These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Dear Andy
Language itself aside from the modality in which it is formed/embodied and as it is consisted of signs is ideal for the folowing reasons :
1. We have read on many occasions that it's a formant of the Cs . When you are dealing with the Cs as something catogirically distinct from the material which is quite quite true , why is it you could accept a formant of this something categorically distinct from *material* could be all the way *material* . This is just where Martin finds the opportunity to argue for a doubling of *materiality* . A statue as such is ideal the same way real talers as well as Gods are ideal for Marx (previous post) . Real talers or money paper are things palpable , corporeal , stuffy , substantial ; yet they are for Marx ideal ; the yardstick is that they are representations for something *esle* . The talerness of the talers and the statueness of a statue need a social thinking body to be recognized as such . Aside from the social thought/Cs , the whole things become just use values , valueless , lacking any exchange value as for Marx . And we shouldn't forget the second
condition Lenin mentions either . As of language , the ink , the carbon or the acoustics with which it is embodied does not make it *material* the same way *stone* , *bronze* , *cement* , *plastics* of a staue do not make the *form* -- not contrasting content here -- of the statueness *material* ; the form now indicates Lincoln , now Lenin , now so and so . But the stone , etc. remain the same all the time . This latter part you name categorically *material* to this day distinct from the *ideal* as Cs is . A clock consists of many many parts , that is , many corporals , materials , use values ; but all these should be organized in such a way to represent something else , time measurement . The palpability or the visuality of the clock should not take us where we could say it's something material . See what of the three divisions of Peirce fits this . When you take the ideality of the language away from it , the whole sentence/text/book becomes ink
spilt/scattered over the paper out of neglect . Your example of *carved in stone* incidentally helps us to get the gist quite easily ; you , in fact , take some materiality away from the stone so that a language becomes eligible for the readers . What remains as some markings or signs no longer have any materiality ; the remaining stone frame does not have anything to do with the language carved in it . This is also true with the braille texture . It's the organization/ordinance of the texture which is a language not the stuff therefrom . When you and Mike are on the screen lipreading each other in non-acoustics silence , you , in fact , have a telepathy version of language ; you're this way exchanging your mentalities with no materiality at hand . The computer is modality for your vision not for the language you are using .
And lastly , because a word is a sign , something for something else , in itself ! just a yelling or a marking denoting nothing as referring to the objects of the world which you so philosophically / inexaustively are defending !
Best
Haydi
--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness "only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
To: "Haydi Zulfei" <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 12:26 AM
Language is a material representational system, Haydi.
Language may be in speech (vibrations in the air), text (markings on a surface or optical projections on a screen or carved in stone) or texture (as in Braille), but there is no mental telepathy version of language that I know of.
Why do you think the written and spoken word is not material?
Andy
Haydi Zulfei wrote:
> Now you ask Martin to tell you a representational system which is not *material* . I tell you *language* is a system which is not material.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca