Wittgenstein may have been of the same opinion, as far as one follows
the history that the Hintikkas tell in their "Investigations". As I have
read this book, Ludwig W. seems to have switched from a pure positivistic
"sense data" theory of personal awareness of the world to a sketch of
a theory where "physiognomic signs" are the fundamental "elements" of
the stream of experience (Ernst Mach's elements, i.e. indivisables that
are neither material nor ideal but "neutral").
Narratives in today's genres (everyday talk, street performance, film)
are of course much more complicated. But our memory structures are as
fine-tuned for these complicated gestures, as Mead would have said, as
they are ready to accept any present(ed) grammatical structure...
Does this make sense out there, too ?
Smiling, grateful for the evocation: Arne.
Arne Raeithel
raeithel who-is-at informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Universit=E4t Hamburg, Psychologie
At 09:55 3.5.1996, pprior who-is-at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>My sense, perhaps especially from reading Bruner's analyses of Emily's crib
>narratives, is that Bruner sees narrative as particularly fundamental not
>because it is the dominant mode of discourse, but because it is a
>fundamental mode of perception and thought, the way children come to
>construct their on-going flow of experience--the events of their lives--and
>the framework within which they come to construct worlds through the
>sociocultural appropriation of symbolic means.
>
>Paul Prior
>p-prior who-is-at uiuc.edu
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign