Re: dogs
Colin (colin@cpink.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:00:14 +0100
In message <v04003a11b433cef66106@[24.5.103.188]>, erespess@inil.com
writes
>>
>>Elizabeth writes:
>
>You see, GENERATES is the problem I have with this idea. It seems that as
>we grow, human experience shifts from simple experience to names for
>experience. Of course infants experience emotion before the mirroring
>stage. I think my thought lies somewhere in this realm - When naming
>begins, do humans LOSE the abilty to experience without language? I don't
>think so. Wharton's novel _Birdy_ explores this concept... the shift from
>knowing (noun) to knowledge. Six Degrees of Separation also addresses the
>question, "How do we keep the experience?" I have never been able to
>explain my love for ee cummings before this moment, but I believe in the
>context of this conversation, I can. Old edward estlin, by manipulating
>language in such a way that shifts focus from denotative meaning to
>connotative, operates on a level beyond the established symbols I rely on.
>His work somehow seems to break up the structure in which these symbols
>exist, and in the process break lose the experience. Once it happens, then
>I develop a new connotative meaning for whatever words he has used, and the
>experience can't be duplicated with the same peice of poetry, but his work
>is so dense, and there is so much of it, that I come across that same
>experience again and again. I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone
>or not, and I hope to God that by attempting to explain it now I haven't
>removed the possibility of it happening again. I truly beleive that there
>is feeling outside of language, but as adults, we experience it very
>infrequently.
>
>I hope I have not lost anyone still reading.
>
>Elizabeth
>
>
I think you're absolutely right, Elizabeth. It is only when we try to
articulate that experience that we get enmeshed in language, and however
subtle it is language can never encompass the whole of lived experience.
--
Colin