On Thursday 24 April 2008 9:35 PM Arlo writes to Krimel: <snip>
[Arlo] Well, memories are symbolically encoded events, so that's semiosis right there. But sensations and emotions, powerful as they are, are pre-thought. Once we build thoughts around them, even to the point of building visual associations, we are using symbols and words... semiosis. [Krimel] But I don't think this process is ever complete. Each of us retains within us the private sociopath. [Arlo] Of course we do. "We" are the meeting point between the assimilated social consciousness and the unique experiences of our boundedness. Hi Arlo, Krimel and all, In the sense that ³sensations², ³emotions², ³sex² are not ³thoughts² I would agree with you. But as arising from experience in the evolution to a sentient level, I don¹t know if I would describe them as ³pre-thought². Analogies and metaphors like gestures and expressions are used in verbal descriptions but so are made-up words like DQ. I would not describe DQ as pre-thought. From evolution the individual has experience in all levels. I communicate the sentient- directed experience of dance, music, copulation non-verbally, but is that what you mean by pre-thought? All levels are integrated in a sentient. Pre-thought evolving to thought in an individual seems a little unclear to me unless you describe ³thought² as a word or symbol which I learn. Joe On 4/24/08 9:35 PM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Krimel] > Why couldn't you just as easily say that semiotic structure emerges from the > pre-semiotic experience? > > [Arlo] > I can. The nuance is that it is not only semiotic structure that is mutated by > semiosis, but also the very "pre-semiotic" experience itself. Rather, I'd > argue, that any particular cultural-historical semiotic architecture both > emerges from pre-semiotic experiences and shape those experiences. > > [Krimel] > But it seems as if you are saying that only semiotic thought counts as thought > therefore all thought is semiotic. > > [Arlo] > It shouldn't seem so, Krimel, that's exactly what I am saying. > > Bear in mind we may be using the word "thought" differently. I do not, for > example, consider pre-semiotic aesthetic experiences as "thought". I do not > consider gut-feelings and pre-verbal sensations as "thought". For me, the very > act of "thinking" implies the manipulation of symbols... semiosis. Whether you > are manipulating "numbers", "words" or "images", those are all "textual" in > the > sense that they carry meaning encoded in the semiotic system we have > assimilated and deploy. > > [Krimel] > Well sure we have lots of preconceptions and language shapes lots of them. > But the shape is also determined by our emotional responses to the language > structures and much of the meaning we get is imparted by tone of voice. Layer > upon layer indeed but not all the layers are linguistic. > > [Arlo] > Tone is very much linguistic, Krimel. We teach it, for example, as an > important > part of advanced proficiency in languages (as we do gesture). We "read" the > tone of our interlocutor the same way we "read" his words and "read" the > meaning of his gestures. All of these are deeply semiotic, if they were not, > you would not even notice them. > > [Krimel] > As I said I would even grant that art and music are semiotic and still claim > it > is just as often the reverse; that concepts shape the rules and forms of > language. In other words we verbalize what we intellectualize or that language > is the objectification of the subjective. > > [Arlo] > Of course, but bear in mind that there is a particular structurated trajectory > of possibility at play. We can only extend language so far. If you read back > over the texts of the past two-thousand years, you still understand much of > what is said, and differences (language gaps) appear only after you travel > back > quite far. This is also why no one could have formulated quantum physics in > 1295. The concepts that had to precede this, to give it potentiality, did not > exist, and the language could not "jump" that far. > > [Krimel] > Among the pre-intellectual thoughts that you are excluding are some fairly > complicated cognitions though. Sensation, just plain raw sensory experience, > is very complex as are emotions and memories, especially special memory, > cognitive maps if you will. In fact all memory is a fairly complex > integration of sensory feelings that have very little to do with language. > > [Arlo] > Well, memories are symbolically encoded events, so that's semiosis right > there. > But sensations and emotions, powerful as they are, are pre-thought. Once we > build thoughts around them, even to the point of building visual associations, > we are using symbols and words... semiosis. > > [Krimel] > But I don't think this process is ever complete. Each of us retains within us > the private sociopath. > > [Arlo] > Of course we do. "We" are the meeting point between the assimilated social > consciousness and the unique experiences of our boundedness. > > 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/
