Skip to main content

Conversation and animation

I've been thinking about what is at stake in conversations. Conversations are frictions of perspectives - they could involve many or just two parts, but not one. They are very different from simple apprehensions of information - something like a mirror image of what is being conveyed. In fact, conversations are not really about conveying anything, monologues get a message through, conversations have a different geometry. Grice's implicatures show that in a conversation interaction there are expectations built both from the conversation history and from the very structure of what a relevant, cooperative, well-mannered, qualitative and quantitative contributive dialogue is supposed to be. What is said in a conversation wouldn't mean the same or even make sense outside the frame of that conversation - contexts are part of the message. It seems further that there is no message without context (and no capture without coordination) for often the only way to find out is to go and have a chat.

As part of the project of a linguistic turn of 360 degree, I was thinking of replacing the model of access (to the external world, to things, to the great outdoors) with one of conversation. Granted, conversations are types of relations (and correlations). Yet they have different features. In a conversation (like in alliances or negotiations), both parts are expecting, assuming, coordinating - they are both experimenting. Conversation is an image of animation - and not one of extracting data from a corpse (from what Whitehead calls "nature" in Modes of Thought - what is devoid of impulse). If we consider bits of a conversation, we can consider them in the age of the correlate and therefore either hostages to one part's spontaneity or escaping from it imagining a correlation that is absolute. But if we somehow exorcise this temptation to isolate parts of the ongoing conversation with the world, we can stop thinking knowledge and aboutness in terms of access and start thinking in terms of conversations. We could exorcise the temptation to isolate bits of the conversation because that would be a perverse way to fall prey of the Whiiteheadian myth of the finite facts according to which a fact could be just a fact. Facts appear only in conversations. Our partner in a conversation can be somehow absolute, but only as much as we are absolute in our engagement in the talking. To know (or to think through) something would be then something closer to talking than to viewing (or contemplating).

Now, if this model could be worked out, it would be a model not only of our knowledge and thinking about the world, but maybe also an image of how things end up being the way they are. If each thing has a perspective on all the rest, each one is arguably in engaged in conversation with the rest where renegotiation is always taking place. They are all in a multifaceted, ongoing, perhaps an entretien infini.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne