From: Van oost Kenneth (kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Tue 25 Nov 2003 - 19:50:05 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Remus
then, some characteristics go like glossolalia
a dense flow of shared informal meaning
others, like adlinguisticity
as we keep talking about talking
is talking about talking (or comuunicating by any means about communicating that way) a more advanced or a more derivative level of talking?
think about thinking, write about writing
In acting so, we´re legitimating the acts of communication as prhenomens by themselves.
May we say " archetype " !? Or are the ways of saying something,
particular instantiations_ tokens of a general type, where Joe Dees
always seem to cling onto !?
The sky is blue, roses are red, snow is white, Left is social and
Right winged is bad, heaven is up, hell is down... are in some sort
shared informal meaning(s).
What we talk about, write about, read about, think about is what
heaven, hell, blue, social,....stands for.
In a general conjective way it is again shared informal meaning
to all of us, but now we can add a more personal, a more indivi-
dualistical level of meaning.
The point I am trying to make is that we by saying for example
something ironically, we induce negative signals in the mind of
the receptor, but by saying it directly, without the connotion of
irony attached to it, it (can) mean(s) something else for the
receptor.
" Do you hate me !? ", can be said in many different ways, each
time we say it differently, a different meme(plex) is induced or is
getting propagated. It is by the way we say it, pronounce it,
where we speak, to whom, what setting, circumstances,...that
tokens of a different type are released.
Each time a different meme is expressed, what is being said,
how or what is suggested is due, like I said above, circumstance,
but is also due to our social, cultural intercourse_ learned or
otherwise.
To see thru' the irony, understanding it, is like you said, filling in
the blanks. We are capable of making the distinction between
the real sense of "hating me " and the irony of the fact that you do.
On the other hand, don 't we talk about talking, don 't be think about
thinking, don 't we write about writing, don 't we read about reading,
don 't we hear what is said about hearing, don 't we see what is shown
about seeing, don 't we smell what is put under our noses, can 't we
grasp what is lying before us, can 't we walk that walk,....!?
I think we do, but do I legitimate those acts to what they stand for,
I don 't think so...Do you !?
Regards,
Kenneth
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 25 Nov 2003 - 19:56:47 GMT