Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 6:57:05 GMT -5
Here we see an example of typical transatlantic tomfoolery: This awful clown, evidently heterosexually inclined, is "Professor" Eduardo Kohn, who has latterly written a book entitled How Forests Think: toward an anthropology beyond the human. It is reviewed in the T.L.S. of April the twenty-fifth. The reviewer herself is also a transatlantic person, and even she is moved to write "At times his writing style is thick with jargon, and one has to plough through dense passages that repeatedly strain comprehension. 'The word Ruma in the Quichua language,' whinnies Kohn, is used as a kind of pronominal marker of the subject position - for all selves see themselves as persons - and it is only hypostasized as ethnonym in objectifying practices such as ethnography, racial discrimination, and identity politics.'" And yet the clown is probably correct when he points out that forest creatures without language do think, represent the world, and make meaning on their own. He relies heavily, Miss King tells us, "on Charles Peirce's notion that signs should be defined broadly to include those with and those without linguistic properties. Icons, said Pierce, are signs of likeness; indices, by contrast, point to something entirely other; and the third typs of sign - symbols - involve convention and are unique to our own race." Groping in the right sense but falling spectacularly short what!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 12, 2014 9:30:03 GMT -5
Here we see an example of typical transatlantic tomfoolery: This awful clown, evidently heterosexually inclined, is "Professor" Eduardo Kohn, who has latterly written a book entitled How Forests Think: toward an anthropology beyond the human. It is reviewed in the T.L.S. of April the twenty-fifth. The reviewer herself is also a transatlantic person, and even she is moved to write "At times his writing style is thick with jargon, and one has to plough through dense passages that repeatedly strain comprehension. 'The word Ruma in the Quichua language,' whinnies Kohn, is used as a kind of pronominal marker of the subject position - for all selves see themselves as persons - and it is only hypostasized as ethnonym in objectifying practices such as ethnography, racial discrimination, and identity politics.'" And yet the clown is probably correct when he points out that forest creatures without language do think, represent the world, and make meaning on their own. He relies heavily, Miss King tells us, "on Charles Peirce's notion that signs should be defined broadly to include those with and those without linguistic properties. Icons, said Pierce, are signs of likeness; indices, by contrast, point to something entirely other; and the third typs of sign - symbols - involve convention and are unique to our own race." Groping in the right sense but falling spectacularly short what! On what specific grounds do you dismiss Kohn as a "clown"? what is fundamentally pejorative about being "heterosexually inclined"? (and what relevance is that to the subject matter in any event?) and why would you assume that Kohn is such in any case just because he happens to have one arm around a member of the opposite sex? Also, what's this "transatlantic" stuff? I might as well refer to you as "transatlantic", given that that particular ocean (not to mention part of an even larger one) separates us geographically? Why not be honest and come out with what you mean to do? - i.e. make yet another anti-American comment? Whilst Kohn is - albeit only in your words - "groping", you are yourself merely "griping", it would seem...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 0:26:27 GMT -5
We are grateful to Mr. H for giving us his point of view; nevertheless we are obliged to point out that he has missed the principal point of my post. That point is of course the work of that super-man of transatlantic philosophy Charles Peirce - pronounced "purse" - and in particular what he apparently had to say about "semiotic elements." For there is a giant entry about him at the Wiki thing here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce. Despite its coinage in the seventeenth century the word "semiology" was very little used until the fifties of the twentieth, and as far as I can now remember it was from my own education utterly lacking. So having read that giant entry about that much revered super-man what - if anything - does to-day's membership think about "signs" and Peirce's other theories? Do semiotics do them good?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 13, 2014 1:37:39 GMT -5
We are grateful to Mr. H for giving us his point of view; nevertheless we are obliged to point out that he has missed the principal point of my post. I was not actually seeking to address the principal point of your post, as I would have hoped to have made clear; I sought merely to put some specific questions to you about your particular choice of phraseology in the post to which mine was a response - no more, no less.
|
|