Michael,
I think you underestimate the power of a squiggle on someone's mind.
mando
On Oct 21, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Michael Brady wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 3:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much muddlement, and all yours, not mine.
I concede that words have no animate power, they can't literally do
anything, whether it's provoking or prodding or pointing. Of
course, that stuff is metaphoric language in action.
Through these many messages and discussions, it seems that you hold
a firm position that the receiver's mind forms all the meanings
from whatever is taken in, and you seem to acknowledge that nothing
inheres in the things that pass between sender and receiver. In
fact, in a previous message, you rejected the notion that words
were "coded" and "decoded" in the process of verbal communications.
I claim that some human artifacts--words, pictures, sculptures,
etc.--are so formed that they convey to the receiver [the means by
which the receiver reconstructs] a notion of what the sender put
into formal arrangements.
I am not sure why you resist the idea that the words contain the
means to bring this about. Why do you say that words don't
"provoke" a thought, but a pin prick can "occasion" a cry of
"Ouch!" Does the verb "occasion" change the activity that happens?
None of the more careful writers and thinkers on this list
mistakenly believes that the little black squiggles on a page
actually point to something inside your head, or speak aloud, or
tap you on the shoulder to get your attention. I think most list
members do agree that words cause you or me or them to think of a
fairly limited range of notions, and the more careful the writer,
the more focused the direction the words point, and the more
careful the reader, the more closely limited the range of notions
("meanings") they call to mind.
Let's go back to a point I brought up a long time ago. How is it
possible to unearth the "meaning" of Linear B but not of Linear A?
"Unearth" is, of course, a pun. Perhaps I should say "decrypt" or
"decipher" (but not "decode")? How is it possible for the scholars
to *know* that they have succeeded, if that happens with Linear A?
Not, how do they know that the proposed deciphered message is
accurate or true, but that the script retained that "meaning" all
these years?
Something has to reside in the words, separately from what the
maker and reader think, something there in the incised stone or
clay tablets. You seem to dispute that or to diminish its
importance and the kind of role the words play, preferring instead
to continually take into custody and haul away every instance of
reified action ascribed to those pointing and provoking words.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
