tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873878721715834303.post1420996531344273082..comments2023-10-09T03:23:22.073-07:00Comments on Shapes And Disfigurements Of Raymond Antrobus: Q&A With Poetry Lecturer, Critic and Faber Published poet Jack Underwood Part 2Raymond Antrobushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04283895579062324614noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873878721715834303.post-3311860678064421102013-07-30T06:51:33.722-07:002013-07-30T06:51:33.722-07:00Thanks Gary. I'll take dancing around over jac...Thanks Gary. I'll take dancing around over jackbooting through every time, because the history of language is not something that one can make stable propositions about. I'd call my dancing an awareness of the irony of metalanguage: the very binaries and terms that antedate our discussions of speech and writing, are symptomatic of the limits of the very system which we are seeking to describe. I call that an awareness of language philosophy, not "dancing around". To characterise a position of doubt as a florid, frivolous display is to prioritise a 'common sense world view' which goes against not just the spirit of debate itself, but also, arguably, against poetry and its contradictory logic; it's 'anti-complexity' and I really do think that discussion about speech and writing are very complex indeed. Maybe the binary 'muddled'/ 'incontrovertible' also carries undertones of other potentially damaging culturally perpetuating binaries: 'open/ closed', 'uncertain/ certain', 'unknown/ known', dare I say 'feminine/ masculine'?<br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to address your assertion that "The proposition that an oral tradition pre-dated a written one is incontrovertible." If by this you mean 'unprovable' I agree, but I suspect you mean 'indisputable', or 'beyond doubt', or 'without question' which is as lazy a philosophical starting point with a view towards discussing the entire history of language or verbal art forms as there can be. Why on earth you would bring 'proof' or 'certainty' into such a subjective and diverse cultural field at all is rather beyond me.<br /><br />Firstly, for you to be 100% incontrovertibly correct, you'd have to argue that there is such a thing as an 'incontrovertible' tradition: when, exactly, does this tradition begin? What is the origin point of the 'written tradition'? What do you mean by 'tradition'? Are you prioritising the Western 'literary' tradition, for example? Are so called 'primitive' paintings, markings or visual languages exempt from discussions of written/spoken language? What is 'writing' even, beyond all doubt? What about performance? Ceremony? Are these not also part of language? How far is the written/spoken binary even useful when you begin to consider what language is or does? What about phatic utterances, or groans or sighs? What about marking territories with scent, or sticks? In early languages how might these be divided? It's very complex.<br /><br />If you don't actually mean 'tradition' at all, but instead that Speech predates Writing incontrovertibly, then yes, that is certainly beyond proof, but only in the sense that we cannot prove one came before the other. But to suggest that we first evolved to speak, and then evolved to write things down afterwards, is an assumption, and a very lazy assumption, and one that Derrida, among others, argues is hugely problematic in terms of how our philosophical discourses are constructed, and reconstructed. Jack Underwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15510937838601480400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873878721715834303.post-22212453087485098492013-07-30T06:37:21.725-07:002013-07-30T06:37:21.725-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jack Underwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15510937838601480400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873878721715834303.post-78142544049979555242013-05-11T14:06:40.717-07:002013-05-11T14:06:40.717-07:00An interesting, and thought provoking, piece, if a...An interesting, and thought provoking, piece, if at times a little muddled. Thank you.<br /><br />The proposition that an oral tradition pre-dated a written one is incontrovertible. The proposition that hearing (or speaking) words, and reading (or writing them down) them, presents distinct advantages, and disadvantages, is equally incontrovertible.<br /><br />Jack seems to spend much time dancing around the periphery of these propositions.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com