On Oct 21, 2008, at 11:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"At some point, in some way, a notion similar to a notion that was
in my head
was caused to arise in yours. How did that happen? The only way,
short of
telepathy, is via speech or writingb&"
I'll buy that (though I might add gestures, expressions, drawings
etc). But
you go on: "b&and those words possess the
capacity to in-form."
The notion behind "capacity" there is muddled. It suggests the
ability "to
do" something.
In your head, not in mine!
This is a perfect example to demonstrate that you ascribe "muddles"
pretty generously to others, even when the muddling is entirely your
doing.
I chose that particular word, "capacity," so that it would inform you
(form a notion in your thought) that I "meant" the concept of "to
hold, to contain," which is the root of "capacity" (cf, "capacious,"
meaning "having lots of space") and NOT "capable," having an ability,
i.e., "to do"--which seems to be the notion your thoughts glommed on to.
I believe that words inform, that they impart form to the reader or
listener.
We are stuck at this point:
In a conversation with you, I, the originator, conjure up a notion.
Then a tertium quid occurs. Then you, the apprehender, form a notion
in your head. After that, something happens between us (a gesture, a
facial expression, spoken words). We leave with the suspicion that my
notion and your notion are very similar (or wholly dissimilar, you
dummkopf).
What was that tertium quid?
Let's suppose that we meet again later, and we investigate what
happened before, whether you got it or not. So we look at (or listen
to) the tertium quid. How can we feel reasonably--and guess what? Its
form hasn't changed (written, recored, whatever). It can still impart
some kind of stimulation that causes your notion to be recreated.
Here's another idea:
I've tried to imagine a situation in which a single spoken expression
means *entirely different* things to two different speakers. That is,
listener A, who speaks language A, understands those sounds to "mean"
one thing, and listener B, who speaks language B, understands the very
same sounds to mean an entirely different "meaning." (BTW, I don't
mean a single word or two, whose sounds can be identical to the
totally unrelated words in another language. I'm thinking of lengthy
utterances and conversations or exchanges.) This is very hard to even
remotely fathom, much less recreate imaginatively in any persuasive
way. The uniqueness of a complete utterance in one language is almost
a guaranteed condition.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
