What about it?

What about it? As far as I can tell, which doesn’t say much, not having a word can’t mean not having the thought one wishes to ascribe a word to. But if we say that articulation of words is paradigmatic of thought, that is, it reflects some dimension of the meaning as being separate from cognitive process, and represent able through a given language: the question of influence becomes more clear. firstly, though meaning is distinct and (presumably) equally accessible to every language, representations vary, both in form and effect or usage. This must, in turn, mean that just as language can be paradigmatic of thought, thought becomes paradigmatic of meaning; we cannot speak of what we cannot speak, though we might hint at it. Think of what is radical of a language, how individual letters arbitrarily represent an idea we cannot otherwise express, even with phonetic transcription, there is an essential “I need to call this by something”, but it’s just a name, convenient representations by which we isolate various elements of a set. How is it that we can distinguish the elements in the first place? Or more precisely, how can we know there is a set at all? We can’t. But we make the assumption to do work and collect information that we might be able to build a better picture. To do this, however, “build” we must admit to all of our assumptions, come clean, as it were. To be rid of all previous conclusions and begin again is one way to look at it, but I would say it there is much more to it. Just as letters radically represent possible sounds, words, roots, sentences and sentential constituents, contexts and styles, and essentially and crucially, expression represents possible meaning, and this can also be represented just as radically. And just as it is uninteresting to speak of the limits of sound, the limits of meaning would also be beyond our scopes; the limits to our descriptions of either, however, or, the constrains we can apply to them tell an entirely different story one as profound economy and as trivial as fashion perhaps, but it’s all in one act, so to speak, one fell swoop of the mind, whatever that could mean. It is to do away with all of the signs and symbols, for a moment, to look at everything all at once—its a good thing we have computers with near infinite pages.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s