Cheerskep Remember, the discussion opened with my reaction to the headline 'How strangely do we diminish a thing as soon as we try to express it in words.' (which was the initial subject line) This reminded me of the idea some people entertain that they have a great literary work 'in them' but just can't manage to 'get it out' - to put it into words. There are millions of these Dostoyevskys, Prousts, or Shakespeares manques walking the streets. They are believers in the 'wordless thought'. They have a 'Hamlet' or a 'Crime and Punishment' ready, waiting within them, if only they could just put it into words - or if only they had the time etc.
The discussion moved to music and painting and I made the same point there. There are no visual or musical thoughts without an embodiment of same - if only a mental embodiment. The idea of a great painter who has never painted anything is even more obviously silly than a great novelist, playwright etc who has never written anything. Ditto for a great composer who has never composed anything. Getting back to my original point, I repeat: there are no wordless thoughts. DA On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:17 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I said Derek's recent response to Mando's citing painters, sculptors. > hummer-whistlers, dancers, musicians, as people who are clearly harboring > thoughts > without words, is so objectionable it deserves its own posting. Here it is. > > Derek responded to Mando: > > "But those are other ways of expressing thoughts. The idea of a thought > minus any form of expressing it seems unthinkable to me. What would the > thought > be about? One would have no way of saying. So it would be a thought without > content? Is there such a thing? A thought about nothing - a > 'nothing-thought'. Perhaps in the higher reaches of Zen or something, but I > leave that to the > aficionados." > > This is an unacknowledged flat reversal of his assertion earlier: > > "How do we know what the thing is until we have found words to describe it? > Are there wordless thoughts? I don't think so." > > Right up till his responding to Mando's good observation, Derek had > maintained that WORDS were necessary for thought. Now, under irresistible > pressure, he > changes his position. Yes, there can be thoughts without words if there is > another way of expressing the thoughts. > > Notice he begins with the word 'But' as if to suggest it is MANDO who has > overlooked something. > > Moreover, everything he says in his response assumes the very point at issue > -- which WAS that words are necessary to thought, but which he's now changed > to a "form of expressing it" is necessary. Exactly what he has badly failed to > support is his notion there can be no thought without words. He ridicules the > notion of a writer's having a thought before he finds his words to express it > as "thought without content". No. The writer's thought has loads of > thought-content. It is a notion. Once he has the notion, the writer's job is > to find the > words to convey it. > > The writer is not "minus any form of expressing his thought". He has a FORM > "of expressing it": language. He may struggle for a long time to find the > right language -- while the idea is already there. Derek continues to confuse > THOUGHT with the EXPRESSION of the thought. Until that happens he would call > it > "a thought about nothing - a 'nothing-thought'." Which is again to insist that > the thought and its expression are inseparable. Which can't be right because > we know many thoughts precede our finding the words to express them. > > (A throw-away argument: A woman in agony cries, "There's no way to express > this pain!" Derek says, "Well, if there's no way to express it, it's without > content. Thank goodness we don't have to worry!") > > Mando has Derek. Derek's position -- "Are there wordless thoughts? I don't > think so." -- is untenable. Why does he cling to it? > > I submit from this and his long history with us that Derek cannot bring > himself to accept he's put forth an idea that is mistaken. Similarly > unacceptable > is that someone is saying something he might learn from -- which would entail > the implication that someone had an idea he hadn't thought of. As I've said, > I recognize that generic personality, because I saw flashes of it in myself in > my late teens and early twenties. > > I outgrew it, though not graciously, not in public. I don't know what Derek > thinks when he's offline, but I had an unshakeable habit of reviewing in > solitude arguments I'd "won" -- by which scare-quotes I mean arguments I'd > lost but > could not concede at the time. If the other guy had been right, I had an > uncomfortable but irresistible (and lucky) way of finally admitting it to > myself -- > in solitude. When I had this happen enough, it began to slow me down in party > confrontations. > > The other "mellowing" influence on me was finally achieving something in > life, and sustaining it. Of course, "achievement" was what got me in trouble > in > the first place. I'd always been the class smarty-pants, and in a narrow > juvenile way I came to feel that was "who I am". So if I made mistakes, that > was damn > bad news for my psyche. What I achieved later was finally earning my keep, > becoming a good "provider" for those who depended on me, which included > employees. The sustaining was critical, because if you managed it long enough > you came > to see you didn't have to be right every single time -- merely enough of the > time. In fact I eventually found that admitting to my colleagues things I'd > blown was a good idea because it allowed them to admit things too, not hide > them. > > So here I am, admitting like crazy, still in hopes of influencing. > > > > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
