>[Krimel] >Other symbolic systems from the written word to music to art, carry >Varying degrees of ambiguity but more emotional depth. That depth >offers clarity at the expense of precision. But this is why I argue >that not all thought is linguistic or symbolic.
Marsha Opposite-from-non-zebra is, of course, zebra. It seems to me, it's my pattern for the general meaning of zebra. It's not mostly linguistic. It's not anything like two paragraphs describing a zebra. It's not mostly image. It's not some internal picture of a zebra. It's something different. It seems much more sensual. It's like some conglomerate of all my exposure to zebras. It's like some pattern! Now I do not have much direct experience of zebras. Mostly books and a visiting a zoo. So it's pretty vague. If I think about my guitar, it is much stronger in every sense, and I haven't played my guitar for many years. [Krimel] Take "guitar" then since, we both have more experience with guitars than zebras. I don't know anything about your experience of "guitar" but I suspect it does not involve a Telecaster Custom/Delux that Jimi Hendrix gave you in a dream and your girlfriend promised to buy for you if you would marry her. When you hear the word "guitar" you probably have no association with the consummation of a dream come true. To me that word caries with it images and sounds and the pain of blistered fingers, the smell of varnished ash and maple, frustration and ecstasy. I can find more words to convey these associations but none can provide you with my experience. You have your own and communication works to the extent that there is at least some overlap in our mutual experience. In that overlap we find objectivity. [Marsha] What's come to my mind is the word 'chunking'. I believe it is a term used for assimilating chunks of information in the learning experience. Maybe from the book 'Flow'. Maybe this chunking is establishing a pattern? What do you think? [Krimel] I see the connection but my associations with the word "chunking" are more along the lines that it would hard to learn this string of numbers: 17761812186019451968 but easy to learn this one: 1776 1812 1860 1945 1968. It would be hard to learn: IBMCIAFBIIRSIMHO; easy to learn IBM CIA FBI IRS IMHO. But I think what you are getting at is that lots of experience clusters around any concept that we have. An idea is a node in a web of associations. When we think of a concept it touches that web and the web resonates. Some of the elements in the web are verbal and linguistic but some are not. But I would agree that they form conceptual patterns. 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/
