Could we modify Brady's statement to:
"language is *a* (instead of *the*) process by which we present relationships
to ourselves (internally and socially) for examination and understanding." ?
I realize that in our historical period - language is the most preferred -
prestigious - and institutionalized process.
But in the past -- and even now -- many things have been examined and
understood without words ever being used.
(the most recent example -- on this listserv -- being Derek's examination of
the Goya prints - and then his understanding that they were art)
Of course, we would need to take "examination" and "understanding" to
Cheerkep's hospital -- but I think we can take them home as soon as they are
accompanied by some test for success.
So-- the test for whether John has understood how to build a roof -- is
whether his roof gets built and then collapses or not.
And the test for whether John has understood how to make a painting -- is how
much some people like it. (a highly debatable test - but what better tests are
there?)
I would even suggest that when "we invest pictures with referential meaning"
-- this can be (or usually is?) done without words.
(despite the attempt of art museums to put voices in our ear when viewing
special exhibits)
****************************************************
"For whatever reason, we humans are unable to use smell, taste, and touch as
the components of discourse; we can't even do that with sight, although we can
invest pictures with referential "meaning"; language is the process by which
we present relationships to ourselves (internally and socially) for
examination and understanding."
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmyuXKzZCUniMXA3Jow4Zenw
eR01mhz09rhopCoLvqO5XNha/?count=1234567890
