Languages of Knowing and Meaning - Writers Forum

Lupin3 · 09-09-2004, 02:42 PM

A High-level Investigation into Literary Theory and Its Effects on Writing, Reading, and Knowing

Can language really mean anything? Can we know anything with certainty by reading or talking about it? How does one's language affect one's perception of oneself, of others, and the world?

These questions are at the heart of any writer's experience and purpose. They are essential components to the larger question of why we write and read. Yet many writers spend entire careers without addressing these issues.

Though for writers particularly, these questions are at the heart of every thinking person's attempts to understand themselves and their place in the world.

Because of these reasons, this thread, and this (near the bottom of the page), I thought perhaps some of you might find a thread on this topic interesting.

Tori · 09-09-2004, 02:47 PM

Very interesting but I am afraid I have to go look up all those definitions now before commenting. Interesting thoughts...

Lupin3 · 09-09-2004, 03:21 PM

Structuralism: At its simplest, structuralism claims that the nature of every element in any given situation has no significance by itself, and in fact is determined by all the other elements involved in that situation.

Deconstructionism: Post-Structuralism is a reaction to structuralism and works against seeing language as a stable, closed system. It is a shift from seeing the poem or novel as a closed entity, equipped with definite meanings which it is the critic's task to decipher, to seeing literature as irreducibly plural, an endless play of signifiers which can never be finally nailed down to a single center, essence, or meaning.

New Criticism: New Criticism proposed that a work of literary art should be regarded as autonomous, and so should not be judged by reference to considerations beyond itself. A poem consists less of a series of referential and verifiable statements about the 'real' world beyond it, than of the presentation and sophisticated organization of a set of complex experiences in a verbal form (Hawkes, pp. 150-151).

General: Modernism: The modern movement was rooted in the idea that "traditional" forms of art, literature, social organization and daily life had become outdated, and that it was therefore essential to sweep them aside and reinvent culture. It encouraged the idea of re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was "holding back" progress, and replacing it with new, and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end. In essence, the Modern Movement argued that the new realities of the 20th century were permanent and immament, and that people should adapt to their world view to accept that what was new was also good and beautiful.

Post-modernism Whereas modernism frames itself as the culmination of the Enlightenment's quest for an authoritatively-rational aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge, postmodernism is concerned with how the authority of those would-be-ideals, sometimes called metanarratives, are subverted through fragmentation, consumerism, and deconstruction. Jean-François Lyotard famously described postmodernism as an "incredulity toward metanarratives" (Lyotard, 1984). Postmodernism attacks the notions of monolithic universals and encourages fractured, fluid and multiple perspectives and is marked by an increasing importance in the ideas from the Sociology of knowledge.

Obviously there is a great deal of information about any one of these theories, some of which can often (and intentionally) be difficult to read and to understand. That's one reason why I think we can all benefit from a discussion here. I'll post some good starting point links shortly.

eMBeR Chan · 09-09-2004, 03:30 PM

ummmm, I'm not followen you there....pleese don't tell me I'm the only idiot who doesn't get that.

greggb · 09-09-2004, 06:21 PM

I'm just a little ways into my study of postmodernism, but I found an article that addresses a lot of my preexisting philosophical questions:
http://www.users.voicenet.com/~grass...modernism.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by This article

The reader, however, also has personal psychological and social-cultural presuppositions that radically influence how the text is read and understood. So the reader also operates within a context. A critical theory is a contextual presupposition that predetermines the reading and the understanding derived. Further, a text also develops its own history of interpretation, which further prescribes its possible readings and rereadings.

This is one of the reasons I believe it's impossible to interpret a text that exact way another person intended it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by This article

Words achieve their denotative function only through connotative associations in established usage. Because the function of language is first established in connotation, we end up with a theory of metaphors as linguistically primordial. A metaphor achieves it's effect by holding in tension two incompatible meanings that reveal some new insight. Metaphors can be simple or extended, overused or innovative. A metaphor expresses an "is/is not" tension that creates meaning.

By extension, it is possible to argue that models, symbols, and theories also function like complex metaphors. Whether we equate God with a father or evolution with a jungle, we are using metaphoric associations to create meanings that are literally untrue. These metaphors are powerful and productive in their ability to create meaning. Common metaphors are often taken-forgranted in our thoughts. The postmodern move involves exposing taken-forgranted metaphoric usage in some kind of deconstructive reversal.

While it is possible to reductionistically present all human knowledge as linguistically mediated and therefore also metaphoric in some primordial sense, postmodernism can take this too far. To say that language has no external reference renders much of human experience nonsensical. Natural phenomena are not simply a blank slate for human metaphoric projection. Nature and our embodied natures present themselves as structured, limited, and frequently causatively determinative of human experience. If you don't think nature is real, try going without water for a few days and see how well you think.

Perhaps what we need is a metaphoric notion of reality in which we see metaphoric association as issuing from all of reality and not simply from the human subject. The periodic table of elements is an extended metaphor of basic chemicals. Humans have discerned this grammatical guide to the elements after careful labors in "listening to" and "conversing in" the language "spoken" by atoms. The Genesis creation myth is also an extended metaphor spoken by the cosmogenesis and transcribed into human culture.

Man, I could really go on about this one, especially the last paragraph. I’ve never thought about how much we rely on metaphors, or how useful they are in communicating meaning to other people, and understanding meaning ourselves. Is it possible that understanding requires breaking down complex concepts into multiple simpler concepts, which we’re able to comprehend, by comparison with concepts we already understand? In that case all understanding would be a complex structure of metaphors. I’m not saying that I believe that for sure, but it’ll make for some interesting thinking for me for the next few days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by This article

While unavoidable, the cultural biases of the interpreter are not necessarily bad. A tradition is also paradoxically the sustaining foundation upon which deconstruction builds new meanings. All deconstructions are parasitic on some functional metanarrative.

From what little I know about deconstruction, I can identify this as being a major weakness in the process. You’re not rebuilding the old structure on any certain truth… I guess that’s kind of obvious. Maybe you’re rebuilding the old structure on something that is closer to the truth…maybe something more practical…more in line with your way of thinking? Or maybe you’re just rebuilding the old structure on a foundation in a kind of “universal language”, and in rebuilding the old structure you’re translating an entire text into that “universal language”… a sort of timeless language with cultural and personal influences removed, along with anything not relatively factual.

I imagine I’ll figure this out on my own soon enough by continuing to read on the topic. But if anyone wants to drop a few hints to point me in the right direction I’d appreciate it.

Well, that’s probably enough for now.

Lupin3 · 09-09-2004, 07:23 PM

Gregg, when someone tries to sell you something and says "I can't tell you what it is, but it's really great," be wary - wery wery wary (as Elmer Fudd might say).

For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Article

Indeed, deconstruction, which might be presented as an extreme form of postmodernism, is explicitly an antidefinition theory of thought. So my attempts to define these terms are necessarily self-defeating. Nor would postmodern theory and deconstruction's antitheory recognize that there is any human thought or experience that operates externally to the epistemological problem as they define it. There is a powerful, all encompassing form of rationality that undergirds this movement, such that it might well be presented as a hyperphilosophical extension of scientific realism and logical positivism.

I think I'll just let you find what you want to find, rather than debate it at the moment (that is, if you or anyone wants to debate at all on this topic - just sharing information is fine with me). Just bear in mind what I've said previously about post-modernism, Freud and psychology and psuedo-science (you can throw Marx and his "theory" of history into that trash bin as well).

Anyway, a good place to get more information is here.

greggb · 09-10-2004, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupin3

Gregg, when someone tries to sell you something and says "I can't tell you what it is, but it's really great," be wary - wery wery wary (as Elmer Fudd might say).

Thanks for looking out for me Lupin, but I’m not about to change my whole school of thought by reading one article. I know that every author has an angle, and I know they want me to agree that it’s the correct angle. I know they’ll do everything they can to make me agree.

I think as far as an approach to philosophy goes (and ‘how one should approach philosophy’ might be something worth discussing, at some point), it’s important to briefly accept, and maybe even be a little fascinated by beliefs and ideas that might not be… should I say “correct”… “accepted”… “a step in the right direction”. At least be able to consider these ideas, and personally make the decision as to whether they’re acceptable or not.

I suspect that philosophy students, while in the process of being educated, are force-fed contemporary philosophy. I know that earlier philosophers and philosophical beliefs/systems are studied, but more in the fashion of “Here’s what they were thinking, and here’s how they were wrong”—in a logical manner. The problem is that the student doesn’t ever truly get to know what was being thought, and why it was being thought. They don’t get to experience it. As a result I tend to think their understanding of philosophy is less complete than it would be if they were to actually live some of the philosophy that’s considered the foundation of modern philosophy.

