 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 278 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What about it? Are you reading something related? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, I started off reading and ended up reading by Professor Chomsky from 1978. I've not done semantics yet in my college course so I was just reading bits here and there, but I'd already known about the famous "colourless green ideas" sentence and, since I was idle and very, very bored, decided to read up on it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I jumped into reading an old book plainly called "Psycholinguistics" which was mostly about the development of Chomsky's generative semantics Not sure how much I got out of it, it was pretty heavy. I recommend Derrida, though it's even more dense. I went to the bookstore to get something by Chomsky related to linguistics but I couldn't find anything; I did buy Necessary Illusions instead, haven't read yet. Seems he's more known now for political, uh, theory anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Err, Chomsky's notions of deep structure, rather. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lately i'm thinking that the world is not made up of energy and matter, but only styles. styles of clothing, styles of music, styles of plants and animals, styles of culture, styles of thought, styles of "god", styles of food, styles of cars, sexes, computers, living, being. it's all only styles. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a wide adoptation of that kind of world-view would be the greatest victory of capitalism and materialism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
would you consider this a good or bad thing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a very bad thing. it is the aim of advertising: style is paramount. everything else is irrelevant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what i mean is, is that the everything else you say would become irrelevent is actually a myriad of styles also. does that make any sense? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, its sense is a bit distant.. What do you mean by "everything else" you say? Everything you say in a day, that's not related to these styles you've just mentioned? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
by everything else i mean anything and everything we can sense or think of. anything has relation to everything else in that differences are evident. for example, the "style" of wood is different from the "style" of water, or anything else that is not wood. replace "wood" with any thought or object in existance, and the difference in style is evident. the "style" of a christian is different from the "style" of a muslim. the style of jupiter is different than the style of a muslim. anything and everything can be percieved as a style. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Err. I don't see why you're using the word "style" though. Surely you could just say "the properties of wood are different from those of water", and so on? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure. you could say everything has its own properties. but note the difference in vocabulary. everything Has, and everything Is. when you say something Has "x", you don't define that something. when you say something Is "x", you define it. do you see what i mean? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, you describe it by its properties. The properties it has. You also definite it by those properties. Wood is solid. Water is liquid. There's no need to say "Wood is a solid style.. and i'm down with that shit". I don't get the point of all this. The vocabulary already exists, with perfectly sufficient meaning. There's nothing being added here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"You also definite it by those properties. Wood is solid. Water is liquid." ok... wood is solid. is the definition of solid, therefore, wood? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you dumb as wood? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is your style that of wood? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No. Since the definition is, still, a description, "is" is not reflexive. So solid is not therefore wood. This is commonly understood. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grapple with. So, I would argue that there's no need for this idea of "styles". Please define some things by their "styles". Or is the sole use of styles comparison? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
slightly dodgy last sentence, should've written: Or is comparison the sole use of "styles"? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to describe something is not the same as telling what it actually is. so if the definition of wood is only a description, then what is wood really? i like to say it's a style of reality. i don't define things by their styles, using your definition of "define" as a description of the thing to be defined. i say that the fundamental nature of reality, as we can percieve it, is made up of styles. i also like to use the word style because it isn't so serious sounding. we are introduced to the meaning of style usually through fasion or personality, things we've been aware of since early childhood. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im gearing up for a night out in manchester to a place there called 5th av.. its a student dive thats dirt cheap and play indie music (i may request some afx again).. funny cos only one of us is a student now. yeah its for a friends bday/ sendoff cos shes going to london for 5 weeks to train for this travel agency that shes landed a job with. also, my other friends have been signed and are off to LA on sunday to start recording... how cool. they are very talented and dedicated and have been at it a while so its well deserved. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
