August 23, 2005

Art of Conversation

Aaaaah, the art of conversation. A social system which is symbolic and language oriented where responses depend on one persons interpretation of another persons behaviour. Individual interaction on personal topics. And what better person to understand you as an individual with your personal topics than yourself!? Conversation is normally defined in the average dictionary as "an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas." The eagle eyed among you will have noticed that it does not specify that it has to occur between more than one person.
No, in fact, it is perfectly natural to sit on a train and talk to oneself, nod in agreement, frown in disagreement, raise one eyebrow in puzzlement, snort with disdain, laugh merrily at the jokes one told to..err..oneself, like the extremely entertaining person who was sitting across from me on the train today, happily chatting away to himself, giggling at his stupendous side-splitting oneliners.
Why should we NOT talk to ourselves? Is there a law against discussing the daily events with yourself? Is it ILLEGEAL? No! So it started out as a necessary means of interaction when early homo sapiens was hunting antelope in ye olden days, a method of cunning strategic planning that went along the lines of "You throw stick thingy with sharp point ouchy, I run scream make noise like lion". Considering we no longer need to hunt antelope we need something meaningful to replace the lost need for conversation - for example discussing with oneself what clever responses one should have made in a debate, yesterday, instead of the crap "Well, I err...disagree".
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to deliver a lecture on "Is postmodernism post-modern?"..........in my mind.

2 Comments:

Blogger The Bedouin Project said...

Hmmm, Hmm, you make a good point.

Take into consideration that the characteristic theme of Finnis's model of textual desituationism is not appropriation, but neoappropriation. Baudrillard suggests the use of constructivism to attack society. Therefore, Dahmus suggests that we have to choose between subcultural discourse and dialectic pretextual theory.

Note: the above is an entirely nonsensical excerpt from http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/, a generator of random post-modern babble. Sounds convincing though, no?

3:13 pm  
Blogger Balcancan said...

Hmmmmm an interesting retort! My turn!

It is indeed anti-intellecutalism which challenges the humanism and enlightenment of modernist culture, and places knowledge as equal to the principle force of production. Therefore, the cause/effect conception of causality is artificial hierarchy. Is the cause the source? Is the effect the secondary given? Or does only the effect lead us to look for the cause? If effect is the primary given, and the cause secondary, the effect causes the cause to become a cause, therefore the effect is in fact the origin.

NB: the above is complete nonsensical psychobabble generated by moi! And now i must go band my head against a really hard wall.

6:58 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home