Once jeff wrote:
> I've got a theory about how we can detect cultural
> immersion. If a conversation contains labels which
> do not have clear opposites then the label is separating
> groups from the dominant culture.
I spent a few hours thinking about this and decided the
following:
1. All abstract groupings must have an opposite. We know
what something is by contrasting it to something else.
2. If we don't have a word for the opposite then it "may"
be part of the mainstream culture which is by definition
difficult to see due to our immersion.
This is a weaker statement and more general, but basically
the same idea.
Eric wrote:
>I guess I need a few more examples to see the general principle at work.
>It seems important to look at the purpose of the label, which is not
> always easy
>to describe or identify. The point of view it is coming from is also
>important. Someone not affected by "cultural immersion" may still use
>labels without clear opposites. Can I think of an example . . . ? . . .
>Not off hand.
I read a political magazine today looking for labels without common
opposites and found a nightmare of language use. Here are some
possible candidates:
the great unwashed
populist climate change thinkers
environmentalists
luddites
California deep thinkers
I have trouble finding a common phrase which is opposite to
these ideas. They were all used as negative groupings and
taken out of context could be transposed into positives.
Is this a sign of cultural immersion? I don't know, everything
in political magazines seems to be some form of immersion <grin>.
This gets complicated because dichotomies are part of our culture
and part of language, but i don't think they exist as we know
them. They only exist as abstractions and as ideas. You can't
touch or eat a dichotomy. Take away language and the opposites,
and dichotomies go away also. So, dichotomies exist in politics
and not in my forest. Politics is immersed in human culture
and my forest is outside. When i walk in the woods there are
no opposites or dichotomies until abstract thinking creates them.
In other words, this conversation is immersed in culture and
we are trying to describe our immersion using a tool (language)
which is immersed also.
Terry wrote:
>Perhaps you could think of some more examples for both sides of your
>distinction. I have to say I don't quite understand exactly what your
>insight is, but I'd like to hear more. I will do my best to bring in any
>previous research results that I am aware of that may be relevant,
without
>being overly academic about it.
If you can sort out my muddled thinking then have at it <grin>.
>Terry
>(Ph.D. in Linguistics, MIT, 1976)
Didn't Noam Chomsky teach at MIT? Chomsky has probably written
a book on this topic.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.teleport.com/~kowens
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
