The Art of Speaking and the Science of Imitation :: Language Expressions Papers

The Art of Speaking and the Science of ImitationThe underlying thesis examined here maintains that meaning is simply subjective value which has been presented (i.e., enlarged or made explicit) in words or in some otherwise plastic or static medium. This presentation of meaning consists in the extending of what is mat up by the creator-subject to the other subjects. Although this extension of the primary agent may be the very thing which ultimately creates the space from where reflection dexterity occur, the transaction of expression itself is not explicitly pondering. In other words, one might say that integral meaning is not reflective but quite an is purely informing, while reflective meaning has to some degree broken its integrity. Working from these basic claims, I will examine how quality (or qualification) and sum (or quantification) are related as functions of the languages of art and of science.PART ONE The toneThe enforce of language both as an art and also as a s cience, i.e., physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, geometry, etc., is the explicit formulation of knowledge (as information), but can we shake off some clear distinction between these two ways of victimization language? Is it possible to separate those values as presented with native language in dialogue from those values as represented by scientific discourse?One way to make such a distinction explicit is to divide the domain of formulation into presentation and representation. Dialogic language use at its most effective appears to express itself in our spontaneous intercourse without the reflecting will of a knowing subject.(1) Such is not the same split of language use involved in a scientific articulation. age the aim of science is to accurately represent its area of study by descriptive measurements and mathematical formulae, a true conversation is the creative try on to present values which are felt by the speakers.(2) In such everyday discourse, the values of th e conversants are not per se re-presented, but rather, it is through articulation in language that these meaningful affects can originally be broadcast beyond the aesthetic, emotional, or perceptive life of the speaker.(3) Language becomes the living palette which in concomitant helps to create the ideas (and in further consequence to produce a reflective subject) in direct response to certain felt values. Without the language, in that location would be no way to express these integral values obscure from the specific physical acts of the individual or reflectively in the topsy-turvyness of dream experiences.