Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: January ::
Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, SHK 8.0129.  Monday, 27 January 1997.

(1)     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:17:11 -0500
        Subj:   Teaching British to the Englanders

(2)     From:   Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 11:43:30 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 8.0116  Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 25 Jan 1997 09:17:11 -0500
Subject:        Teaching British to the Englanders

John Lee still hasn't got it right. It is of course absolute nonsense to say of
Wales that 'half the country has a different language'. Most Welsh people
cannot speak Welsh. All those who can speak Welsh can also speak English
(though they may choose not to do so). He should also make clear which 'system'
of education he's referring to: the public one, or the no less diverse private
one to which entrance is obtained by money. This latter system's access to the
levers of power (via its quaintly named 'public' schools) ensures that it
remains a major dimension of modern British culture.

T. Hawkes

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 26 Jan 1997 11:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 8.0116  Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders
Comment:        Re: SHK 8.0116  Re: Ideology/Teaching British to the Englanders

>>>I don't think anyone can have it both ways.  If entities and actions are not
>>>innately meaningful, then they are not innately meaningful. Full stop.
>
>And Roger Schmeeckle says:
>
>>And, if it is postulated that there is no innate meaning, does that apply to
>>the statement that there is no innate meaning, thereby rendering it
>>meaningless, and leading to the conclusion that there is or might be innate
>>meaning, that to deny it is self-contradictory, and therefore untenable?
>
>I, of course, did not imply that my comment was meaningless.  I was commenting
>on "innate" meaning.  My comments are meaningful in a certain human context.
>We humans create (or construct, or fashion) the context in which statements are
>meaningful.  Were all humans to disappear from the universe, my comments would
>be meaningless, whereas "innately meaningful" comments would still be
>meaningful because they need no context in order to mean.
>
>I assume that, were innately meaningful sentences possible, they would not have
>to be read and construed.  Innately meaningful sentences would simply
>"be"--something like Plato's "ideas."  And, yes, I believe that some
>responsible humans believe in innate meaning.  I happen not to.
>
> Yours, Bill Godshalk

I acknowledge my hasty reading and misrepresentaion of your meaning.

With regard to your statement that we humans create the context in which
statements are meaningful, I agree that there is an arbitrary, artifical
element in all languages,  notwithstanding the claim of some that God spoke
Hebrew or Arabic, but I believe the propensity to construct languages is innate
in human nature, i.e. not a construct.

    Sincerely,   Roger Schmeeckle
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.