Interesting dictionaries Gabby. You actually sound a bit like Luhmann in this tense and grammar version. We could send all our messages to you in order to get the genuine and objective version of whatever we meant to say, though I'm sure you might resist the censorship implications of the new Gabbledegook. Understanding transitions from sensual to intellectual and various aspects of nuance has long been part of racist and classist presupposition in intelligence.
The verstehen problematic includes the idea that we should not expect to treat language in our theoretical expectations, as 'naive' participants have their own assumptions and hypotheses of which researchers themselves may be ignorant. One thus goes for more 'ethno' approaches such as ethnomethodology. The literature is generally boring, not unlike dictionaries. I suppose we enter the learning hoping to stand on the shoulders of giants, but few enter these educational processes on a voluntary basis. Science, with its objective outcomes, should be easy to teach, yet is not. In Chris' 'strip the language for easy interpretation' terms, what could be easier than teaching people simple standardisation like "measuring a meniscus"? You can demonstrate the doing to explain the word and necessary actions. Now send the little dears off to do some titration. Simples! Yet much gets in the way even of this kind of simple instruction. Many kids aren't even considered fit to enter the laboratory and, indeed, even fit to have such simple pointed instruments as a compass to learn a bit of geometry (owing to stabbings, self-harm and so on). Gabby's spin is a delight, even if I get a vision of her standing with two feet in a rabbit hole, and was waiting for the barb at the end, which came here with a smile. AI can catch these patterns. Most of us in this game have noticed we are after machine intelligence because we despair of the glib internet world Francis describes.and that defeasible logic loses all beauty contests with Chris holding up a craft beer. The despair on human rationality and the libidinal biologically bound trivial is a motivator, perhaps once found in science cutting out the Idols Gabby has an undeclared better version of she has forgotten, in trying to get machines to do what humans have always failed at - argument properly informed by Reason and 'big data' approaches not constrained to selling us another planet-burning widget. One thing I think we have been very bad at is grasping frames of ideology, including why people generally act in them. This was the big theme in both Luhmann and Habermas, who did nothing on how we might live without the violence of poverty and needing to make livings. There is no grasp of Gabby as the existential cash girl she described herself as. One can model all of us in fuzzy sets on such lines, not unlike her idea of the trace of people's histories to the 'moment'. Socrates was described by his wife as a good-looking waster, not much good at putting food on the family table and helping with childcare. We neglect what argument is and why anyone else would want to listen to it. The dogs watch me, concerned only that I finish and enter their rationality of being off the lead along the riverbank. There is an old joke about standing in something on both feet. This is a punishment in hell, standing in excrement up to one's neck. This, of course, is for the tea break. One spends the rest of the day standing on one's hands. On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 12:54:25 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: > > What a question, Francis! Here is basically everything you can get about > "verstehen" in ist linguistic context: > > http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=verstehen > > I guess you are interested in the tipping point when the sensuous meaning > "I am standing in this with both my feet" transgressed to the field where > it became an expression for the process of intellectual comprehension: > > in-stân besagt 'in einem gegenstande stehen, fuszen, zuhause sein', >> under-standen, under-stân 'dazwischen d. h. mitten darin stehen'. wenn nun >> noch, ob auch ganz vereinzelt, ein nhd. bestehen (th. 1, 1672) in demselben >> sinne gebraucht wird, so würde es die anschauung vertreten 'einen >> gegenstand umstehen, bestehen, in seiner gewalt haben' (ahd. bi-standan >> vgl. umbi-: griech. ἀμφι-). von diesem ausgangspunkte läszt sich der >> übergang von dem sinnlichen auf das geistige gebiet verstehen, wie uns die >> ähnlich entwickelten bildungen be-greifen und ver-nehmen noch heute >> semasiologisch durchsichtig sind. > > > > You can also see what the "ver"-prefix can do and has done to the root > words and vice versa: http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=ver > > > And to do something "aus Versehen" would be an example of how an educated > Minds Eyer would justify their mistake. ;) > > 2015-03-03 18:56 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: > >> I and I sometimes overstand. Sometimes don't! And does *ver-stehen *have >> the same relationship to standing as *sich vertun *has to doing? >> >> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:36:22 PM UTC+1, Gabby wrote: >>> >>> Cheers Francis! >>> >>> Schonhaltung or schon Haltung. The break makes the difference. And your >>> medical knowledge bridges the gap. >>> >>> Actually "overs", short form of "overstand", was my initial key word >>> that got me looking deeper/higher into language construction long time ago. >>> I was deeply impressed by what I had learned about Jamaican itations and >>> Rastafari poltitical poetry. In your case the ability to do religious >>> contextualization of language items certainly helps when studying >>> Kulturwissenschaften. Viel Erfolg! >>> >>> 2015-03-03 17:15 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> I'm still here - in some