"What's happening here is that the Other person is refining your actions, until they meet the requirements of the game, i.e., in our analogy, making adjustments in the "meaning" of your words until they seem to conform to what is desired. This,I think, is the way normal intelligent, even technically detailed, communication occurs." Michael Brady
In art, this would result in something realistic that would communicate exactness minus the aesthetic signature of each individual. mando On Aug 26, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Michael Brady wrote: > On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:15 AM, William Conger wrote: > >> We project this ineffable state to the object and assume it is >> intrinsic to it. We cannot do otherwise. Yes, we can stand before >> something and say, "it's my own sensation that I project to the >> object," but even as we say that our minds have concluded that the >> object (as if) exudes the sensation we have felt. If such were >> not the case we'd have no use for pronouns, as one example, which >> require us to admit the otherness of the world. > > Here's an analogy: > > Extend your arm and supinate your palm. When you do that, you > (probably) say to yourself consciously, "I'll stick out my arm with > the palm up." But in order to do this, your brain must direct all > of the small, intermediate actions that produce that result. It > must tell your deltoid to contract, in order to raise your arm, and > then the triceps to increase their tension and maintain their > contraction, in order to keep your forearm extended, and the > brachioradialis to supinate the arm, and the various flexor muscles > to relax while the extensors contract, in order to open your fist > and allow the fingers to point outward, etc. > > In other words, you imagine a future action--putting your arm out, > palm up--and then do it, almost as if your thinking of the result > is equivalent to actually making the gesture. This is akin to the > routine use of language that speaks as if words "have > meanings" (when we know they really don't). All of the unconscious > and subconscious actions your body takes (not merely the ones I > mentioned, but others that involve maintaining balance, e.g.) > completely subsumed as your stretch out your arm. You cannot extend > your arm merely by think those words, but it is the *only way* for > you to accomplish the feat--unless you are praeternaturally gifted > with the ability to consciously direct each muscle to act, such a > rare ability (if possible at all) that, for all intents and > purposes and for all people, the two things (thinking of doing it > and actually making the gesture) are the same thing, or fully > equivalent. > > Now, to pursue the analogy a bit further, let's say the entire > event went this way: > > [Playing the hand-slapping dexterity and reaction game:; > > Other - "Okay, my turn first, Stick out your hand." > You - [You stick out your right hand, palm up.] > Other - "Oops, sorry. I meant with your palm down." > You - [You turn your palm over.] > Other - "Curl our fingers a bit so you can touch my palm." > > Etc. > > What's happening here is that the Other person is refining your > actions, until they meet the requirements of the game, i.e., in our > analogy, making adjustments in the "meaning" of your words until > they seem to conform to what is desired. This,I think, is the way > normal intelligent, even technically detailed, communication occurs. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
