
mobile 07 62 36 23 91  
from abroad +[27] 76 23 62 391
EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx
palma's timetable term 1\2012  Sun 11.oo hrs, seminar of the phildept,
logic
*only when in Europe*: 
inst. J. Nicod
29 rue d'Ulm
f-75005 paris france
________
This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or
privileged and is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail you must not copy,
distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone.
Any confidentiality or
privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the
business of this entity. If you
received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify
the sender.


>>> Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> 3/2/2012 3:48 PM >>>
In response to:

"There is no music before language."
Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology

Donal wrote:

"The context and meaning of this is not clear, but taken as a bare
statement it seems to belong to that category of self-regarding dogmas
that may have special appeal to students of language: dogmas that
language is 'fundamental', or 'primary' or that language is 'central'
or the 'royal road' to understanding ..."

Derrida is critical of any attempt to uncover something that is
'fundamental', 'primary' or 'central'. So, for example, he criticizes
Heidegger's talk of language as being one more form of onto-theology,
that is, the search for something that is central or fundamental for
understanding what is. Of course, Derrida was not himself immune from
this temptation as can be seen in his use of the term 'differance'.

It seems to me that in the above quote, Derrida is not suggesting that
everything is language, but rather arguing against the standard
understanding of language as the communication of ideas from the mind
of one person to another. To this end, Derrida focuses on the
iterability of signs, the way in which signifiers like words can
maintain meaning while at the same time being used in novel and
unexpected ways. To cross threads, we can read Shakespeare today even
though we may not be certain who Shakespeare was, and we can
appreciate Dante's Inferno even though we are not 14th century
Italians, or Christians, for that matter. In short, while
intentionality is a necessary part of language use, signification is
equally necessary. This, however, would expand our understanding of
what constitutes language use, including even music, with its
intentionality and repetition of notes. Music is possible only if
intentionality and signification are possible.

So, yes, we can consider birds as using language when they sing
insofar as we can discern intentionality and repetition. This would be
in contrast to, for example, the burbling of a brook or the whistling
of the wind through the branches of a tree. These sounds may be
beautiful, but we would call it music only in a metaphorical sense.


Burbling and whistling,

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

Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/

Other related posts: