On Thursday 24 April 2008 9:40 AM Arlo writes to Krimel: <snip>
[Arlo] Did you ever have a thought that was not verbal? Describe this as best you can. How did you know what you were thinking? Now, as I said, I certainly grant there are pre-intellectual, pre-verbal experiences, call them aesthetic experiences if you wish, but these are not "thoughts". They lead to all kinds of thoughts, to be sure. 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. Hi Arlo, Krimel, and all, DQ! Metaphor and analogy work fine in communication. Undefined semiotics can be called feelings, or sensations, which are also communicated by howling and jumping. In creation you mean something, and you don¹t always use semiotics. If someone puts a word to your picture, he is throwing shit at it, and will be told so in no uncertain terms. What a thing is, what it isn¹t, and how does it grab me? I don¹t think it is fair to have emotions, sensations and thoughts and be limited to semiotics only. If I want to jar my computer I give it a kick. I guess that is the world speaking to me. It takes three things for a manifestation. Is semiotics only half of it? Joe On 4/24/08 9:40 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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 verbal? Describe this as > best you can. How did you know what you were thinking? Now, as I > said, I certainly grant there are pre-intellectual, pre-verbal > experiences, call them aesthetic experiences if you wish, but these > are not "thoughts". They lead to all kinds of thoughts, to be sure. > > 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. > > > 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/ 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/
