Atomic Thought (Part 4)
This follows on from the previous post and its antecedents.
I suppose that in line with Wittgenstein, we should limit the context for every discipline if we are to find any useful atomic concepts at all. There are some pretty good ones which are near-universal, but the purists will probably say that since they aren't universal, they are not atomic.
But why have this discussion at all? How is it useful in a practical sense?
I think the main point is that in a discourse within a discipline, we pretty much have to be able to use a vocabulary with some basic building blocks or concepts. To describe every outcome in its own terms means that you are actually creating a situation in which there is no basis for comparison.
For example, if you compare a poem by Wilfred Owen (e.g. Strange Meeting) and a poem by Robert Frost (e.g. Mending Wall), you must have some basis in the first place for identifying them as poems. Then you must have some specific things to look at within the structure of each poem. And lastly, you need to look at the language used and its effects. If you use a different set of criteria for each poem, then you have created two sub-disciplines which you might as well call Wilfredowenology and Robertfrostology. So some criteria or critical principles should remain constant. This is the idea behind traditional literary criticism. Postmodern literary criticism has attempted to bypass this, but has ended up merely creating a different basis.
The same argument applies to establishing meaning in music, dance or art. Somehow, we need to use a language with enough common descriptive basis to show points of similarity or difference. Sure, we can describe each individual performance or piece, but without a comparison to something else, that description is probably not meaningful (or not as usefully meaningful as it should be).
I suppose that in line with Wittgenstein, we should limit the context for every discipline if we are to find any useful atomic concepts at all. There are some pretty good ones which are near-universal, but the purists will probably say that since they aren't universal, they are not atomic.
But why have this discussion at all? How is it useful in a practical sense?
I think the main point is that in a discourse within a discipline, we pretty much have to be able to use a vocabulary with some basic building blocks or concepts. To describe every outcome in its own terms means that you are actually creating a situation in which there is no basis for comparison.
For example, if you compare a poem by Wilfred Owen (e.g. Strange Meeting) and a poem by Robert Frost (e.g. Mending Wall), you must have some basis in the first place for identifying them as poems. Then you must have some specific things to look at within the structure of each poem. And lastly, you need to look at the language used and its effects. If you use a different set of criteria for each poem, then you have created two sub-disciplines which you might as well call Wilfredowenology and Robertfrostology. So some criteria or critical principles should remain constant. This is the idea behind traditional literary criticism. Postmodern literary criticism has attempted to bypass this, but has ended up merely creating a different basis.
The same argument applies to establishing meaning in music, dance or art. Somehow, we need to use a language with enough common descriptive basis to show points of similarity or difference. Sure, we can describe each individual performance or piece, but without a comparison to something else, that description is probably not meaningful (or not as usefully meaningful as it should be).
etched with acid at 10:02:00 am
2 Comments:
On the other hand, a common descriptive basis can be pretty striking.
Take the common basis to the world's languages. All languages have noun phrases and verb phrases. All languages are combinatorial, discrete (a sound somewhere between load and rote does not suggest a meaning that is a partial combination of both words). No language communicates by say, fluctuating a musical note. And when you evaluate the grammars that govern how their language's individual combinations are used to yield semantic meaning, when taken together as a whole, they seem to have a more or less similar sum complexity. It's enough to wonder, "Hey! Is there a universal grammar?"
The thing is that this 'common basis' may not be significant. After all, it takes a lot of effort to NOT use a language which is based on 'things' and 'acts'.
At the same time, features like discrete sounds are optional; words like 'spork' are readily understood in the right linguistic context. A wolf-whistle is a clear component of street language, and is different from the 'wahlaueh' kind of whistle.
The real reason, I believe, that languages have similar complexity and features, is that human brains have similar complexity and features!
Post a Comment
<< Home