sense anyway. More passive, thoughtful, >>>> watching, listening and thinking. As they say on Facebook; it's >>>> complicated. There's such a volume of *stuff *out on the web now that >>>> I find my reluctance to contribute to it growing ever stronger in the past >>>> years. Do I have anything to say that thousands are others aren't saying? >>>> Is any attempt we make to say something not drowned out in a cacophony of >>>> of puppies, selfies, mindless chatter and incivility? In a world where >>>> significance seems to have become dependent on reduction to a viral >>>> hash-tagged tweet, or a five-second video on Vine, what happens to depth, >>>> complexity, the possibility of real interaction? Has communication finally >>>> reduced itself to atomic brevity and superficiality? Otherwise - tl;dr. >>>> >>>> "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, >>>> plausible, and wrong." What Menken actually said was a little different; >>>> "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a >>>> well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong" >>>> (*The >>>> Divine Afflatus*, 1917). Even within the same language quotational >>>> drift occurs. Interpretative drift is a constitutive element of discourse. >>>> Our communication is always a hit-and-miss thing, or maybe, better, a >>>> constantly creative process. What you say, what I understand. Each of us >>>> culturally in our own particular place, but sharing enough to bring some >>>> kind of communication into being - a wonderful, organic, continually >>>> self-creating kind of thing, with all sorts of levels, eddies, >>>> side-effects. An orchestral symphonic symbolic performance of memes and >>>> tropes. And that's just when it's carried out between people who "share" a >>>> common language. >>>> >>>> Accurate, one-to-one translation/conveyance of meaning is impossible; >>>> even between two speakers of the same language. Communication becomes >>>> something else, something independent. The German theorist, Niklas >>>> Luhmann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann>, has some >>>> interesting ideas in this area. It's a deeply counter-intuitive way of >>>> seeing things - and useful as an instrument to challenge one's own >>>> assumptions, even if you don't go all the way with him. >>>> >>>> Nobody - as far as I know - has translated Luhmann's major works from >>>> German into English. Understandably - it's hard enough trying to figure >>>> out >>>> what exactly he's saying in one language without trying to express it in >>>> another, and when you move to his discussions and arguments with >>>> Habermas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas> (another >>>> German master of the complicated obtuse) ... forgeddaboudit! >>>> >>>> Though translation programmes have improved in the past decade, they're >>>> still a long way from being good. Because "meaning"/"sense" is always >>>> contextual (human subjective contextual), therefore always fluid and >>>> shifting. This is more than just "fuzzy logic." I suspect we will need >>>> genuine AI as the basis of operating systems to make them really work. Two >>>> people from different lingusitic backrounds with very limited vocabularies >>>> can communicate better - agree that they have achieved some kind of >>>> understanding - than a programme which has access to comprehensive >>>> dictionaries. >>>> >>>> For the past months I've been formally studying - in the academic sense >>>> - in German. *Kulturwissenschaft *at that. It's a weird experience - >>>> there's stuff I can understand better in English, other stuff works better >>>> in German. There isn't even a good translation of the subject I'm doing my >>>> Masters in. A literal English translation of *Kulturwissenschaft *would >>>> be "cultural science" but English academia generally calls it "cultural >>>> studies." Which, when you think about it, means something else. Well, it's >>>> a post-modernist phenomenon anyway, which, arguably, allows one to be >>>> multidimensional with reference to meaning! >>>> >>>> And sometimes it can be enormously productive to take an ordinary, >>>> everyday word in a particular language and twist it, mine it, pummel it, >>>> *rape >>>> *it, alienate it. Poets do this all the time. Sometimes even academics >>>> (a pretty mediocre lot for the most part) manage it. The use of the German >>>> word *Verstehen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen> *["to >>>> understand"] is one example. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 01:56:27 UTC+1 schrieb Chris Jenkins: >>>>> >>>>> Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, war >>>>> durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere Emotionen? Die >>>>> digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich vorstellen, wenn >>>>> sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung? >>>>> >>>>> Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig >>>>> brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, wenn >>>>> sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte >>>>> verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; wenn >>>>> sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer >>>>> anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu >>>>> kommunizieren? >>>>> >>>>> Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben Einblick >>>>> Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die so viel Zeit >>>>> in >>>>> einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache verbracht hat, zu >>>>> finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit sie in >>>>> englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, ob >>>>> ich >>>>> einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden >>>>> meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>> topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
