On 13 Mar, 12:26, "SleepyHead"
hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> On 12 Mar, 17:22, "andy-k" wrote:
>
>> "SleepyHead" wrote:
>>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>>> "SleepyHead" wrote:
>>>>> Whatever the truth about bewitchment by language we can't speak
>>>>> about subject and object without it, analyse the situation and propose
>>>>> a means of moving forward without it unless we have some practical
>>>>> experiments to be going on with.
>
>>>> All speech about subject and object further entrenches the distinction,
>>>> since language is an objectifying activity.
>
>>> Subjectifying too.
>
>> Only by objectifying the subject.
>
> Well seeing as language is the means by which we make the distinction
> between subject and object, language is both an objectifying and
> subjectifying activity. If you want objectifying can come first in the
> chicken-and-egg situation that is "Which came first objectifying the
> subject or subjectifying the object?", although we both know that the
> distinction logically precedes either process.
>
>>>>> And no words either. No discussion. No problem for which no
>>>>> resolution is required. No article to read and critique, no philosophy,
>>>>> just the meaningless calls of birds and animals.
>
>>>> Language is a closed system.
>
>>> Not so closed it can't be influenced by events outside of human life.
>
>> Such as?
>
> Meteors, earthquakes, fire, flood and other Acts of God.
>
> And genetic mutation.
>
>
>
>> I'll add your comment from the other sub-thread at this point:
>
>> "SleepyHead" wrote in message
>
>
>>> OK. So let's say for the sake of argument that there is no such thing
>>> as a "what it's like", there is no such thing as a subject of any verb
>>> (and hence no "experiencer of things").
>
>>> What now? What comes next?
>
>> The "what-it's-like" remains when the subject is no longer objectified.
>> In fact it constitutes "the subject", and only gets referred to as
>> "the subject" *after* it has been conceptually objectified.
>
> OK. So let's say that the "what-it's-like" remains, isn't objectified,
> and isn't construed as a property of a subject. What next? I guess
> what I'm driving at is that I think I understand what you're trying to
> achieve, I just don't understand why you're trying to achieve it.
Jeepers!
I think I might have posted the same thing more than once!?
