W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-philoweb@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Speech Acts

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 14:26:19 +0200
Cc: Stephan Packard <stephan.packard@medienkultur.uni-freiburg.de>, Rolf Kailuweit <rolf.kailuweit@romanistik.uni-freiburg.de>, public-philoweb@w3.org
Message-Id: <E94E7BB5-7B43-413F-8BC8-8EFC19E1573F@bblfish.net>
To: Georg Groh <grohg@in.tum.de>

On 2 Jul 2012, at 13:51, Georg Groh wrote:

> dear all,
> sorry for missing today's meeting but i had to attend an unforseen but nevertheless urgent meeting.
> i am nevertheless looking forward to joining your next meeting, if i still may. :-)

Hi Georg, 

   Stephan and I had a good conversation today. He will send a couple of paragraph summary
to this list later. 

But I think it's one of those subjects we have to go over again and again, as we are linking together many different areas of thought, which don't often get linked - so repetition is going to be welcome. 

What about having the next meeting next week at the same time? 

Henry


> very best regards
> georg
> 
> Am 26.06.2012 16:28, schrieb Henry Story:
>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 09:13, Henry Story wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Jun 2012, at 08:59, Stephan Packard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Henry, dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> while this communication has gone to sleep, I hope it isn't dead, or at least that we can eventually revive it -- I'm stil very much interested in developing a view on internet communication from a pragmatic perspective, and I think that Henry's sumary of Derrida's critique is spot-on.
>>>> 
>>>> For my part, I see I have some trouble finding time to do the topic justice as a sidebar to daily work, but if we could find a clearer schedule, I'd certainly make myself work towards that. Perhaps if we settle on a clear reading list for an exchange by mail, or a set date for a skype conversation? Alternatively, I could also imagine a live meeting at Freiburg or elsewhere, if we might work better with a day or two set apart; we should be able to get some funds for that, I think. What do you all think?
>>> Yes, certainly. I have to do a presentation for a summer course on Plato in France, where I would
>>> like to integrate some of my reading on Speech Acts. In any case I think we should talk a bit
>>> because that is often a very good way to remember what one has read: by trying to apply it in a
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> Here is a Doodle. Fill in the times, then we can organise a Skype/phone meeting
>>> 
>>> http://www.doodle.com/rzr7nm5zvu9fi7vc
>> Looks like a good time will be the coming Monday 2 June, 11-12 am Paris time.
>> 
>> Or precisely
>> http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=07&day=02&year=2012&hour=09&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
>> 
>> I am bblfish on Skype, and there is a telephone number in France you can call that will also tie
>> into Skype  +33 9 70 44 86 64
>> 
>> Look forward to talking with you then.
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards, Stephan
>>>> 
>>>> On 22.05.2012 10:42, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>> On 21 May 2012, at 17:43, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>> I have read the Searle/Derrida debate, gathered in Limited Inc [1], last year.
>>>>>> But then I don't think I fully understood where Derrida was coming from,
>>>>>> and have been trying to get some understanding of the big picture.
>>>>>> I think I have a bit of a better overview now of the space, and I could re-read
>>>>>> it again, but also there are a few books on the  subject which I wanted to read.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - "Derrida/Searle, Déconstruction et language ordinaries" Raoul Moati
>>>>> So I just finished this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is very helpful book, arguing very clearly for an understanding of how the two authors diverge and why, which is pretty difficult to work out if you don't have a good grounding in both philosophies. The author argues that for Derrida there is a phenomenological presupposition of the way intentionality functions which he reads mistakenly into Austin. Where for Searle linguistic conventions, and for Austin context - also understood as conventional games - gives the explanation of an act of language, and so does not imply the need for a (subjective) intention (or at least allows the internal state to differ from what is said ), Derrida tended to read this Husserlian Intentionality into their use of meaning: the intention behind the saying he believed to be the model Searle was using. For Derrida too meaning is conventional, but he believes it is always transforming and changing in a way he believes undermines the idea of the sameness of meaning to lead us to an ontology of the pri
>>>> ority of change, or iteration over identity (which seems to echo the title of Deleuze's first book "Différence et repetition"). But this just leads me to think that the next place to look at is Ruth Garrett Millikan, since her biological model of language builds on evolutionary theories, which describe organisms that are of course are always changing and transforming and work with a context ( the eco-sphere ) which is not clearly isolatable but yet which is essential to understanding the life of the organism.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> - "Deconstruction and Speech Act Theory: A Defence of the Distinction between Normal and Parasitic Speech Acts"
>>>>>>    http://www.e-anglais.com/parasitic_sa.html
>>>>>> - In Millikan's "Language: A Biological Model" 'Proper Function and Convention in Speech Acts'
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not sure if Nissenbaum speaks of speech acts yet, but she speaks of context and its importance to privacy,
>>>>>> which is I think part of how this ends up getting to be interesting to the philosophy of the web.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> in my "Philosophy of the social web" slides 40-47 I cover a little bit the relation between speech acts
>>>>>> and HTTP requests on the world wide web.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is probably enough for the moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My guess is that the language games for the forms of life of humans before the internet,
>>>>>> such as Searle, Austin, Wittgenstein and Derrida were, may no longer apply to forms of
>>>>>> life with computers (us), where things that resemble human speech acts but are not
>>>>>> quite the same, (perhaps these are document acts) come to be very useful. I think that
>>>>>> should perhaps bring a new angle to the debate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	Henry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] http://www.amazon.com/Limited-Inc-Jacques-Derrida/dp/0810107880
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>> 
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Georg Groh
> Chair for Applied Informatics / Cooperative Systems
> TU München, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching, Germany
> Room: 01.05.059
> Phone: +49 89 289 18678
> Fax: +49 89 289 18657
> Mobile: +49 179 7953901
> Web: http://www11.in.tum.de/lehrstuhl/personen/grohg/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 12:27:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 July 2012 12:27:04 GMT