Fantastic lecture! You make a very convincing point that any recitation of a text like Finnegans Wake must make a reductive selection from the multivocal plurality of the written word. Would you say that this tallies with Derrida's primacy of writing over the presumed presence of voice? In any case, in your scenario, textual hermeneutics, which delves more and more deeply into the spiral of multiple meanings, seems to take precedence over oral/aural performativity. But I would add that oral recitation does not only selectively narrow the plurivocal potentiality of the written text; rather, as sonic performativity, it adds its own ambiguities to the interaction of text and voice: in reflecting my subjectivity, my voice brings my own understandings, affects, pronunciation, melodious inflections to the same text to which your voice brings very different parameters. Indeed, as you so nicely put it, recitation allows the word to become flesh, but in the chorus of diverse human subjects, this embodiment is always plural: the word becomes fleshs!
What an astute way to put it! You’re so very right that we need not approach the oral/aural as a failed project, but one that opens up its own questions and affective potentials through a new relationship to the text! I suppose it would be correct to say this tallies with Derrida’s points, although especially after what you say about the exciting possibilities of recitation, I don’t know that we even need a primacy of one over the other. Judging the text on a written vs oral-performative level both seem valid in their own right and to being with them each unique challenges and excitements!
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Indeed, reading the text hermeneutically and speaking/listening to it are both partial (perspectival and incomplete) but supplementary modes. But since FW pushes the balance towards to the sonic side of the equation, it is one of those radically modernist texts that approaches the autonomy of absolute music while retaining many traces of representational reference. Along those lines, the English aestheticist critic Walter Pater has claimed that all the arts (literature, painting, etc.) approach the ideal of music, i.e., pure sonicity. Mallarmé, responding to the suspension of representational meaning by the Symbolist movement he headed, claimed similarly that modern poetry also tended to be music, but only almost so. I can't remember: have you done a special lecture on Joyce's love for music, not just in FW?
@ Ah yes, Joyce’s relation to Mallarmé is an oft-discussed one in Joyce criticism, so I’m glad you brought him up! I haven’t done a broader study of Joyce and music like that, just a short study of musicality in FW. That’s a great idea though!
25:41 you know, now that you mentioned it, I guess one could hack together a program that modulated the volume of a bunch of different recitations based on a random seed that changes every play. Just need a bit of code and a lot of gumption...
@@CEOofGameDev Except that randomness is precisely contrary to Joyce’s aesthetics. Joyce was still thoroughly modernist in that regard, seeking to play precise elements in concrete relationship to one another in a very intentional network. So the real challenge would be programming very specific changes in dynamics, tempi, timbre, tone, etc to best articulate the interplay of voices.
I saw the title and thought oh fuck he’s about to butcher quantum physics. It was mostly accurate especially for its use as an analogy and I think it was used well! Good job. Glad you specifically clarified against the common misinterpretation that perception itself influences particles. I sometimes feel there is some bitterness between the “hard” sciences and the “soft” sciences that ought not be there. Of course there will always be misunderstandings through omission. We can’t be experts in everything.
I will say I do think philosophy and “hard” science ought be divorced. I wouldn’t like to see the word quantum appropriated by philosophy beyond a general reference.
@@roachdoggjr6624 I’m glad my usage here was up to par! Many of my professors incorporate philosophy of science and more analytic-oriented writings into my courses considering that my university is a very popular engineering university, so I speak in the generalities merited by what little education I can claim to have on the subject. And I totally get what you mean about those who misinterpret quantum physics as a form of mystic, reality-altering perceptual powers whereby one can manifest reality. That’s obviously bs and a total bastardization. And what you say about hard vs soft sciences I totally concur with. Both have their merits and need not be opposed, but I definitely don’t want a philosophical discourse that is constantly appropriating physics terms, especially ones so easily butchered and sensationalized as “quantum”.
Fascinating. I am very much in awe of your depth and articulation. But I disagree. 😊 which is to be expected, of course, given my Hegelian reading of the Wake.
Good talk. Question: Why do folks try to say "Latino" with a faux-Spanish accent? You're speaking English, so why not say it with your own accent? It's not like you pronounce the capitol kf France as "pair-EE". You probably don't call the Big Apple "noo-YAWK". So just say "laa-TEE-noh" like the Gringo you are. No one will be offended.
@@thezieg Just prefer to give names and concepts their native pronunciation. See any of my videos on Frenchmen and you will find that I pronounce their names and concepts with a French accent - because that’s how they’re pronounced. Latino is a Spanish word, so it doesn’t hurt to give it its due pronunciation. For a lot of Spanish words it’s subconscious because I’ve had a lot of Latino friends throughout my life.
It's an English word now. You're covered. Speaking as a former professional academic in a field adjacent to yours, I can tell you it just sounds silly. Also, you should probably drop the verb "cognizing" from your vocabulary. If you're not a psychiatrist or neurologist it's not really a very meaningful term. As for the French pronunciations, as a French speaker, I can tell you that overdoing it is extremely distracting. Same with any other language. Just be an English speaker when you're speaking English. Otherwise, great work!
