Karl: The Hermeneutic Circle
From Whooshup.org
| Karl's Main Page |
| Whooshup Wiki Main Page |
| Computers, Mathematics, and Science |
| Postmodern Computer Technology |
| Tesselect Math |
| Philosophy, Language, and History |
| A Crucial Conversation |
| The Hermeneutic Circle |
| Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Temporality |
| Historical Essays |
| Religion and Beyond |
| Theological Speculations |
| Copyright (©) 2008, 2009
on original material by Karl Tyson. |
| template |
Discussion of Language
If I vocally describe speech to you, what am I really doing? Since I am using speech to talk about speech, the act describes itself. In fact, the words themselves could be irrelevant - for instance, I might say, "Listen to this" then say something completely different from any type of discussion about speaking, or better yet, have you say something, and finish by observing "that's speech." Would that be, correctly, an explanation of speech?
Of course, the bit I say in the middle could be a careful description of what happens when you speak, the air movement through the speech organs creating distinct sounds that have some arbitrarily assigned meaning in the language we are using, etc. Would that be a better description, then? What does it mean to use the thing you are describing to describe the thing? Should it be considered any different from any other act of describing?
And what if the person you are speaking about speaking to cannot themselves speak? What if they are mute? So they can only hear you speak, but have never experienced speaking. What would that change, if anything, about the descriptive process?
Imagine I wanted to describe protozoans. I could do it with speech, using language. Or, would it be better to just say "look at this" and point to a microscope with a prepared slide of living protozoans, then, after you looked, to say, "that's protozoa?" What if, to give you a better sense of protozoans, I infected you with malaria - a very serious debilitating disease caused by the protozoan Plasmodium? Certainly, if you have had malaria, and know its cause, you are likely to approach the study of protozoans differently.
We have covered three types of description. One uses language to explain the thing, the next uses carefully prepared experiments as direct demonstration, and the last one uses actual personal experience - "living it."
Another example: Let's say I described how french is different from english, in english, to someone who is an english-only speaker. Next, let's say I pointed out some differences in diction and style in a french passage to an english-speaking student of french, and then challenged the student to understand that the total meaning, the "feel," of the french is essentially untranslatable into english. Finally, let's say the student goes to France and becomes fluent in french, and no longer even notices such differences unless they are forced to the surface by the need to translate tricky expressions. In other words, what if I "infect" the student with french?
Most learned subjects are mostly language-based. If I describe geometry, I will use words; if I describe plant physiology, I will use words; if I describe ancient history, I will use words. Words talking about words, in an endless loop.
When we explain language with language, we simply tighten or expand this circle indefinitely. It is only when the words relate to experience that something extends beyond the circle, and becomes seated in our bodily memory. But at this stage, the activity is somehow past education. Indeed, the applicability of language-based explanations begin to fall away, to recede into the background. We tend to call it experience, and make a strong delineation.
