[Krimel] How could anyone possibly give you an example of a thought not dictated by grammar or words? How would the thought be conveyed?
[Arlo] Did you ever have a thought that was not "in words"? Now, of course you've had "gut feelings" and "aesthetic experiences" that are pre-verbal, pre-intellectual, pre-semiotic, I grant that. But that's my point... "intellectualization" comes about as that experience is coded in words, "thought" is entirely semiotic (I'll stray from using "linguistic" for now), and in the process of moving from "pre-semiotic" to "semiotic" we force the pre-semiotic experience into the structure provided by our semiotic repertoire. This is an unavoidable and ubiquitous process of "selection" (to use Pirsig's notion). We simply cannot think outside our semiotic system (language, mostly). How could we? [Krimel] Language facilitates thought. It makes certain kinds of thought possible that might not be otherwise. But it seems to me that language reveals the structure of thought more than it dictates the structure of thought. Or at least this is a two way interaction. [Arlo] Yes, it is a two-way interaction. Language is not dead. It grows. The act of semiosis (translating the pre-intellectual into the intellectual) mutates both the pre-intellectual AND the intellectual. They way we conceive of our pre-intellectual experiences is mutated the moment we encapsulate it in words, and our intellectual system is mutated as novel pre-intellectual experiences are so encoded. But these mutations occur within a structurated trajectory. On top of this, language is social. As part of the social world we live in, we are constantly negotiating and affirming the semiotic structure we deploy. Also keep in mind that "verbal" is great is you are thinking in the post-modern "everything is a text", Derridan sense. But if we are using the more traditional meaning, it's best to use "semiotic", which of course points to any symbol used to convey meaning. That way people like Platt who think "2+2=4" is not "verbal" won't get confused. Ron: Damn that's well put, this is why I feel the whole s/o argument Is centered on how we create, use and classify nouns, the kernel Of any sentence. We are so accustomed to " the process of moving from "pre-semiotic" to "semiotic" we force the pre-semiotic experience into the structure provided by our semiotic repertoire." That it becomes a subconscious assumption of experience itself Because we have built a substantial repertoire that ties these Assumptions to it. When you stop to think of the layer upon layer of preconceptions, That intellectualization is built on, The fact that anyone understands the MoQ at all is a miracle. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
