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

The Art of Speaking and the Science of Imitation The 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 other plastic or static medium. This presentation of meaning consists in the extending of what is felt 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 might occur, the act of expression itself is not explicitly reflective. In other words, one might say that integral meaning is not reflective but rather is purely informing, while reflective meaning has to some degree lost its integrity. Working from these basic claims, I will examine how quality (or qualification) and quantity (or quantification) are related as functions of the languages of art and of science. PART ONE: The Distinction The use of language both as an art and also as a science, i.e., physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, geometry, etc., is the explicit formulation of knowledge (as information), but can we make some clear distinction between these two ways of using language? Is it possible to separate those values as presented through natural 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 conversation without the "reflecting will" of a knowing subject.(1) Such is not the same sort of language use involved in a scientific articulation. While the aim of science is to accurately represent its area of study through descriptive measurements and mathematical formulae, a true conversation is the creative attempt to present values which are felt by the speakers.(2) In such everyday discourse, the values of the 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 fact helps to create the "ideas" (and in further consequence to produce a reflective "subjec t") in direct response to certain felt values. Without the language, there would be no way to express these integral values apart from the specific physical acts of the individual or reflectively in the chaos of dream experiences.