Comments on: James Madison on the Inadequateness of Language http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/ Exploring Mormon culture in a balanced way Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:09:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15757 hawkgrrrl Tue, 13 May 2008 22:47:38 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15757 SteveS - "what place does the concept have in Mormon theology, one that focuses so often on the physicality, the experiential, the artifactual." Sounds like great post fodder. Not sure I'm the one to tackle it, but that's a good one. SteveS - “what place does the concept have in Mormon theology, one that focuses so often on the physicality, the experiential, the artifactual.” Sounds like great post fodder. Not sure I’m the one to tackle it, but that’s a good one.

]]> By: Bruce Nielson http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15753 Bruce Nielson Tue, 13 May 2008 22:29:59 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15753 in·ad·e·qua·cy 1. Also, in·ad·e·quate·ness the state or condition of being inadequate; insufficiency. in·ad·e·qua·cy
1. Also, in·ad·e·quate·ness the state or condition of being inadequate; insufficiency.

]]> By: Benjamin O http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15720 Benjamin O Tue, 13 May 2008 17:29:20 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15720 By the way, shouldn't it by 'inadequacy' instead of 'inadequateness'? By the way, shouldn’t it by ‘inadequacy’ instead of ‘inadequateness’?

]]> By: Jason http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15698 Jason Tue, 13 May 2008 15:34:45 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15698 "Sadly this quote also reveals that we have regressed in the complexity and exactness of our language." All languages change. You can be as precise as you want to this day, you just have to use different words. Unfortunately, within a generation, what you thought exact will likely no longer be so due to natural changes in the language. (Witness the change of the definition of the word "perfect" over the last 200 years.) “Sadly this quote also reveals that we have regressed in the complexity and exactness of our language.”

All languages change. You can be as precise as you want to this day, you just have to use different words. Unfortunately, within a generation, what you thought exact will likely no longer be so due to natural changes in the language. (Witness the change of the definition of the word “perfect” over the last 200 years.)

]]> By: Cicero http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15682 Cicero Tue, 13 May 2008 05:31:52 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15682 Sadly this quote also reveals that we have regressed in the complexity and exactness of our language. Sadly this quote also reveals that we have regressed in the complexity and exactness of our language.

]]> By: SteveS http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15679 SteveS Tue, 13 May 2008 03:31:47 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15679 "Hawkgrrrl, I’ve always read “things that could not be written” as meaning inexpressible." Now I'm having Kantian flashbacks. Have there been posts talking about Mormons and the sublime? Catholics seem to have the corner on sublimity; what place does the concept have in Mormon theology, one that focuses so often on the physicality, the experiential, the artifactual. “Hawkgrrrl, I’ve always read “things that could not be written” as meaning inexpressible.”

Now I’m having Kantian flashbacks. Have there been posts talking about Mormons and the sublime? Catholics seem to have the corner on sublimity; what place does the concept have in Mormon theology, one that focuses so often on the physicality, the experiential, the artifactual.

]]> By: Benjamin O http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15677 Benjamin O Tue, 13 May 2008 01:57:30 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15677 Ray, I've always gone both routes on that one--that as things are inexpressible by language that it is largely because they are sacred enough in character that we have not developed language to deal with them. It may seem circular, but if they were not so sacred, and were indeed more vulgar (meaning in this instance common or less rare, or better known), then language would have developed to express them, and they would not be inexpressible. Speaking from a socio-linguistic psychological perspective, of course. Ray, I’ve always gone both routes on that one–that as things are inexpressible by language that it is largely because they are sacred enough in character that we have not developed language to deal with them.

It may seem circular, but if they were not so sacred, and were indeed more vulgar (meaning in this instance common or less rare, or better known), then language would have developed to express them, and they would not be inexpressible. Speaking from a socio-linguistic psychological perspective, of course.

]]> By: Ray http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15667 Ray Mon, 12 May 2008 22:51:49 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15667 Great quote. Hawkgrrrl, I've always read "things that could not be written" as meaning inexpressible. Great quote. Hawkgrrrl, I’ve always read “things that could not be written” as meaning inexpressible.

]]> By: hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15661 hawkgrrrl Mon, 12 May 2008 22:03:22 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15661 Thinking about Mike Tea's response to your other post, I think this is a helpful recap of the problem. indistinctness of the object - To say that any religion has a clearly defined perspective of what or who God is would be gross oversimplification. imperfection of the organ of conception - we're not smart enough to grasp the true concept of God. inadequateness of the vehicle of ideas - language fails us when we try. I have often wondered on this last one at the scriptures that say someone witnessed things that could not be written. There's a potential double meaning in that: 1) they were commanded not to share what they saw due to its sacredness, or 2) they are incapable of expressing what they saw given the limits of language. Thinking about Mike Tea’s response to your other post, I think this is a helpful recap of the problem.

indistinctness of the object - To say that any religion has a clearly defined perspective of what or who God is would be gross oversimplification.
imperfection of the organ of conception - we’re not smart enough to grasp the true concept of God.
inadequateness of the vehicle of ideas - language fails us when we try.

I have often wondered on this last one at the scriptures that say someone witnessed things that could not be written. There’s a potential double meaning in that: 1) they were commanded not to share what they saw due to its sacredness, or 2) they are incapable of expressing what they saw given the limits of language.

]]> By: Bruce Nielson http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15659 Bruce Nielson Mon, 12 May 2008 21:44:50 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15659 Perspicuity: clearness or lucidity, as of a statement. —Synonyms 1. clarity, plainness, intelligibility. Kinda ironic, isn't it? ;) But I still love this quote. It's just awesome. Perspicuity: clearness or lucidity, as of a statement. —Synonyms 1. clarity, plainness, intelligibility.

Kinda ironic, isn’t it? ;)
But I still love this quote. It’s just awesome.

]]> By: Zelph http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15656 Zelph Mon, 12 May 2008 21:39:55 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15656 Keep in mind that God did not invent words, humans did. Keep in mind that God did not invent words, humans did.

]]> By: Mo' Betta http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15654 Mo' Betta Mon, 12 May 2008 21:37:10 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15654 I got lost in the quote at "perspicuity." I got lost in the quote at “perspicuity.”

]]> By: UbuntuFan http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/12/james-madison-on-the-inadequateness-of-language/#comment-15640 UbuntuFan Mon, 12 May 2008 20:32:03 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=471#comment-15640 This very quote is an example of the inadequateness of language. This very quote is an example of the inadequateness of language.

]]>