I said a long time ago that Cheerskep's insistence that words have no intrinsic meaning but are simply signs or occasions for notions is a dead, dead horse. I think Gertude Stein, for one, made this her thesis re language about 100 years ago. We know words are not meanings. But there's a deeper issue at hand as well. Words do occasion cognitive associations that are themselves affected by language structures regarding identity and action (something IS and something Does. That "language structure" is inherently sensory, I mean it relies on the senses and incorporates the feelings generated by the senses which are then brought to consciousness in symbolic patterns or "images" (I call them metaphors, "as-if" thoughts). To the extent that the symbols in consciousness are imagined objects of IS and Do, they are a language, whether perceived as marks we call words or as image-text inventions. So words are indeed empty things but in consciousness we do imagine their imagined substitutes, with feeling. Don't take my word for it. I'm merely summarizing (probably poorly) the work of experts. Up to date experts. The ones who appreciate the new neuroscience.
WC --- On Wed, 10/22/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Synonyms" > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 9:22 AM > Cheerskep: No argument that we tend to think in words. > However.... > In this debate in which we're all to be so clear and > specific, my perception > is that you've switched the focus - from the > receiver/listener to the > speaker. It seems to me that you also introduce the process > of thinking, > which would have its own characteristics. So, the notion > which I have in > mind which I wish your mind to act upon is that you seem to > think, when > someone speaks or writes, the reader/listener's mind is > the only important > feature and the mind's activities are the whole show, > where all the meaning > comes from. Please note: in this instance I'm not > considering how one thinks > by him/her self. I would like your mind to act on the > concept of Sarah > Palin's knowledge of supreme court decisions, not the > best dog food in > America. I believe that to get your mind to consider Ms. > Palin's knowledge, > as opposed to revising your play, I must present you with > something which I > anticipate will cause your mind to be active. Having no way > of knowing you, > I must guess at what stimuli will cause your mind to go > to/consider Ms. > Palin's nature. I attempt to do that through the words > I select. > On the other hand, let us conclude that words > 'have" no meaning, > extra-mental or otherwise. How do you get me to understand > that you think > that the Phillies are much the best team in baseball as > opposed to French > philosophers being a drag on the world's ecosystem? I > suspect that you would > choose words about which you have the notion that they will > cause my mind to > associate in a predictable manner. > > Re meanings for a given person: Yes, we can never know > perfectly the meaning > any particular word may have for a given person. However, I > would submit > that few taxi passengers end up at Carnegie Hall if they > request to be taken > to Yankee Stadium. (I didn't say none, just few.) For > most intents and > purposes, most English-speaking persons have a working > knowledge of the > meanings of most words. (Oops, you would want that to read, > the minds of > most English-speaking persons associate the same meaning to > most words.) No > doubt, a range of ambiguity could be established for words > ranging from > "shoe" to "freedom". > Geoff C > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: "Synonyms" > >Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:11:43 EDT > > > >Michael writes: > > > >"Lissen up, Cheerskep. Geoff's comment is > succinct and on point. That's > >pretty much what I tried to say in my long-winded, > rococo way." > > > >Okay, I'll lissen up as Geoff writes: > > > >"I think that you undervalue the role of words. > There are a dictionary full > >of words for our minds to work on. Our minds don't > work, don't do (in terms > >of > >communicating/receiving language) until a word is > perceived. Our minds > >don't > >reach a meaning alone - it takes the stimulus of a > particular word." > > > >Let's start with the last sentence first: "Our > minds don't reach a meaning > >alone - it takes the stimulus of a particular > word." > > > >I want to believe we all agree there are no > extra-mental "meanings" -- > >i.e. > >there is no mind-independent entity that is "the > meaning of" a word. > > > >We can defend the use of the word 'meaning' in > the phrase "the meaning for > >a > >given person" when what we have in mind is the > notion that arises in the > >receiver's mind when he hears the word. > > > >Of course, the utterer of the word also had in mind a > notion, and he groped > >for a word he hoped would, when heard, occasion the > rise of a serviceably > >similar notion in the hearer's mind. If he sees a > certain feline, his > >associating > >mind links up to the word he's always associated > with cats like that. The > >word > >'tiger' comes to his mind. > > > >From which I hope you'll see Geoff's last line > is wrong because in fact a > >notion often arises in a speaker's or writer's > mind before he has "the > >words for > >it". "Let's see, how shall I say this. . > .? Hannah Arendt's assertion > >that > >"All thinking is in words. Speechless thought > cannot exist," is in my > >view > >abysmally dimwitted. > > > >Writers struggle to choose the best words -- how could > that be if their > >thoughts are in words? How could you ever mis-speak > yourself? > >Rock-climbers, chefs, > >chess-players, even tennis-players -- they're > thinking all the time, just > >not > >with words. > > > >Effectively the same mistake is articulated in > Geoff's earlier line: > > > >"Our minds don't work, don't do (in terms > of communicating/receiving > >language) until a word is perceived." > > > >Of course they do. Our minds are working constantly. > (To forestall > >irrelevant > >objection, let's say "at least while we are > conscious".) Rock-climbers, > >cooks, etc. . . > > > >"Ah, but Geoff said 'in terms of > communicating/receiving language'!" > > > >Okay if I substitute 'words' for language? > > > >So Geoff says: "Our minds don't communicate > words or receive words until a
