|
heh.
i tried to do a litle trick above--the limits of linguistic staging are apparent in ordinary usage of language itself. you dont need to think about the relation of words to what lay beyond them to get to it. the trick relied on a simple move: separating logical orders. where you land with it is with a problem of thinking (and---more complex still---another of trying to bend language around in order to indicate) process.
the result was simple enough: of course language doesnt communicate experience. but it is equally obvious that there is communication, and that there are significant aspects of experience beyond language that are at least indicated via language--and that (in another direction) a very significant stratum of experience IS language, IS the world staged/mediated by it.
so as a sidebar: no ng, you did not understand what i was saying, but you did follow it in general, so i assume the problem was the writing. you have a choice when you play this sort of game: either you assume referencepoints and technical terminology so you can do things quickly, or you work through proofs that start with first principles and build up. if i went that route, thing'd be clear if you could remember stage to stage what was happening (and if i could) but i'd still be writing the post.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|