I see philosophy through the ages as a road (or maybe I should say series of roads) we’ve traveled to get up to the point we’re at now. It seems to me that in not living some of the philosophy that preceded contemporary philosophy, we’re blindfolding ourselves for portions of the trip.

Of course philosophy has had some dead-end roads. I think by not experiencing a few of those we’re also missing out, because it’s all part of the journey.

Speaking of dead-end roads, I went through a severe nihilistic era in my life, though I didn’t even know what the word “nihilism” meant at the time. One question ruled my entire way of thinking: what’s the point in withstanding all the trouble and pain life brings, and putting forth the tremendous effort life requires, when at some point we’re going to die, and everything we worked for will be lost, and all our suffering will have been in vain? I saw no point in it. I had a tremendous appreciation for eternity, and how great it was. I knew all too well that our short time on earth (which can seem like eternity, when you’re just waiting for it to end) isn’t even a blink of an eye compared to eternity. By comparing my short time on earth to eternity I saw how worthless it was. Of course that’s not a rational way of thinking. But neither is saying life is precious because of the short time it lasts. Either way, a lifetime is insignificant when compared to eternity. What it all boils down to is that it’s not about the time.

Anyways, I bring this up to point out that by answering the fundamental question in nihilism on my own, my resolve on the issue is much stronger than it would have been if I had listened when people said, “Don’t go there”. I’ll never be nihilistic again, and I’ll never accept any belief or idea that even hints at nihilism, ever. I can at least say that I’m much less likely to ever fall into the trap of nihilism than someone who doesn’t know the true nature of nihilism.

Getting back to my original point, experience is much better than book-knowledge. And experience in certain ways of thinking, even incorrect ways of thinking, can put us in a better position to understand other ways of thinking. For that reason, I like to stay open-minded. I kind of like to learn for myself, rather than taking someone else’s word for it.

I got way off the topic here, but not near as far off as we were getting in some of the other threads. I’ll check out some of the articles on the website you gave me.

Later

Tori · 09-11-2004, 02:47 PM

Thank you for the definitions Lupin. I am still reading them and going over all the information in my head. Will be posting my thoughts shortly

Lupin3 · 09-11-2004, 04:45 PM

Great! I look forward to reading your comments as well as Gregg's.

Tori · 09-12-2004, 11:06 AM

Hmmm I have tossed these theories and ideas around in my head and will say my overall impressions. I agree in part with all of these theories besides the last two as the scope of writing considered seems limited and placing limits on what will be considered into a theory based upon the broad meanings of language seems...well...limited.

Structuralism seems true enough to me. If you take just one sentence from this post that I am making; I am sure you could find a way to either limit its meaning or twist it to mean something else. Certainly one's own perception is a huge factor into the meaning of words when read and the overall meaning of any literary document will be interperted differently because of this. I do wonder then if it is more about who is reading the words, rather than the amount of words being read.

Deconstructionism, since it is a reaction to structuralism, cannot exist without structuralism. This is an interesting thought and an interesting theory. It is basically saying that a critique can only interpert the piece being reviewed based upon structuralism and therefore is simply opinion and not the essence of meaning that one can easily be deceived into believing. Of course this is true. A lot of writers that I have known write as a form of expression of self rather than a longing to have the words they write to be nailed down into a solid and obvious conclusion.

One has to consider that even a response to these theories would be based greatly upon the type of reading and writing the one writing the response is use to.

New Criticism has some benefits but is limiting in what it wants to accomplish. Do you think you will actually understand a literary piece better if you consider it alone rather than in conjuntion with other things, either written by the same author, or about the same subject? I am not too sure on this one.

As I said before in my first paragraph, the last two are too limiting for me to consider. My overall feeling is that words are an integral part to human communication and expression. They have the power to move, provoke, and change how the reader feels about the world around them. This is powerful and, like anything else, can either do great damage or great goodness to the world at large. To be articulate in speech is to hold a great power. To be eloquent with words is to have the ability to express.

Thanks for the interesting post...I am still reading more on the different theories and mulling it over in my head

Lupin3 · 09-12-2004, 12:24 PM

Great comments, thanks Tori.

