[Arlo previously] I mean, when you read this "2+2=4" in your head, don't you say the "words"?
[SA] Arlo, I don't. I look at this equation and know what it means by the numbers, not the words. [Arlo] So before you new words, if you saw "2+2=4" you knew what it meant? Before you knew what the wold "two" meant, before you knew what the word "plus" meant, you understood this? I think you may (as many people do) have habituated the practice so that you can understand it so quickly you think you don't use words. Try this. See if you can understand this right away, before thinking of any words at all. 6092+12-7/3*(3+9) Now, you may say "I recognize this as mathematical notation" before I think of the words, fair enough, like when you see "Umweltverschmutzung" you recognize it as a "word" maybe without knowing what it means... but this is because you recognize a pattern with which you have taught "words" conform to. What about this "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Word? Why not? Why don't you think "maybe that's a word in another language?" Be honest here. Unless I point out the possibility, this is likely NOT what your thoughts are. You read this as "gibberish" or "text puke" of sorts. Point is that we, as humans, are excellent habituated beings. We drive our cars in our latter years almost as if it were an automatic experience. We don't think "now push on the gas, now clutch, now look both ways", we just do it, but his habituated quickness does not bypass words, it merely makes it go so quickly it seems that way. Semiosis is, of course, a better term, since we "read" symbols like "a red sunset" in particular culturally adopted ways, but underlying this is that you had to have learned HOW to read that particular sign, and our culture in nigh ubiquitous in using words to impart this knowledge. 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/
