A couple of weeks ago I learnt about structuralism and post-structuralism and post-modernism. All these concepts that I did not know about and now do know about and think they are fine but not as great as some people think they are. I am now going to talk about them in a very crude and simplified way by discussing the one thing that I really took from all of this and that is language.
It is the way we talk about things that sets up power. For example the word archive evokes ideas of dust and a general boring space. This is mostly because the symbols and cultural metaphors we use to communicate the archive beyond the word are generally boring dusty spaces.
This is also why there was confusing during MDI group because different people had assigned different symbols and metaphors to words e.g. concept.
It is very frustrating that our fundamental way of communicating with each other is not very clear at all. But maybe that is because we put too much value on verbal communication. Some philosophers considering it the purest form of expression but it is not. Firstly we have different languages, then we have different dialects and slang and all of this influenced by how the individual experiences the world. However the majority of people know what this is ☁️.
Visual and kinetic communication and aural communication that is not speaking but sounds or music are also fundamental ways to communicate. In some cases it might be more fitting to communicate in a visual way or kinetic way. So limiting ourselves to writing or speaking seems a miss opportunity.
An idea has to be communicated and humans need to communicate but maybe we need to tailor the communication more both to the speaker and the audience.
I realise now that I am doing exactly what these philosophers did complain about the limitation of language through the limiting language. How very frustrating. But that is what language very frustrating.