Limitations of Language
After reading Langer's dissertation on, I suppose, expression (?) I find myself confused as to how to take and apply it to our study of narrative. It fits in very well to our discussions about both technological and social evolution of narrative as needed, in that "language is a very poor medium for expressing our emotional language" (Langer 100). Does this mean that because we as people are so ill-equipped to express ourselves, that an evolution of our methods is inevitable? I'm sure that scholars didn't always reflect on language or writing as a poor method of conveying thoughts and ideas. Forgive this seemingly haphazard musing, but it seems to me that if given enough time, people will constantly examine and re-examine our means and find them lacking. Language wasn't good enough, so we needed writing. Writing wasn't productive enough, we needed print. Print was too exclusive, not connected enough, so we needed television, radio, etc. Then computers came about...
Are we going to eventually examine our current digital technologies where we interact and create, and find them just as lacking as Langer finds language?
On another, more confused (perhaps poor reading) question: she pointed out that "nothing that is not 'language' in the sense of their technical definition can possess the character of symbolic expressiveness," yet tells us that "laughing, lyrics, and music" are similar to metaphysical propositions in that their use excites feelings. Is she discussing two separate things, or am I thinking of symbolism in too broad a sense?
-Matt
Are we going to eventually examine our current digital technologies where we interact and create, and find them just as lacking as Langer finds language?
On another, more confused (perhaps poor reading) question: she pointed out that "nothing that is not 'language' in the sense of their technical definition can possess the character of symbolic expressiveness," yet tells us that "laughing, lyrics, and music" are similar to metaphysical propositions in that their use excites feelings. Is she discussing two separate things, or am I thinking of symbolism in too broad a sense?
-Matt