Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02457 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:54:45 GMT Message-Id: <200101190852.DAA27907@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:50:46 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia? In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKENKCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200101181751.MAA11847@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
Date sent: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:40:13 +1100
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Joe E. Dees
> > Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 4:57
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
> >
> >
> > Chris, you blithering idiot! An isolated meaning would be if there
> > were onlt one - say, there were a meaning for 'fork' unattached to
> > any other meanings, that is, any other symbol systems; a
> > language of one word! Such things are clearly impossible,
> > because words in a language have meanings due to the
> > relationships they have with things (oppositional, identical and
> > more-or-less similar) and the relationships they have with other
> > words in a symbol system which represent these other things
> > (Ferdinand de Saussure). You can't have a one-word language,
> > you can't have an isolated meaning, contextless signification is a
> > sheer impossibility.
>
> you see grasshopper, you are too stuck in thirdness, in LIMITATIONS! :-) You
> link meaning solely to words. Over 50% of communications (even internal) is
> non-verbal (you have been on the net too long! :-) get out more! stop
> talking to yourself! :-)) This limitation will stop your creativity in the
> area of innovations (using abduction you seem to not be able to go past the
> first text-context match you come to! Go past it, deeper :-)). You will have
> no problem with adaptions though.:-)
>
You're missing the point, and are just as cognitively blind as the
fellow in Kung Fu was physically blind. Perhaps this is because
you are trapped in secondness, and cannot see beyond it; I, on the
other hand, acknowledge dyadic, triadic, and n-componentiary
systems. A single global universal meaning cannot exist, because
it caanot mean anything, since there is nothing that it could NOT
mean. A finger pointing everywhere is equally pointing nowhere.
Even wordless emotions mean what they mean rather than
something else because there ARE something elses with which to
compare them; thus anger is not fear is not love is not disgust, etc
(Ekman).
>
> The above that 'you cant have a one-word language' is false in that the
> applying of a dynamic to a single feeling allows me to create other meanings
> e.g.111 is different to 1111 etc) IOW the applying of dynamics to a single
> word allows for the emergence of meaning 'in here' and so totally isolated
> from 'out there'. Out if this one word language can emerge more words and so
> the dynamic forces emergence of DIFFERENCE from a world of SAMENESS. Have a
> look at the secret languages of identical twins etc. This said, there are
> cases of children who were raised 'wild' and as such have language problems
> (I think one famous story is about "Jenny",a girl imprisoned in a basement
> until she was discovered at age 12).
>
Sorry, but 'other feelings' are not created, several emerge and
naturally manifest as we develop and engage our surrounding
world, well before the advent of speech. Other mammals
experience emotions (plural), and demonstrate them with facial
expressions not unlike ours.
>
> Feed all of the basic 'single-word' expression back on itself and things get
> interesting -- that is if you can. For example the behaviour of autistics is
> similar to the behaviour of chicks in that they cannot clearly distinguish
> more than ONE object; the can sense MANY aspects of that object. IOW they
> are working in a sort of one word world but with lots of adjectives! :-)
> There are feedback problems here. Extend this into psychosis or those with
> severe physiological damage and it is possible for some being to have an
> 'isolated' meaning.
>
What autistics are is people deficient inthe very language skill
most of us take for granted. If the way most children naturally
sponge up language was rarer, we would recognize how
remarkable it is; the vast majority of us are language savants, and
autistic people who lack savanthood in that particular area
frequently manifest it in other areas - the hijacking of hand-eye co-
ordination is, in their case, not directed to the mouth-ear nexus,
but to other areas, such as visually artistic, musical or
mathematical areas. The abilities they demonstrate in those areas
can by no stretch of the imagination be equated with 'chicken
consciousness.'
>
> SO.. dont write all of this off to quickly :-) think a bit more rather than
> knee-jerk, especially in the neurology of memory etc in both autistics and
> chicks (Stephen Rose has done most of the work in the latter)...and language
> is not all words/sounds, neither is communication in general.
>
Of course it isn't; there was gesture and mimicry first, since the
hand-eye system was well elaborated prior to the metamutation
that allowed its evolved complexity to be harnessed for verbal
purposes, as I stated many moons ago in the work I have
presented here, taking my cue from Lieberman (UNIQUELY
HUMAN), but you don't seem to remember same.
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 08:56:23 GMT