You don't need to keep my busy --- I'm already too busy to continue this discussion.
I don't have all the answers to your questions. For the ones I do have answers, I'm afraid I don't have the time to explain them to your satisfaction. Pei On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I should be supplying a detailed argument that in effect deals with this > soon. However just to keep you busy :) - > here is a v. cool website: > > http://www.citrinitas.com/history_of_viscom/index.html > > tracing the history of communication. Perhaps you'd like to set out how > logic can explain the invention of ONE SINGLE form of symbolic > communication - from pictograms to cuneiform, ideograms, Greek alphabet, . > etc. right down to the a's and b's of logic, x's and y's of algebra, and > 1's and 0's of computers. How, pace Saussure, do you come to associate > "TREE" or "ARBRE" or any of the thousands of equivalent words in different > languages, with the actual object, with branches and leaves, that they refer > to? There is no connection, nothing for logic to work on at all. There is > no physical or other relation between the signifier and the signified. Every > symbolic system is entirely *arbitrary.* How were they arrived at? All those > "A"'s and "B"'s and "C"'s (without which you couldn't function > intellectually). By acts of *imagination* / pure imaginative association. > > I suspect - and correct me - that you haven't thought much at all about this > whole area of imaginative and visual reasoning - i.e. how one image is drawn > from another, or how someone delineates a drawing of an object from the > object itself. How, say, do you get from a human face to the distorted > portraits of Modigliani, Picasso, Francis Bacon, Scarfe, or any cartoonist? > By logical or mathematical formulae? Which parts of the face do logic or > semantic networks tell you to highlight or leave out or transpose or smudge > or overlay, or what to blur, and what to sharpen? Which of the continuously > changing expressions on a person's face does logic tell you are most > representative of their personality? > > And just as you are blind to the imaginative basis of all symbolic forms, so > you are blind to the imaginative basis of the whole of science and > technology - how,. other than by an act of supreme imagination, do you > think Descartes invented coordinate geometry? (no coordinates or axes in > nature) or Archimedes thought of measuring irregular solids (no baths or > water containers classified under "measuring instruments"?) And blind too to > the imaginative basis of all reasoning, period, including logic. But your > reply has been v. helpful. > > P.S. I'm starting to get it here - you can't ahem imagine that one image > (and therefore conclusion) can be drawn/reasoned from another. You in effect > think that if you see an erection bulging through a trouser, the reason you > know that person is sexually excited is because there is a semantic, > symbolic network in your head - "ERECTION" - "SEXUAL" - "SIGN OF > EXCITEMENT" that you use to reason here. No, it's because you've seen direct > sensory images of (concealed) erections connected (via observation) with > other sensory images of excited faces. And when you have sex, you will > engage in thousands of other comparable acts of imaginative reasoning. At > this stage, you will be probably thinking, "well, "ERECTION" "EXCITEMENT" > etc - why couldn't there be such a semantic network in my head?" Well, > actually there could be for that particular one (in addition to the > imaginative connection). But there couldn't be for most of the others. How, > for example, does a partner's panting tell you when they're excited (and not > just heavily breathing)? That and most of your sexual reasoning (and indeed > reasoning for day-to-day activities) will come under Polanyi's "tacit > knowledge." Not under "Pei's Logical Rules of Sex." Entirely imaginative > observations of which object movements/behaviour follow upon which other > ones. Entirely "drawn" conclusions. (We obviously need something like an > Encyclopaedia/ Movie Library of Tacit/Imaginative Knowledge - it's vast. How > do you know Madonna is a toughie just from her face? - you do but it's > imaginative knowledge and you probably don't have the words to hand to > explain. And ditto for most of your knowledge about human beings and > animals). > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