I've been thinking lately about the fundamental concern (as far as I can tell) of Postmodernism and it's critical method, deconstructionism. I realized that our descriptions of modernism, as it applies to literature (Joyce, Kafka, et al) really is closer in meaning to postmodernism. Modernism as whole, incorporating intellectual, scientific, and various arts focused on the inevitability of the triumph of the intellect and reason (consider Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" in this context - and then Moore's Farenheit 9/11). Modernism tried to anticipate the coming of a new scientific age in which the problem of man could be resolved through reason and logic and engineering. If reason were to be the ultimate arbiter of conflict, then it follows that reason will lead us ultimately to one system of government. I believe this is the proper perspective to judge the rise of Nazism and Bolshevism in the early part of the 20th century.

Postmodernism, through deconstructionism primarily, sought to subvert the "meta-narrative" (or in a sense, the story behind the story) of the ultimate triumph of reason. Postmodernists saw what happened in Europe during the World Wars (and what is still happening in other places) and blamed reason rather than politics. This is an important distinction, because it draws attention to the fact that by associating reason with Hitler and (to a despicably far lesser degree) Stalin this type of critique failed to distinguish between science and its political doppleganger, psuedo-science. So through deconstructionism, postmodernists attempted to break the meta-narrative of humanity's rise to a more perfect state through reason by rejecting the foundation of human communication - that I can communicate something to you in a complicated and formalized way. Deconstructionism essentially elevated deliberate mis-reading (or nitpicking, or subversion if you prefer) to a quasi-critical method of literary analysis.

This was done to highlight the inherent weaknesses in any language, the ambiguities and apparent contradicting tensions that can be read into )or out of) any description of ideas. By doing this, deconstructionists felt they could point out the meta-narratives assumed in the work - the ideas implicit in the world view of the writer. Thus, ideally, the reader can be made aware of the politics of the work, and is better able to draw his or her own conclusions about the merits of the work. This is an inherently Marxist perspective on literature, and elevates the pursuit of politics over the pursuit of art. While it provides an interesting insight into the nature of art (an insight neither new nor especially well made) its primary goal is the subversion of the meta-narrative of the age of reason by appropriating the subtext (the words between the lines) and declaring the unmasked meta-narrative within the work.

In other words, by philosophically attacking the basis on which reason and logic are understood by the masses and asserting that it is in fact full of unresolved tension and contradiction, and then inflating this premise through the use of obfusive and deliberately ambiguous and difficult language, postmodernists have waged a forty-year seige of reason. While destabilizing the understanding the average person has of science and logic, they simultaneously appropriated and subverted the single most important art form the age of reason has produced: literature.

There are other important internal contradictions in both postmodernism and deconstructionism very much worth discussing, but I'll try to let this post sink in for a while before diving in. If anyone's actually interested.

Tori · 09-12-2004, 02:35 PM

Lupin...woah...

Give me a few weeks to decipher your last post...hehe
You are addressing things far over my head and I will have to really read and spend time thinking in order to continue, but I plan on it, so give me some time

Lupin3 · 09-12-2004, 03:28 PM

Heheh, sorry 'bout that. I may have had a bit of a head start...

greggb · 09-12-2004, 10:17 PM

Hey, I just wanted to let you guys know I'm planning on getting back in this conversation. I've been taking a lot of time to do some thorough research an all these topics, and I've been busy doing a few other things. But I'll be getting back to this soon.

greggb · 09-13-2004, 12:53 AM

So Lupin, I'm still interested in participating in this discussion, but I'm having a hard time picking an angle, or a side... or even focusing on something. It seems to me that the general topic here is a little too broad. Maybe you could state your precise stance on literary theory, and the reasoning behind it, to give me a place to start... something to go on.

I have a general concept of the literary theories you've mentioned. I don't agree exactly with anyone one of them. I like the general concept of interpreting meaning scientically, so I'm a little inclined towards deconstruction. That doesn't mean that I accept postmodernism as a general philosophy for life, though. I just like the scientific approach to interpreting meaning deconstruction takes.

Again, my main interest right now is in interpreting the meaning of writing and communication. Specifically, how our actual, literal thoughts relate to the way we communicate.

And just to let you know, I'm going to be starting a thread in this forum (the "research" forum) on the topic of AI and text processing. It goes along with my interest in scientifically (empirically) examining literature. Anyway, I'll still be interested in participating in this discussion. I'm hoping that the two threads will complement each other.