Heidegger

In a message dated 29/03/2007 18:45:23 GMT Standard Time, _Saicho at aol.com_ (mailto:Saicho@aol.com) writes Jud:[earlier] Richard is right that we can learn a hell of a lot about how the Greeks lived from the art and artefacts they left behind - their dress, their weaponry, the ships, ceramics, rituals, hunting methods, food, musical instruments - you name it - but that vitally important does not allow us to share the thought processes of Aristotle and what he thought about the generation of animals, or Plat’s political ideas, or Socrates half-hearted defence of his alleged misdoing at his trial etc. Richard: But Jud, above you said: My own view [as is well known] is that words per se do not exist as meaningful symbols - it is the meaning-packing and meaning-extracting human wordifiers that actually exist. If words do not exist as *meaningful symbols* then what can we accept from Aristotle or Plato as being meaningful – that is, as interpreted today as best we can? Jud Hi Richard, The point I was making about the words not existing as meaningful symbols refers to the ontological view that objects [the residue of dried ink marks in certain forms] have no meaning in themselves, but that the meaning which was attributed to them by the brain of the writer who generated them, is regenerated in the human brain of the reader. In a similar way, a child’s toy wooden train does not exist as a child’s toy wooden train, it exists as a certain combination of molecules which we call *wood* shaped in a certain way to represent a larger similarly shaped object made of steel. It is the rest of humanity that attribute the meaning of *train* to the carved block, with the exception perhaps of some child deep in the jungles of Amazonia who has never seen a train or a picture of one. When Aristotle’s or Plato’s [or their amenuensis’ or copier’s] meaningless Greek squiggles are translated and rendered into English or Italian, people read them and instantiate or recover their writer’s meaning, by gaining diachronic proxy access to Aristotle’s or Plato’s thinking processes. The intentional human meaning of the ink symbols or the wooden toy train is by the visual contemplation of them. I suggest to you that when we read human words or observe any object created by man [including statuary, works of art, poetry, artefacts and music we are in fact retrieving information from a storage device; and ideationally restituting the creator’s neurological activity concerning the meaning of that representation for its original creator. Traffic lights convey a public *social [legal]meaning* by use of the colours they display, but like the written words of Aristotle, or the toy train, if the traffic lights from the centre of our village, together with the written words of Aristotle, and the toy train lay discarded in some dripping jungle clearing deep in the forests of Brazil the local natives would have no idea as to their significance, and assuming that they had some spiritual significance might well erect the Hesketh Bank traffic lights as a totem to worship, and assume that the parchment rolls containing Aristotle’s words were for wiping the anus following defecation? The point I am making is that *meaning* like any other abstraction, lies not in the human artefact itself - but in the eyes of the beholder, or listener, or toucher, or more specifically in the patterns of his or her neuronal configurations, for which the human sensorium acts as a provider of symbolically derived information. Richard: IMO, if we had nothing BUT words from Aristotle we would have scant knowledge of how the ancient Greeks actually lived, he being a poor historian along with Plato. And from Homer, we can expect to learn as little about life in his or prior times as we can from the Bible or the Upanishads. As dedicated a chronicler as Thucydides was, there is little doubt that his was a biased view – having been a general himself and unavoidably given to *taking sides.* What is most important? The action itself and how the damned war got started and who won. Jud: Fortunately, as you say, we have the other important symbolic artefacts that you have mentioned, which are in addition to the various contemporary writings which allow us further insights into the world in which the Greeks lived. Richard: previously As for culture what IS culture? I see it as the amalgam of all that we are as a species, and further, that what we are as a species is always manifested in our actions and our constructions. Any animal species that leaves behind no evidence of action or material creations has had no culture. Our *cultural inheritance* is embedded in what we have done and built. I can hear many claiming that by leaving out our words in this regard, I have left out what many consider the quintessential quality of our humanness but I disagree. Jud: I think the amalgam is what you say it is - but I must say that the communicative codes [words] that we leave behind are very important as kinds of archaeological artefacts too - an excavated Egyptian artefact that contains hieroglyphic info as to what the picture means, who are the characters depicted, the date etc. - is to me much more interesting than an artefact bereft of word-symbols don’t you agree? Richard: Granted that the symbols attached to things like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, are quite informative and useful, but my main point is that what the Egyptians DID and BUILT are the pre-eminent pieces of evidence regarding their life and accomplishments. Had they left nothing behind, all the words in the world could not give us any real sense of their culture or skills, ambitious, interests, etc. Jud: I agree entirely Richard: Regarding the poem Jud attached, being a writer of poetry, I certainly give poetry [i. e. good poetry – which is rare] its due. But poetic meaning [and possibly cultural utility] is ephemeral in its appeal. Either one likes [and understands] a poem or piece of music, or they do not. One does not have to like or dislike or even understand a computer chip or a new automobile engine. Their cultural value lies in their utility. Jud: Very true. But what in my opinion sets humans apart from the animals is that we supplement the obvious utility and function of the objects we create, with oral or written accounts of their use and meaning in our world, whereas the otter does not have the ability to describe his dam, nor the eagle the wit to explain why his sparse cuddle of twigs is the most sensible design for his version of a treetop or cliffside home. Regards Jud.

Posted on Saturday, March 31st, 2007 at 10:45 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback