Dear Dr. Setton,
In this case, what kind of weak implicatures is the disciple supposed
to derive from the "non-verbal version" of koans:
Hypothetical dialogue (2)
Master: So, what is the nature of Buddha?
Disciple: I eat rice everyday.
Master: (hits the disciple with his staff (recurrently, until the
disciple sits down humbly at his feet in SILENCE)
I'm not sure whether the author of Alice in Wonderland meant "taking responsibility
for your judgements and interpretations of the world", although it
does echo the title of one of the chapters from the "Journey to Ixtlan"
by Carlos Castaneda (is it an irony? - just an RT comment :)
Don't all those examples, along with Tao Teh Ching etc., serve as a
vehicle (the finger, pointing to the moon), rather than some
philosophical or (I'm sure, Chuan Tzu would especially enjoy this one
in view of his attitude to Confucius) "ethical principles" of conduct
and the way of thinking correctly...there IS no correct way of thinking, if
I'm not mistaken, according to, say, Tao folks...it's all about
transcending...
Also, what about Salinger's "ducks in Central Park"?
Best,
Andre
Thursday, January 15, 2004, 6:13:43 PM, you wrote:
RS> Dear Andri and All,
RS> I am afraid this is still _Relevance_ theory. Koans are surely extremely
RS> relevant, i.e. to produce
RS> a very significant cognitive effect, namely a philosophical principle such
RS> as 'that there is nothing to be dug up''
RS> Actually I think that is probably a very simplistic version of the effects
RS> conveyed, betraying a 'pure semantics' tempation to pin down a single
RS> clearcut implicature
RS> for an utterance. Rather, a koan is a limit case of poetic relevance,
RS> conveying a range of weak implicatures and leaving a maximum
RS> amount of implication to the hearer's responsibility. This in turn conveys
RS> the meta-lesson (a distinctive feature of Buddhism, I think, when compared
RS> to many religions) that 'we should take responsibility for our judgments
RS> and interpretation of the world rather than accept them from purported
RS> authorities.
RS> But this does also show the poissble confusion between the everyday loose
RS> use of 'relevant' and its technical (RT) use.
RS> Best,
RS> Robin
RS> t 16:54 15.01.2004 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear All,
>>
>>Relevance Theory
>>Relevance of an input to an individual
>>
>>a. Other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects
>> achieved by processing an input, the greater the relevance of the input
>> to the individual at that time.
>>
>>b. Other things being equal, the greater the processing effort expended,
>> the lower the relevance of the input to the individual at that time.
>>
>>
>>Irrelevance Theory (tentative):
>>
>>G: What is the nature of Buddha?
>>S: I eat rice every day.
>>
>>Irrelevant, purely phatic communicative moves (phatic communication
>>being the opposite of informative communication) when used as a
>>well-planned communicative strategy (not resulting from slips of the
>>tongue or mental
>>disorders) have greater perlocutionary effects (encouraging to dig deeper
>>with the
>>purpose of discovering that there is nothing to be dug up ),
>>cause more processing effort, thereby yielding greater probability of
>>exposure to
>>extralinguistic reality (aka enlightenment, satori, samadhi etc.) as
>>illustrated by the practice of
>>koans in Zen Buddhism and Absurd Literature (Lewis Carroll).
>>
>>(Note: increased cognitive effect about the "verbally described" world yield
>>nothing but ...)
>>
>>
>>References:
>>
>>Lao Tzu
>>Chuan Tzu
>>Alan Watts
>>CARLOS CASTANEDA
RS> Prof. Robin Setton
RS> Professeur ` l'uniti d'interpritation
RS> Ecole de traduction et d'interpritation
RS> Universiti de Genhve
RS> Boulevard du Pont d'Arve 40
RS> CH-1211 Genhve 4
RS> Til. +41 22 379 87 53
RS> FAX +41 22 379 87 59
RS> E-mail Robin.Setton@eti.unige.ch
RS> http://www.unige.ch/eti/interpretation
-- Best regards, Andre mailto:danagro@kp.km.ua
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 16:57:46 GMT