biden: public language private meaning?

Is speech immaterial to meaning? Is there a self-defeating impossibility of public discourse and are meaning of strings of words simply a ritual in the community sense of the argument? The only way to substantiate the dialog coming from a Joe Biden is to place his this public speaking phenomenon/spectacle within the context of a Wittgenstein. We could say that for a public language, the words “private sensation” are irrelevant, not surprising since language is public. Are Biden’s private sensations so overpowering  and do things, or events, to which the phrase “private sensation” attempt to refer, exist?Is Biden in the grip of linguistic forces he does not understand?

Read More: ---After David Greybeard proved that chimps could make tools, scientists scrambled to establish another dividing line between man and primate. This time, they decreed it to be the use of language. One avid proponent of the new theory was Noam Chomsky, renowned linguist at MIT. Chomsky derided trainers for attempting to teach sign language to primates and insisted that only the human mind is capable of grasping the complexities of language syntax.---

If so, can we devise ways to comprehend Biden’s private language, something evidently not part of the everyday public language, for referring to them? The key  question is whether the notion of a language “which only I myself can understand” can be accorded any substantial meaning to begin with. Perhaps Biden is a first mover, a key to Chomsky linguistic theories of universal communication across cultural divides.Or, where Nim Chimsky failed….

The other option is to regard Biden as a form of populist commercial art show style Warhol. The reproduction of his gaffes on a near commercial basis does serve the cult of celebrityAs Warhol’s populist commercial art shows, reproduction serves the cult of the celebrity, both as person and a product; commercial export. He is a peculiarly personal commercial product, one with evident crowd pleasing personality. Think Warhol’s crowd art. I liken Biden to a mode of spectacle art that meshes seamlessly into Adorno’s concept of the culture industry where the vice-president is anchored into the realities financial markets and mass culture. For Adorno, art was a victim of mechanical reproduction, and with Biden’s performances disseminated across multiple media platforms,- like Henry Jenkins “if it doesn’t spread its dead”- he is also an agent and mode of deception like all reproduction.

Still, we all enjoy privileged membership in the society of the spectacle, like Guy Debord and his commodity within market based society.  Warhol, who  rather ingeniously self-titled himself a “business artist” business artist, was also a sought-after celebrity artist. Like Biden’s public performances, Warhol was also  a servant of the society of the spectacle;an artist who, like it, much preferred appearance to reality, like Biden and politics in general, and who glorified appearance at the expense of reality. Like Biden and almost all Western political classes, appearance is used to  obscure and deny reality.As Debord so intuitively saw,  the society of the spectacle is our postmodern society, the dominant culture that has somewhat cowardly surrendered a claim up on external and internal reality. Everything is treated, manipulated and shaped as a codified appearance devoid of aesthetic content. Can we blame it on Marcel Duchamp?

---Does the ruling out of memory-scepticism as irrelevant to the private language argument mean that two associated Orthodox objections to it are likewise irrelevant? The first of these is that the argument, self-defeatingly, rules out a public language as well. The second relies on the ‘community view’ interpretation: it is that the argument, equally self-defeatingly, rules out as impossible something perfectly conceivable: namely, the case of a so-called ‘Robinson Crusoe’, a human being who, unlike Defoe's original Crusoe, is isolated from birth but devises a language for his own purposes without his having first been taught another language by someone else. ---Read More: image:

Language must be a public device and there can be no private languages that refer only to an individual’s private sensations. This is because private sensations cannot be adequately categorised without external criteria. A person using their own private language would find themselves introducing new rules whenever needed, and for Wittgenstein, a game in which anything could be included as a rule is no longer a game. Such languages would be impossible to teach to others, and therefore would not be languages.( Silby)

Vice President Joe Biden’s talent for using many words to say little or nothing — or worse — was never more conspicuously displayed than during his trip to China.

At Sichuan University on Sunday, after Biden delivered a 4,600-word speech, a student asked him about the importance of public speaking. “That is a very good question,” Biden said — as he launched into an 863-word answer….

