Nancy

This week the lecture focused upon Listening which was a nice follow on from Silence. The writing style however was much denser. The thoughts in it were more confused and the reasoning unclear. I think this reflects the subject. The distinctions between something like listening and hearing are small and not easy to define. Nancy points out that language itself is failing him at some points. The way in which he struggles to convey with language what he is trying to express further enforces his meaning. The lack of clarity forces you to study it closer to find its meaning. This gives his idea that once written, language lacks the potency of the spoken word.

For me it would be interesting if his work to listen to his work. It quite possibly would have made more sense. Would it have been possible to do this well? Or would it no longer be philosophy? Nancy considers language in relation to the visual as well as audio. It is interesting to consider this in terms of typography. Designers spend a very long time adjusting the minute differences in types shape and style. It is much harder to find examples in audio. Poetry, particularly concrete poetry is a great example of the language and visuals combining to create meaning.

However this is not to say that the visual is more powerful than audio. The visual as Nancy points out is much more limiting. When you listen to something you can discern many more things from it than you can from one image. The timbre of someones voice can convey much more than their words written down. Music also can transport the listener to another world, the imagery imagined limitless. Where as the visual has a clear meaning and end. There are certain advantages to audio in books as well. The audio book for example uses introduction music to great effect. This snippet of music at the beginning conveys far more about the story than the front cover.

I disagree with some of Nancy's notions. He places too little emphasis on the power of imagery. He suggests that imagery can not provoke emotion but I would argue that it certainly can. I don't dispute that audio is very powerful in causing emotion however. A horror movie for example, when watched with no sound lacks fear and tension. But Nancy's view of the aural as an absolute I would continue to dispute. I think it is very difficult to separate these two senses.