> [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?
SA: I don't know Arlo. This is getting a bit
cluttered for me. All this talk about what's a word,
what's not a word, what's the point? Couldn't we
by-pass what a word and what's not a word and move on
to semiosis?
Arlo:
> 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.
SA: Ok. What's a word? What's semiosis? Either I
find this strain of the mind to learn these basic
points, pointless in the end, or maybe knowing the
difference will get us somewhere? I don't know. If
semiosis accounts for all symbols, whether they are
words, numbers, paintings, etc..., then couldn't we
start from here and then move on to what Ron was
trying to say? We moved so far off point, it seems,
just to prove points on details, but wasn't Ron's
point that we come at the moq from different language
contexts? Let's focus on this, and move on, don't ya
think?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
