Dear Ibrtchx
Re your 1st email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:01 AM, UTC+2): i. Re "no grammar": in reality. It's "made up" of (post-hoc) analyses and normative values from language judgment based on (more/less) well-formed data. [Of course, most of us who entered the language space didn't see it as such in the beginning. Many just took/take it for granted, as some necessary part of language. For me, at least, I've always had my reservations about e.g. syntax or much from syntactic theories, but it is not until I reflected further on my results did things become clearer to me (or did I realize that I just had a computational proof for dissolving "words").] (There can be a weaker formulation to "no grammar" --- that its existence being in the mind of the beholder, subject to each person's "belief" in the matter. There is also the interpretation of "no grammar" as an imperative/request: that we shouldn't use/endorse grammar (esp. to judge ourselves and others). For ethical reasons, one may benefit from the "grammar as style guide / mnemonics"-interpretation in communication. That is, take it easy with "grammar", in a way, it's just "recycled peer pressure", a "2nd/3rd/n-th hand emotion" :).) ii. Re "something 'magical' about language": it depends on one's def of "magical" too, I suppose. I just used it in the sense that there isn't that much that can't be explained away wrt language. Of course, there is a limit to human knowledge and one has to be(come) at peace with some things being just the way they are, e.g. our "initial conditions". But, sure, some people may find some things to be more "magical"/extraordinary than others. I don't see reason for disagreement here. iii. Are the Hegel links supposed to inform me of the concept of "Zeitgeist"? Just checking here. :p iv. I don't quite understand your point(s)/opinion(s) re the US or your experiences described in the last few paragraphs of this email. *A disclaimer: my views and opinions here on this forum / mailing list are not politically driven or oriented ("politics" here in the sense of government-related). When I mention "language politics", it usually has to do with language ideology and identity politics ("politics", as in, e.g. [from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics]: "[t]he often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society" (American Heritage Dictionary), "any activity concerned with the acquisition of power, gaining one's own ends" (Collins), or "the use of strategy or intrigue in obtaining power, control, or status" (Random House); that is, a more general, vanilla, "stateless" interpretation of "politics", similar to a more general interpretation of "language" on which I'd prefer to theorize). Note that "language" does not have to relate to "nation".* That having been expressed, sure, there can be all kinds of "propaganda" *everywhere and anywhere*, I can imagine. The intent behind my interaction with you all on this thread/forum, however, is to get people to do better science.
Re your 2nd email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:34 AM, UTC+2): Re "Now, if "words don't matter", how could we understand poetry? figurative meaning?": do you really think that if you understand all character strings in a poem, you'd understand it?
Re your 3rd email (Jul 27, 2023, 12:17 PM, UTC+2), aka your "latest mini rants": No prob. (Yes, I prefer a more comprehensive, holistic view as well.)
Best Ada
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:17 PM Albretch Mueller lbrtchx@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, I found wikipedia lacking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne
doesn't mean "art" (Latin translation which meant something different to them, closer to the Greek concept) or "craft" (at least not in the mundane sense of doing things manually, more like a "skill").
I think (quite forcefully, in the least amount of words) technê pertains to: "the functionally intersubjective aspects of productive knowledge".
In addition to the recommended book: "Productive Knowledge in Ancient Philosophy: The Concept of Technê", by Johansen, Thomas Kjeller; I would suggest: "Of Art and Wisdom" by David Roochnik (which I recommend not only as a necessary complementary reading to Johansen's, but I found much better at explaining the concept and its very interesting historical grounding from pre-Socratic times to Plato).
You will also need to understand well the mathematical concept of function, which has been cannibalized by all other scientific endeavors; not in the "post-modern" way in which it is explained on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)
but in the "Geometric" (which in those times didn't mean "visual" but more like -logical-) way Ancient Greeks understood the concept as they used it in the best corpus ever build:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
all the way to Descartes.
When I have had to teach that concept to high school students I explained it "the old way":
https://ergosumus.wordpress.com/2021/11/09/nerds-gang-math-functions/
showing to my students how even month old ravens understand that concept without having to sit years in school ;-), also proving that our mind-body link is semiological (supervening on the negentropy brought about by our quite Saussurean neurons), not anatomical or physiological. As Kant explained to us, even when we dream, we dream "functionally".
Sorry for my latest mini rants. I decided to be more explicit about what I meant by technê, functions, ... because to my understanding it is not only more enlightening, but downright profitable when it comes to corpora research. I don't want for other people to be carried adrift as it happened to silly me with "tensors". I promise I won't say a word for the next five minutes or so ;-)
lbrtchx