I believe I finally had my Aha moment for the class. I kept returning to Heidegger’s (n.d.) thoughts
that art is not in the art-object, but in the relationships the art-object
forms with the viewer. I returned to the
thoughts again while reading Radford’s discourse on texts. I realized Heidegger’s thoughts could be
applied not only to language, but also to texts, objects, our environment and
landscapes. Our environment opens spaces
for us to reflect and ponder. Being
moved by a dramatic sunset in real life, or in art, might be a good example. I’m thinking communication is a cycle of
opening spaces and closure to form relationships. If I’m on the right track, transmission
theory doesn’t just narrow our view of communication with language, but it also
skews our view about how we interact with our environment. I’m not quite there yet, but to discuss
communication without the individual mind is to discuss communication as
content relative to our existence rather than rote communicative processes.
I was frustrated when I first read Heidegger’s (n.d.) “Origin
of Work of Art.” His approach was almost
alien and it felt that he was speaking in riddles rather than writing clearly
and to the point. However, I stepped
back and re-read the essay with attention to his definitions and understanding
his point of view. It was not easy, but
this an example of being a Model Reader.
I was able to grasp his views by entering his world and suspending my
biases and preconceived notions. I bet
everyone reading this knows exactly what I’m talking about, and you know how
much effort it can take.
Habermas returned to me to Arendt’s (2007) theories on
social spheres, but with greater detail.
Habermas speaks to social and private spheres when we communicate. However, he articulates that the social and
private realms have internal standards for validating and regulating claims and
arguments. To illustrate, I believe most
of us feel free to review the reading material and interject our thoughts into
our weekly responses. We share a trust
that criticisms are aimed to question ideas, spot oversights and to generally
function as a means to deepen our understanding. Normative accords were initially placed as
standards of conduct for the classroom, but I believe most of us would form a
consensus that the standards are reasonable, they foster growth and they form a
environment that encourages participation.
Citing established thinkers validates statements and our bold mediator
keeps us track.
It also occurred to me that Arendt (2007) and Habermas form
a list of what communication is not.
Communication is not occurring when:
-
People marginalize or discard ideas without
consideration.
-
People are unable to put aside their viewpoints
to understand another.
-
When claims are not transparent and open to
validation.
-
When factual information is attacked.
-
When normative standards are skewed to favor a
particular group.
-
When questions are suppressed.
What I take from this insight is that suppressing discourse
is not communication, but furthering discourse is.
References
Arentt, R.C. (2007) Hannah Arendt: Dialectical
communicative labor. . In P.A. Arneson. Perspectives on Philosophy of
Communication (pp. 45-60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Goodnight, G.T. (2007). The Engagements of
Communication: Jurgen Habermas on discourse, critical reason, and controversy.
In P.A. Arneson. Perspectives on Philosophy of Communication (pp 91-111). West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Heidegger, M. (n.d). The
Origin of the work of art. Tiffin, OH: Tiffin University.
Radford, G. P. (2005). On the Philosophy of Communication. South
Bank, Vic., Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
No comments:
Post a Comment