Quote:
|
Originally Posted by swampgrl
Maybe dualistic isn't necessarily the right word, maybe words of multiplicity could be used for better understanding however I see multiplicity as an extension of duplicity so there is that.
The trunk of the tree is not separate from the branches. If words are not necessarily dualistic, doesn't that make them dualistic by default?
|
It basically depends on the kind structure a discourse takes, because words apart from having definitions in themselves as basic symbols of meaning, also have nuances which shift in context when in actual use, so the use of words is the way we communicate meaning, and definitions of words depend on such contexts, and then we have the nuance of tone of voice, inflection, creating sarcasm, irony and subtler 'between the lines' meanings which aren't even said, or even mean the exact opposite of what is said, but are no less understood in communication.
When the dialectic is knowledge based the premise is dualistic, right/wrong, agree/disagree, true/false, and there is always a power dynamic involved in this, where 'authority' means both the expert (as the site of knowledge) on the matter and a person in powerful position, but language is usually used just to convey meanings, and not knowledge.
So, we can forget the knowledge based discourse because obviously its very premise is dualistic, and there's really no question in that regard. In the other case where only meaning is concerned, well, imagine we read a poem or a novel - then agree/disagree, right/wrong doesn't make sense, and is therefore meaningless. Hence the straight cut black vs. white between duals becomes blurred and we enter a very grey area... which is no less understandable.