Fantastic lecture! You make a very convincing point that any recitation of a text like Finnegans Wake must make a reductive selection from the multivocal plurality of the written word. Would you say that this tallies with Derrida's primacy of writing over the presumed presence of voice? In any case, in your scenario, textual hermeneutics, which delves more and more deeply into the spiral of multiple meanings, seems to take precedence over oral/aural performativity. But I would add that oral recitation does not only selectively narrow the plurivocal potentiality of the written text; rather, as sonic performativity, it adds its own ambiguities to the interaction of text and voice: in reflecting my subjectivity, my voice brings my own understandings, affects, pronunciation, melodious inflections to the same text to which your voice brings very different parameters. Indeed, as you so nicely put it, recitation allows the word to become flesh, but in the chorus of diverse human subjects, this embodiment is always plural: the word becomes fleshs!
What an astute way to put it! You’re so very right that we need not approach the oral/aural as a failed project, but one that opens up its own questions and affective potentials through a new relationship to the text! I suppose it would be correct to say this tallies with Derrida’s points, although especially after what you say about the exciting possibilities of recitation, I don’t know that we even need a primacy of one over the other. Judging the text on a written vs oral-performative level both seem valid in their own right and to being with them each unique challenges and excitements!
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Indeed, reading the text hermeneutically and speaking/listening to it are both partial (perspectival and incomplete) but supplementary modes. But since FW pushes the balance towards to the sonic side of the equation, it is one of those radically modernist texts that approaches the autonomy of absolute music while retaining many traces of representational reference. Along those lines, the English aestheticist critic Walter Pater has claimed that all the arts (literature, painting, etc.) approach the ideal of music, i.e., pure sonicity. Mallarmé, responding to the suspension of representational meaning by the Symbolist movement he headed, claimed similarly that modern poetry also tended to be music, but only almost so. I can't remember: have you done a special lecture on Joyce's love for music, not just in FW?
@ Ah yes, Joyce’s relation to Mallarmé is an oft-discussed one in Joyce criticism, so I’m glad you brought him up!
I haven’t done a broader study of Joyce and music like that, just a short study of musicality in FW. That’s a great idea though!
your channel is an admirable project thanks
@@salmiak-salmiak I’m glad you like it!
25:41 you know, now that you mentioned it, I guess one could hack together a program that modulated the volume of a bunch of different recitations based on a random seed that changes every play. Just need a bit of code and a lot of gumption...
@@CEOofGameDev Except that randomness is precisely contrary to Joyce’s aesthetics. Joyce was still thoroughly modernist in that regard, seeking to play precise elements in concrete relationship to one another in a very intentional network. So the real challenge would be programming very specific changes in dynamics, tempi, timbre, tone, etc to best articulate the interplay of voices.
@@gavinyoung-philosophy that would require quite a lot more gumption than previously estimated...
Have you read Robert Anton Wilson's book on FW, "Coincidance" yet? Great stuff.
@@WhiteRussianDolls I haven’t, but I’ve heard very positive things about him as a scholar! I’ll be sure to add this to my list 😋
@ nothing ”is” everything ”seems” according to Gurdjieff. Very nice.
Cool poster bro
@@mjolninja9358 Thanks man!
I saw the title and thought oh fuck he’s about to butcher quantum physics. It was mostly accurate especially for its use as an analogy and I think it was used well! Good job. Glad you specifically clarified against the common misinterpretation that perception itself influences particles. I sometimes feel there is some bitterness between the “hard” sciences and the “soft” sciences that ought not be there. Of course there will always be misunderstandings through omission. We can’t be experts in everything.
I will say I do think philosophy and “hard” science ought be divorced. I wouldn’t like to see the word quantum appropriated by philosophy beyond a general reference.
@@roachdoggjr6624 I’m glad my usage here was up to par! Many of my professors incorporate philosophy of science and more analytic-oriented writings into my courses considering that my university is a very popular engineering university, so I speak in the generalities merited by what little education I can claim to have on the subject. And I totally get what you mean about those who misinterpret quantum physics as a form of mystic, reality-altering perceptual powers whereby one can manifest reality. That’s obviously bs and a total bastardization. And what you say about hard vs soft sciences I totally concur with. Both have their merits and need not be opposed, but I definitely don’t want a philosophical discourse that is constantly appropriating physics terms, especially ones so easily butchered and sensationalized as “quantum”.
Fascinating. I am very much in awe of your depth and articulation. But I disagree. 😊 which is to be expected, of course, given my Hegelian reading of the Wake.
Good talk. Question: Why do folks try to say "Latino" with a faux-Spanish accent? You're speaking English, so why not say it with your own accent? It's not like you pronounce the capitol kf France as "pair-EE". You probably don't call the Big Apple "noo-YAWK". So just say "laa-TEE-noh" like the Gringo you are. No one will be offended.
@@thezieg Just prefer to give names and concepts their native pronunciation. See any of my videos on Frenchmen and you will find that I pronounce their names and concepts with a French accent - because that’s how they’re pronounced. Latino is a Spanish word, so it doesn’t hurt to give it its due pronunciation. For a lot of Spanish words it’s subconscious because I’ve had a lot of Latino friends throughout my life.
It's an English word now. You're covered. Speaking as a former professional academic in a field adjacent to yours, I can tell you it just sounds silly. Also, you should probably drop the verb "cognizing" from your vocabulary. If you're not a psychiatrist or neurologist it's not really a very meaningful term.
As for the French pronunciations, as a French speaker, I can tell you that overdoing it is extremely distracting. Same with any other language. Just be an English speaker when you're speaking English.
Otherwise, great work!
I would say FW has to be read (aloud) as if you don't understand it. Then it may or may not offer up some meaning or other.