---Sept 2008 Addressing Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham at a campaign event, Mr Biden shouted: "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." Sen Graham is in a wheelchair. When he realised his mistake Mr Biden said: "Oh, God love ya. What am I talking about?" Read More: image:

…In the midst of those 863 words, Biden paid a tribute to brevity — in an incoherent sentence of 68 words.Read More:http:

“The White House transcribed this Bidenesque brilliance as follows:

“And so language, the ability not only to master the ability to put your ideas into words succinctly on a platform to communicate ideas to your own people, it is even more impressive when you have the capacity to do that and communicate your ideas, especially as future business and political and moral leaders of the world in the language of the people to whom you are speaking.” Read More:

---Sept 2008 Muddling his facts in an interview with Katie Couric, Mr Biden said that after the 1929 stock market crash, Franklin D. Roosevelt appeared on television to address the nation. However, Roosevelt wasn't president in 1929 and television was still in an experimental phase. ---Read More: image:

Earlier today Politico broke the astonishing story of Joe Biden supporting the charge by Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania that Tea Party Republicans had “acted like terrorists” over the debt issue. According to Politico’s report, based on eyewitness accounts:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit. Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting….

---Guo Jian | The day before I went away (from ‘The day before I went away’ series) 2008 | Purchased 2008. The Queensland Government's Gallery of Modern Art Acquisitions Fund | Collection: Queensland Art Gallery---Read More:

…“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room. Read More:


---Terrace, a small, mustachioed man with a huge ego, had named the little creature Nim Chimpsky — a pun on Noam Chomsky, the famous thinker who insisted that only humans have the capacity for language -He'd go 'into attack'... he had to draw blood- However, Terrace thought differently and had chosen Stephanie LaFarge, a former student and lover, to bring up Nim in the large Manhattan townhouse she shared with her self-confessed ‘rich hippy’ writer husband, Wer, and their seven children. But it was a disastrous decision — Stephanie never bothered trying to discipline Nim. She did not take any notes on the experiment and did not keep a log of Nim’s progress, but she did breastfeed him and give him alcohol and puffs on her cannabis joints. He was encouraged to lay waste to their expensive home and wind up his rival for her affections, Stephanie’s husband. Home movie footage shows the little creature, a blur of black and white in his romper suit, charging around as Stephanie recounts dreamily how she let him explore her naked body as he moved into puberty. ‘I never felt sexually engaged with him,’ she recalls, which is a blessing at least. Yes, it certainly was the Seventies. Read more:

“At the same event, Biden congratulated Sichuan University for counting “amongst its alumni some of the most illustrious figures in recent Chinese history.” He then hailed Sichuan’s late graduate Zhu De as “one of the most illustrious figures and a founding father of the republic.”

Zhu De, in fact, was the commander of the People’s Liberation Army and a full partner with Chairman Mao in transforming the world’s most populous nation into a communist dictatorship. “Zhu De was one of the most important members of the CPC’s first generation of leading collective with Mao Zedong at the core,” says the Communist Party of China Encyclopedia….

---His conduct is hugely embarrassing for the second most powerful figure at the helm of the world’s only superpower. There is a fundamental difference between robust political debate and labeling your opponents as enemies of the state and proponents of violence. Joe Biden has clearly overstepped the line with his comments, and brought the office of the vice president into disrepute. His actions today are symbolic of a White House that increasingly looks bitter, crass and petty in its behaviour as public opinion moves firmly against it.---Read More: image:

…This “founding father of the republic,” as Biden called him, was a key figure in a regime that outlawed the Roman Catholic Church to which Biden himself belongs.

While lauding Chinese communists in China, Biden was tongue-tied in trying to explain the greatness of America and our people.

“It’s hard to define what an American is,” Biden said in his speech at Sichuan. And apparently it is too hard for Biden.” Read More:

---the New York Times looks at the enduring allure of Qianlong among China’s newly wealthy — many of whom are just now joining the ranks of China’s burgeoning new collectors — and concludes that the global pursuit of particular historical items at auction comes down to the perception among wealthy Chinese that these pieces are more than just valuable investments but also “glamorous badges of identity.” From the article: The most surprising displays of extravaganza took place in Hong Kong, where Sotheby’s was selling works of art carefully selected to appeal to the new wave of super-rich Chinese buyers whose eagerness for objects made for past emperors knows no financial limits. Art is not really the issue. Objects that would hardly have caused a stir three decades ago are fought over with the kind of fervor that the faithful showed when going after relics in another age.---Read More:

This entry was posted in Feature Article, Ideas/Opinion, Marketing/Advertising/Media, Music/Composition/Performance and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *