Re: [xmca] dialogue on future of Vygotsky studies

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

Thanks Andy,
I will follow your advice on this matter.
I have accessed this article from Marxist.org and it is very close to what I
would like to do except for the imaginary aspect.
RL


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I would be happy to contribute, although my interest in Vygotsky is not
> education. (Vygotsky is to me what Freud was to the Frankfurters.)
>
> It seems to me you do need to get people's expression of interest and then
> sign them up on a list and give them a clear guarantee that they will have
> an opportunity to edit anything quoted from them in the final text.
>
> In Karl Levitin's "One is Not Born a Personality" he sets up an imaginary
> dialogue with a number of real participants (including Mike Cole) and a
> number of figures from the pas, speaking via quotes from their works. I
> don't know if you know this work, currently out of print,
>
> Andy
>
> Robert Lake wrote:
>
>> Dear Andy and CHAT family,
>> I guess the mechanics will be determined by the willing participants. I
>> would love to have a "side bar" google group discussion that could  expand
>> up to 5,000 words, in a dialogue format wherein each participant
>> contributes
>> one or two paragraphs at a time.
>>
>> I am also proposing that this serve as an exploratory overview or
>> beginning
>> of a newly edited volume of 10-12 essays. Correct me if I am wrong, but  I
>> know of no other similar work since
>> Harry Daniels (1993) collected and edited *Charting the Agenda:
>> Educational
>> Activity After Vygotsky.*
>>
>> What do you think?
>> *RL*
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> This looks like an interesting project in its own right, Robert. But can
>>> you clarify the mechanics of your idea a little.
>>> Are you proposing setting up an email group and recording exchanges on
>>> the
>>> topic, or of just grabbing bits and pieces off xmca?
>>> I am intrigued ...
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Robert Lake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello Everyone!
>>>>
>>>> I am still working on the manuscript for the * Vygotsky on Education
>>>> Primer* for Peter Lang Publishers.
>>>>
>>>> In the last section of the last chapter, I am hoping to provide an
>>>> overview
>>>> of  the future of Vygoskyian studies in both theoretical and practical
>>>>  terms. In keeping with the tone of this
>>>> listserve, I  welcome the bricological expression  of paragraph length
>>>> dialogue in a way that will engage the
>>>> readers, who would normally not be accustomed to the kind of
>>>> metalanguage
>>>> we often use and appreciate
>>>> amongstourselves. (*Think pre-service teacher candidates*).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you would like to participate, I would love to cite your comments
>>>> directly into the text if they will fit this purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks so much!
>>>>
>>>> *Robert Lake*
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> eric--
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder...everybody, no matter how mentally disturbed, has to be
>>>>> capable
>>>>> of some figurative language. I remember once Halliday remarked that "I
>>>>> want
>>>>> you to stand up" is really an INTERPERSONAL metaphor, because you've
>>>>> got
>>>>> a command pretending to be a statement, and I asked him if it wasn't
>>>>> true
>>>>> to
>>>>> say that the whole of language was a phonological metaphor, because
>>>>> we've
>>>>> got words pretending to be statements, commands, questions, gestures,
>>>>> and
>>>>> so
>>>>> on.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I sometimes wonder if the distinction we make between figurative and
>>>>> non-figurative language is nothing but a formalism, like the
>>>>> distinction
>>>>> between, say, metaphor and metonymy, or even the distinction between
>>>>> metaphor and simile. Of course, as you say (and as Rod says) these
>>>>> formalisms can matter a lot. But they are nevertheless a lot more
>>>>> pervasive
>>>>> than the overt markings that we have bedecked them with, and so it
>>>>> seems
>>>>> they must also be found in the language of the mentally disturbed
>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>> as "literal" statements that are obvioiusly untrue).
>>>>>
>>>>> Choose the best (that is, the most developmentally
>>>>> sophisticated) continuation for the following utterance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romeo: "Soft! What light from yonder window breaks! ...
>>>>>
>>>>> a) It is like the east and Juliet is like the sun."
>>>>> b) It is the east and Juliet is like the sun."
>>>>> c) It is the east and Julie is the sun."
>>>>> d) Juliet's eyes are nothing like the sun."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Vygotsky would choose d) because a), b), and c) are merely
>>>>> generalizations from one object to another, while d) combines both
>>>>> generalization (from one object to another) and abstraction (the
>>>>> isolation
>>>>> of a single feature, namely Juliet's eyes).
>>>>>
>>>>> In Chapter Five of Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky points out that the
>>>>> function of abstraction, which is really a kind of metonymy, is
>>>>> ontogenetically very ancient. Every time the very young child undergoes
>>>>> a
>>>>> routine, the child is bound to feel on some level that "this is like
>>>>> that".
>>>>>
>>>>> But any "perizhvanie", any instance of the "feeling of what happens to
>>>>> you"
>>>>> is different in an almost infinite number of ways from any other
>>>>> "perizhvanie". So the belief that "today is just like yesterday" always
>>>>> involves privileging some features of an experience and discounting
>>>>> others.
>>>>> This is by no means a mechanical process; we are not talking about a
>>>>> Galton
>>>>> photograph; on the contrary, it is a most discriminating and subtle
>>>>> judgment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that ALL of the "complexes" we see in Chapter Five can actually
>>>>> be
>>>>> seen as just such abstractions from childly activities, although of
>>>>> course
>>>>> the resulting structure is thought of as a set of concrete experiences
>>>>> and
>>>>> not a concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, the "associative complex" is really a meta-object, a set
>>>>> of
>>>>> objects each of which represents a projection of some different feature
>>>>> of
>>>>> the nuclear objects (the "brainstorming" "mind-maps" of which
>>>>> elementary
>>>>> school teachers are so proud are really just associative complexes).
>>>>>
>>>>> The "collection complex" is, as Vygotsky says, a tool kit abstracted
>>>>> from
>>>>> practical routines: brushing teeth, getting dressed, having meals,
>>>>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>> bed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "chain complex" seems to me to be abstracted from games such as
>>>>> "tag",
>>>>> where the loser of a particular bout becomes the "hero" of the next
>>>>> bout.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "diffuse complex" is, as Vygotsky says, a result of the limitless
>>>>> diffusion of characteristics we see in imaginative tales.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's really only the pseudocomplex that is metaphorical rather than
>>>>> metonymic, because the child's word "stands for" a thinking process
>>>>> that
>>>>> is
>>>>> quite different, but given the exactly the same name. Of course, it is
>>>>> a
>>>>> metaphor-in-itself rather than a metaphor-for-others or a
>>>>> metaphor-for-myself (that is to say, nobody except maybe Vygotsky
>>>>> actually
>>>>> KNOWS that the child's pseudocomplex is a metaphor for the adult
>>>>> concept).
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to become a metaphor-for-myself, I have to abstract away all
>>>>> the
>>>>> features that make the metaphor work and resynthesize them as a
>>>>> concept.
>>>>> But
>>>>> of course a metaphor for a concept is not a metaphor: it's the concept
>>>>> itself, for a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 11/1/10, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>> Awareness
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 11:45 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is such an interesting stream that has flowed into the different
>>>>> tributaries of a delta and then joined again as it has emptied into the
>>>>> vast ocean of communal knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not have the linguistic knowledge to offer much in research based
>>>>> efforts of understanding the development of metaphorical knowledge.
>>>>>  What
>>>>> I can offer is my observational data of working with severely mentally
>>>>> ill
>>>>> young adults.  Many do not grasp metaphorical speech and can become
>>>>> very
>>>>> agitated if a person continues on with a metaphor that has not been
>>>>> understood.  This explains why so many people who suffer mental health
>>>>> issues are unsuccessful in the academic world.
>>>>>
>>>>> my two cents for a million dollar topic
>>>>> eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:   Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>>>>> To:     Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Date:   11/01/2010 01:04 PM
>>>>> Subject:        Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of
>>>>> Conscious
>>>>> Awareness
>>>>> Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vera,
>>>>> The *Journal of Aesthetic Education* is interested in publishing it
>>>>>  and
>>>>> *
>>>>> Francine** *Smolucha says she is writing it.
>>>>> RL
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are looking for reviews and reviewers for Vygotsky and Creativity.
>>>>>> Do
>>>>>> you think your publication would be interested and could you think of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> reviewer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Vera
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Lake" <
>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:35 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>>> Awareness
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the LSV Citations David as well as this:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> "But that's the whole point; the emotional substratum of language is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> always
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there and it never goes away; there is no point of entropy where
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> thinking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and feeling are completely merged."
>>>>>> *I will be pondering and savoring this all weekend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Robert Lake
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Thanks for the Citation David!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Kellogg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Rod:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it seems nonaccidental that we say "I feel LIKE my brain is an
>>>>>>>> erogenous zone" (for example) but we have say "I think THAT my brain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> erogenous zone".  The obvious comparison is indirect reported speech
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> feelings (and thus simile) but more direct forms for thoughts and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can say "Richard Shweder says, 'my brain is an erogenous zone'").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Vygotsky considers even the language of the Odyssey to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "lyrically
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> colored" and therefore emotional rather than ideational; when Homer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "And they lay down by the shelving sea" or "When rosy fingered dawn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> touched
>>>>>>>> the sky" we feel like we know what he means even though we cannot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that what it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, in order to really understand this lyrical coloration,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to be able to read hexameters in ancient Greek. But that's the whole
>>>>>>>> point;
>>>>>>>> the emotional substratum of language is always there and it never
>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>> away;
>>>>>>>> there is no point of entropy where thinking and feeling are
>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>> merged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The photo experiment is described in Volume Four, pp. 193-194, of
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's Cllected Works, in a chapter called "Development of
>>>>>>>> Speech
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking". Here's the key passage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “(I)f one and the same picture (let us say, the prisoner in jail) is
>>>>>>>> shown
>>>>>>>> to a three-year-old, he will say 'a man, another man, a window, a
>>>>>>>> mug,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> bench', but for a preschool child it would be 'a man is sitting,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> looking out of a window, and a mug is on the bench'. (...) A
>>>>>>>> five-year-old
>>>>>>>> establishes a connection between words in a single sentence, and an
>>>>>>>> eight-year-old uses complex additional sentences. A theoretical
>>>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>>>> arises: can the story about the picture describe the child's
>>>>>>>> thinking?
>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>> We will ask two children not to tell a story, but to perform what
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> picture shows. It develops that the children's play about the
>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>> sometimes lasts twenty or thirty minutes, and primarily and most of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the play those relations are captured that are in the picture. (...)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> child understands very well that the people are in jail: here the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> narration about how the people were caught, how they were taken, that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> looks out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  the window, and that he wants to be free is added. Here a very
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> narration is added about how the nanny was fined for not having a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the trolley. In a word, we get a typical portrayal of what we see in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> story of a twelve-year-old. (1997, pp. 193-194)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We did a whole foreign language replication of this experiment with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a video clip (with an added time element) and some second graders and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>> it up for MCA, but it was (violently) rejected so we gave up. I
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> copy of the paper if you are interested though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 10/27/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>>>>> Awareness
>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 3:55 AM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apologies for missing this, David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that the relationships between affective metaphor and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cognitive
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> metaphor are as messy and complicated (or rich and intricate) as any
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> form of (imagined) boundary between thinking and feeling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we use a simile I think we invite listeners/readers to colour
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> concept with features of another, often (though not always) in a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> generalised way. When we use a metaphor I think there is more of an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> invitation to the listener/reader to haul up associations from the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> murk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> personal experience (what does a hot liquid feel like, what does it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feel like). I realise as I write this that I am assuming that there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> difference between a person's 'own' 'lived-in' associations with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>> words/concepts and that person's sense of a 'common' or widely
>>>>>>>> shared
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> associations (what this can be assumed to mean to other people) -
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> probably many different sets of 'common' meanings for different
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subgroups
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'other people' (people of my generation, people in my professional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> field,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'kids today', people who have adolescent children .....).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To a degree, our sense of how much like another person we are will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> depend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on how well that other person is able to find a fit with our own
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings.
>>>>>>>> We can manage an academic conversation with a relative stranger but
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>> feel the same as a conversation with a relative or with someone who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> likes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enough to bother to remember how we feel about things. For babies it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> quite easy to differentiate between 'people who like me' and 'people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't know me' because the former engage in a noticeably more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> contingent/reciprocal way (they 'like' me both in the sense of caring
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> me and in the sense of adjusting to me) and this is surely a useful
>>>>>>>> distinction to be able to make. For adults it is more complicated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there are so many gradations of liking to keep track of (guided by the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> steer
>>>>>>>> from embarrassment when we get it wrong!) but I still think that
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are highly skilled in (unconsciously) picking up cues about the
>>>>>>>> degree
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> which someone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  is adjusting to us (how much they like us). I also think that our
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> awareness of the adjustments we make when we interact with others
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> forms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> important part of our knowledge about other people (we can even make
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> adjustments when they are not present so that we can imagine, for
>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>> how they would feel about something we are considering suggesting to
>>>>>>>> them).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like the word 'graspture' but for me (and for those who like me
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to know what I am like!) simile is less 'violent' than metaphor, a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> black
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> white diagram of the full colour collision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to read more about Vygotsky's replication of Stern's
>>>>>>>> photograph experiment - something I know nothing about - where can I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 04:55
>>>>>>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Awareness
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that there is an AFFECTIVE difference between simile and
>>>>>>>> metaphor.
>>>>>>>> Actually, I think that the use of "like" as a preposition is related
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use of "like" as a verb; the prepositional form is an objectified
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the affective affinity we see in the verbal form. I think that the
>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>> of these two quite different forms is a good example of the
>>>>>>>> DIFFERENTIATION
>>>>>>>> and PARTITIONING that language brings about in affect (the word
>>>>>>>> "articulation" springs to mind in this context).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm very interested in what you say about the "distancing" effect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> simile. Do you think grammatical metaphor has the same effect of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> distantiation. Does "growth" suggest an objective view when we
>>>>>>>> compare
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "grow", because "growth" does not have an identifiable subject or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> object?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, what Lakoff and Johnson are writing about is not affect but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> COGNITIVE metaphor. The idea is that underlying a whole range of
>>>>>>>> linguistic
>>>>>>>> expressions is some kind of non-verbal IMAGE, e.g. "anger is a hot
>>>>>>>> liquid",
>>>>>>>> quite independent of its verbal expression. From that perspective,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no difference between simile and metaphor, and there is also no
>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>> between metonymy and metaphor (because metonymy is simply a special
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a linguistic realization of a cognitive metaphor). All stem from a
>>>>>>>> completely undifferentiated, unpartitioned, unarticulated mental
>>>>>>>> equivalence
>>>>>>>> (I think it's no accident that almost all of Lakoff's and Johnson's
>>>>>>>> cognitive metaphors can be expressed as mathematical equations,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> although
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> none of them are really reversible the way that equations are: we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that a hot liquid = anger).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, I didn't say that Piaget believed that children are
>>>>>>>> capable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> reasoning "What kind of thought would I be expressing if I were making
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> acoustic sounds/articulatory gestures that I am now hearing?" Quite
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> contrary. This belief is the core of the "analysis by synthesis" views
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> speech perception, whether they originate in New Haven (Liberman) or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cambridge, MA (Halle). Piaget holds that the child's thinking does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> achieve the Copernican Revolution of decentration until seven or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eight,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liberman or Halle would have to argue for innate mechanisms that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "think"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a decentred way quite against the child's grain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky has no such problem. The child is a social being from
>>>>>>>> birth,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it is some time before children actually differentiate themselves from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "Ur-wir", the proto-we. It seems to me that this is completely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> with an ontogenetic "analysis by synthesis"; the child understands
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> the child has not really differentiated speaker from hearer. The
>>>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>>>> failures of this type of understanding, in fact, play a not
>>>>>>>> inconsequential
>>>>>>>> part in the process of the child's differentiation of "I" from "we",
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> is only expressed, not generated, in the child's use of negation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky mentions his replication of the Stern photograph
>>>>>>>> experiment,
>>>>>>>> where a three year old is given a photo and responds with a list of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> objects in it ("a man", "another man", "a window", "a mug") and a five
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>> old can add processes ("the man is sitting" "the other man is
>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the window") but only the twelve year old can tell the story of how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> men
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> came to be sitting in prison. When Vygotsky replicates this, he asks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> children to ROLE PLAY the picture. Since this forces the kids to add
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> element of time, the five year olds come up with a twenty minute role
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>> that is fully as complex as the narrative of the twelve year olds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Vygotsky does this, he is trying to show that the idea that
>>>>>>>> young
>>>>>>>> children see pictures as a whole and do not differentiate the life
>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>> within it is simply wrong. But in interpreting his result, we risk
>>>>>>>> falling
>>>>>>>> into a rather Piagetian analysis, which holds that speech is really
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> afterthought and not the cause of the child's thinking, because the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> capable of expressing in action so much more than what he can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> articulate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> differentiated speech. I think this is part of what is bugging
>>>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two ways of debugging this occur to me. The first is that if we
>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's account that verbal thinking (not all thinking) develops
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "introvolution" of speech, we have to clearly differentiate between
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> child's UNDERSTANDING of speech in the environment (which is semantic,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>> NOT entirely dependent on a phasal, lexicogrammatical, partitioning
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> speech) and the child's ability to "articulate" (which is).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second point is that Vygotsky's definition of speech changes.
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> very young child, speech includes the child's actions and in fact is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> about the child's gestures and the child's use of the affordances in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> environment than about vocabulary and grammar. Early speech is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dominated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> indication and nomination; signifying comes later.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the same way, metaphor comes first, because the child has to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accept that a gesture can "stand for" an object, and a word can
>>>>>>>> "stand
>>>>>>>> for"
>>>>>>>> the idealized relationship between gesture and object. Similes are a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> violent graspture of the conscious awareness of metaphor. So to
>>>>>>>> speak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 1:08 AM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So many ideas to respond to and so little time!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't it more likely that our associations between 'mmm' and baby
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> concepts may be more to do with the fact that this is one of the first
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recognisable sounds produced by babies? Mamas, Moms, mothers and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mummies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> over the world have reason to like the idea that these first sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> them (fathers are left with papa or dada). But how things may have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> begun
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> always only a part of the story - layers upon layers of cultural
>>>>>>>> associations and connotations are wrapped around the infant word as
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> used in particular kinds of situations and contexts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Carol pointed out, phonemes are category labels rather than names
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> 'things' - a way of splitting the infinite variations of sound into
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> limited number of chunks. After the age of about 9 months we begin
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> actively filter our perception of speech sounds to privilege
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> distinctions in the languages used around us so there are probably
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SPEECH sounds than any one of us thinks there are because we think
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the sounds we are still able to discriminate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where J.G. differs from David's version of Piaget's view, that 'You
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to imagine what you would be thinking if you were making the noises
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are hearing', he seems to me to be closer to Reddy's 'second person
>>>>>>>> perspective' which has been aired here in the past - babies don't
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'imagine' or 'think' - they have only to engage or respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, while there may be some very general, physiological,
>>>>>>>> associative
>>>>>>>> principles in the affective force of sounds (large, grande, enorme
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> little, teensy weensy, petit, piccolo for example, and associations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'squeak' and 'roar') there is also space for enormous variation in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect that words have when they are spoken in different ways by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> different kinds of voice and by people in different moods (you really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> hear the difference between someone reciting letter of the alphabet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> smiling or while frowning).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's an experiment - download the transcript of Vikram
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ramachandran's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> lecture 'Phantoms in the brain' from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/radio4/reith2003/lecture1.shtml?print
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read the first paragraph or two before you click on the 'listen'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> button
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and then compare the experience of your reading and hearing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ramachandran's
>>>>>>>> voice (all of the lectures from this series are still well worth
>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>> to).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds and words may 'have' some power of signification, whether
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of their/our physiological properties or because of the layers of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> association they have accumulated (some of which may be forgotten by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> unknown to most of us) but this is a thin, diagrammatic sort of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is when they are performed by a speaker (or singer) that they can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> serve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an interface, allowing us to hear through them and engage
>>>>>>>> with/respond
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the life of another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So - apologies for my thin, diagrammatic contribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.S. I still think there is a significant affective distinction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the effect of a simile and the effect of a metaphor - a simile
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> announces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> itself while a metaphor can get to you more immediately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 October 2010 06:58
>>>>>>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can see that J.G. really does believe that vowels and consonants
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> semantic, just as Khlebnikov did. Leonard Bernstein, in his Harvard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lectures
>>>>>>>> on the "Semantics of Music" had a very similar theory about "mmm";
>>>>>>>> associating it with nursing, nipples, and micturation. It's the kind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> thing that the "perceptionists" that Vygotsky criticizes in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Psychology
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Art" believed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, there is some evidence to support this; we often find
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> "milk" and "mammary glands" and "mothers" and "mommas" are
>>>>>>>> associated
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the first bilabial sounds that babies make: Korean, Chinese, Arabic,
>>>>>>>> Tibetan
>>>>>>>> and many other languages can provide us with examples, and it's easy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> imagine a world where babies are responsible for teaching mothers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Motherese
>>>>>>>> as an international language. It's our world, more or less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there are many languages, including English, where the /m/ sound
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> associated with NEGATIVES: "malady", "malevolent", "malefactor", etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worse,
>>>>>>>> there are certain "things" or even "emotions" which by their very
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> cannot be directly expressed in a vowel or a consonant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider the number "zero" or the grammatical category of negation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> really NOT possible (IMpossible, to use an "em") to express something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> does not exist by something that does exist in a direct, iconic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that exists, exists. It doesn't not exist. The only way for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mean something that does not exist is indirectly, that is,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> symbolically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We had a related problem in class. The kids are playing a game with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cards,
>>>>>>>> where they are supposed to ask "Can you swim?" and if the responder
>>>>>>>> answers
>>>>>>>> "Yes, I can" (because there is a sign on the back of the card
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> indicating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "yes") the child is allowed to keep the card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the teacher has to begin by explaining what the cards mean. And
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> problem is that the card shows an actual child swimming, not a child
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "can" swim. So the solution is a process of what Robert Lake would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> metaphor, of having something stand for something else (e.g. "one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> minus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EQUALS zero").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T: Look (indicating the card)! She is swimming. She's swimming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So...she
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> can swim. Now...(indicating himself). I am not swimming. I'm teaching,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> right? BUT...I can swim. Can you swim?
>>>>>>>> S: Yes.
>>>>>>>> T: Good. Can she swim? Can he swim? Ask her. Ask him. How many
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> swimmers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this group? How many swimmers in our class?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can see that the way the teacher handles the problem of
>>>>>>>> presenting
>>>>>>>> POTENTIAL rather than ACTUAL swimming is to TRANSFER the meaning to
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> situation; to have the card stand for something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess I would simply call this process semiosis, and that's why I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that it is part of language development at every single point, bar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Every form of semiosis, without exception, is a form of metaphor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the creation of a sign is precisely the creation of something that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stands
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> for something else that is not itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT...phonemes really do not exist, except as abstractions (in fact,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> think they do not even exist as abstractions except for people who
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> literate). They are like the spaces that we IMAGINE we hear (but do
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> actually hear, except in quite special circumstances) between words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>> they don't exist, they can stand for other things that don't exist.
>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>> Lear
>>>>>>>> says, "Nothing will come from nothing". He forgot to add that this
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> gives us everything!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never mind. Let's notice the form of Mike's question. He doesn't ask
>>>>>>>> whether phonemes exist or not. He simply asks whether one can
>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> particular sound (the example he gives is only an example; it's the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>> "em") without there being more than one phoneme "there". Where? In
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> mind,
>>>>>>>> of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simple, snotty answer is YES, because phonemes ONLY have
>>>>>>>> psychological
>>>>>>>> reality (and even then only in the minds of literate people, not in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> minds of illiterates and children).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So there are as many sounds as you think there are: no more and no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> less,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and if you go "mmmmmmm" as J.G. suggests and ask how many sounds your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>>>> hears, he or she will probably say "one". We can easily find people
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> say the same thing about the letter "em" in almost any first grade
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the complex answer is much more interesting. It seems to me that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consonants DEPEND on vowels in a way that is not reciprocally true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAN
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pronounce the sound "a" without any vowel, and "a" is in fact a word
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> one of the most common words in our language).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the morphological level, we see the same non-reciprocal dependency
>>>>>>>> relation: In the word "reworked", both "re-" and "-ed" depend on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "work"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their meaning, but not vice versa. Which can also be seen at the
>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> relative clauses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In an exchange (which is where I think J.G. really needs to look for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> emotional fountainhead of his semantic system) we find that we can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> initiate ("Who are you?") without a response, but a response without
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> initiate is not a response at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? As far as I know, non-human systems of communication (e.g. bird
>>>>>>>> calls, whale songs, computer coding) do not have this kind of
>>>>>>>> non-symmetrical dependency at any level at all. It's one word = one
>>>>>>>> emotion,
>>>>>>>> more or less like the extremely impoverished view of language that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J.G.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> presents in his paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that non-symmetrical dependency is an essential
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resource
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> for making a very finite group of phenomena potentially stand for a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> potentially infinite one (as is polysemy, or as Robert Lake says,
>>>>>>>> "metaphor").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This super-productivity is what allows human languages to SIGNIFY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> than simply SIGNAL. But of course this superproductivity brings with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> developmental crises, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one other comment on the "reception by production" theories
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joseph Gilbert, Liberman, and Chomsky and Halle are putting forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ALL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> these theories assume a kind of RECIPROCITY, an act of EMPATHY, a
>>>>>>>> DECENTRATION that Piaget rules out until the child is at least seven
>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>> old. You have to imagine what you would be thinking if you were
>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> noises that you are hearing. So if Piaget is right, children should
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> able to learn to speak until they are seven or eight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/12/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 9:55 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Mike Cole:
>>>>>>>> The sound of the voiced "M" is mmmmmmmmmm, commonly uttered to
>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>> pleasure, as in the reaction to something good tasting. The name of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> letter is a peripheral issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      J.G.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:44 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David and Joseph.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A question. The alphabetic character, M, may represent a phoneme.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> one say the letter M without there being two phonemes there?
>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just want to pick up on ONE aspect of this (very long and almost
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> completely unsourced) document, and try to source it, because it's
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> truism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in our field that none of us can stand alone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if this were not true in an epistemological sense (there is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> much brilliance a lone genius is capable of) it would be absolutey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> publishing sense (a long document is unpublishable without a long
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> references, preferably including all of its potential reviewers).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> intent of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the "reception through production" theory of speech
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was popular in the 1980s. It does have BIG advantages over passive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> theories
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of reception that preceded it(for one thing, it's much more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parsimonious;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the same system can be used for receiving speech and for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> transmitting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  There are really TWO variations of this theory:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a) The "motor" theory, associated with Alvin Liberman and the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Haskins
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Laboratories. This theory relies on the idea of "articulatory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gestures". By
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> recognizing the kinds of "articulatory gestures" required by >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds, the hearer, through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> asks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> b) The "analysis by synthesis" theory, associated with Chomsky and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halle at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MIT. This theory relies on pure unempbodied ACOUSTIC knowledge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> articulatory gestures. By recognizing the acoustic patterns (see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of "distinctive features" laid out in Chomsky and Halle, The Sound
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patterns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of English), the hearer through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> asks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that BOTH of these variants of the theory have in common a
>>>>>>>>>> recognition that in perception we get a lot more than we hear;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> do NOT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rely on the stream of vowels and consonants as their sole source of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> information. Perception is a supreme act of what Bruner calls
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "going
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the information given".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Contrary to this, all theories of perception which are based on an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> analogy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the ALPHABET assume that the stream of vowels and consonants
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> does carry the information (or, as Joseph Gilbert puts it,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotion).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Vygotsky's time, this theory was advocated by the brilliant >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> futurist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> poet Khlebnikov, who wrote quite extensively on the "emotional >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> valence"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> particular phonemes, and constructed whole poems on this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> association
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Zangezi", which was composed after a long series of experiments on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "semantics" of individual phonemes). As you can imagine, they don't
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> translate very well!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Genetic Belly Button and the Functional
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Belly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 11:03 PM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                               1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    Language Creates Culture
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Language functions, in human society, as the generator of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> By
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the effects on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> us of the sounds we utter, we inform ourselves of the effects on
>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> make up our world. Since the only sense of the meaning of any
>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and the same
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as the effect on us of the thing, and since we relate to our world
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our words, language informs us of the meanings of things. This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> informing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> takes place when we use vocal sounds as words to refer to things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We exist in a vacuous condition vis-à-vis any objective knowing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ultimate meaning of anything. We do not know the ultimate affect on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anything. If we operated by instinct, our choices would not depend
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> knowing, as our choices do. In this culls context, we are informed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words of the affects on us of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to which our words refer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   In the vacuum of outer space, a ship can be propelled by the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> constant,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subtle force of an ion drive. In the outer space of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cluelessness
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the meaning of anything, we are informed of that meaning by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the sounds of our words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Spoken language is sound made by the body and used to refer to,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> signify, things. We must thoroughly understand the basis of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> order to understand anything else about language. Why do we use >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words to signify certain things? Why are there similarities and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> among the various languages in how sound is used to refer to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there a correlation between and among emotional states and vocal
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These and other questions must be answered if we are to know how
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We are born into a language-using group and learn the meanings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> make up our world simply by learning our group’s language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We have a distinct and unique reaction to each vocal sound just
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> each facial expression and postural position. All forms of body
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> postural, facial
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and vocal, are expressions of states of our internal goings-on,
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> born of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> those feeling/emotional states. and recreate these states by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> resonant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> entrainment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       The languages we humans speak currently are the results of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> experiential contributions of our ancestors. However they, (our >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relatives), felt about whatever they had words for, we now feel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> present moment, when we utter the words they originally uttered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language functions somewhat as a seed: the experience of past
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> peoples
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represented in the words they spoke and now, when we voice those >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> re-experience what they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Language is institutionalized perception. How we, as a society,
>>>>>>>>>> perceive our world, is
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> determined by the the affects on us of our vocal sounds, (a form
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language), we use to refer to the things that make it up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Our actions are determined by our perceptions. If we want to >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way we act we must change the way we perceive our world. And we can
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how we perceive our world by changing how we refer to the things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> constitute our world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The feelings/emotions of actors on stage and of all of us, are
>>>>>>>>>> communicated by our actions. The way someone moves tells us much
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they feel. Our face conveys extensive and subtle information about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> emotional state. The sounds of our voices carry emotional content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> although we normally are not aware of it, the articulate vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds of our vowels and consonants), are loaded with information
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional goings-on. The information that comes from the articulate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of our words rather than from the emotional overlay we place on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our transitory emotional states, is the same no matter what moods
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experiencing while we speak. That aspect of information conveyance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> institutionalized/standardized. The tone of voice, cadence, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> volume
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> dynamics can be unique to each situation without altering the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referential communication.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   One can experience the effect on ourselves of the various vocal
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by, while in a sensitive, receptive mode, saying those sounds out
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> loud
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sensing their effects. I have done that and have, it seems,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings. You can do that also. Doing so oneself will give one a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> complete sense of the effects of vocal utterances than one could
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by reading what someone else has written about the effects of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds on the emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   This covert function of language must be brought to light  in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us to be able to understand the importance of recreating culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> must
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> understand that our behavior, as a society, is fundamentally linked
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture, which is a result of our language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We do not objectively know the ultimate meaning of anything and
>>>>>>>>>> consequently experience our sense of the meanings of things from
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on us of our words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   These familiar phrases suggest a perception, perhaps a mystical
>>>>>>>>>> perception, of the importance of the spoken word.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The final word.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What’s the word?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was God.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The tongue is the rudder of the soul. It is not what passes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lips that defiles us but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> every untoward utterance that proceeds out of our mouths.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Words, as sounds, affect us subliminally, supplying us with a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for whatever we name. It is that feeling that we experience from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of our words that supplies us with a subliminal consensus for our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> world-view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We cannot realistically expect humans to act in a way >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> contradictory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their culture’s bias. Marx’s economic/social theory was used as a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rallying
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> standard to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> enable regime change. After those individuals who had experienced
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> tyranny of the czar had left the scene, the body-politic eventually
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rejected
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> collectivism, (the transplanted economic organ). Russian culture is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally the same as it was when the roots of its present >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> established and Russian society naturally reverted to its cultural
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mode after the revolution. After a short time, the czar was
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> replaced
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> head commissar. Marx held that the economic relationships within
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> create all other human relations. It seems that culture is the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nature of human relationships within any society.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                     The Culture
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Made
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do It
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                         “The unrecognized
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   As an iceberg exists mostly under the surface of the water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> supports it, the fundamental consequence of language tends to be >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hidden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> under the surface of our awareness. Most crucial human activities
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> without awareness, for example, all of the bodily functions. Many
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> activities proceed without much deliberate awareness. Once one
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> well
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how to drive a car, much less awareness is needed to operate the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The subconscious mind supports the same kinds of activities as does
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conscious mind, however with less effort. Anything that can be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> automated,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is.  Automating essential activities frees the conscious mind to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> issues about which we feel we need to learn in order to more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cope, (those issues that require conscious attention until new
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behavioral
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> patterns are in place). There is no need to be aware of processes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> take
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> place well enough without attention. It is only when a problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> arises
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  humans, in an attempt to solve it, focus our awareness on it. If
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> coping well enough without awareness, why be aware? We don’t fix
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if it doesn’t seem broken. We don’t reinvent our wheel as long as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> rolling. However, upon examination, our human condition appears to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> painfully broken for as long as we can recall, and must be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> repaired.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we fix it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Could it be that our behavior is governed by something that we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see, something of which we are not cognizant? Is there anything in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> nature that would preclude such a possibility, the possibility that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behavior may be directed by influences not within the purview of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> everyday consciousness? What could such a force be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The ability to produce simple vocal sounds made it’s appearance
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> scene before our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> progenitors made words of those sounds. The ability to vocalize
>>>>>>>>>> articulately is a prerequisite to the ability to verbalize. Words
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> appeared
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when our ancient ancestors became cognizant of the relatedness of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> stimuli to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their own vocal reactions to them. When they began deliberately
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> vocalizations to bring to mind things, they made the transition >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> deriving their sense of the meaning of things by direct experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things to deriving a sense of the meaning of things by experiencing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects of the sounds of the words for the things. This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> supersession
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> primal world by the linguistic world was the start of culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Being able to talk about things was very advantageous to our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relatives. They could confer and plan. More important, they >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experienced
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> common sense of the meaning of the things in their world by using
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> symbols with which to refer to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Culture was advantageous to our ancestors in the ancient,
>>>>>>>>>> pre-industrial environment. Now our technology provides us with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> power to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> create and reside in an artificial environment, however one made
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> according
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to the values inherent in our primitive culture. Our culture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with marching orders and our technology enables us to march very
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> forcefully.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we marching toward the edge of a precipice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   All action is preceded by a decision to act, be that decision
>>>>>>>>>> consciously or subconsciously made. All decisions are based on a
>>>>>>>>>> consideration of the consequences of those decisions. These
>>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the consequences of our actions are the same as and identical with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meanings of those actions. How do we know the meanings of things?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> know the affects on us of any thing? Do we know the effects on us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> directly as a consequence of our direct experience with them or by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> indirect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience with them by using and experiencing the words for those
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Language is the factory and culture is the product. Culture is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from which it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> springs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Language is emotionally evocative sounds used to represent things,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thereby
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conveying to us a sense of the affects-on-us/the-meanings-of those
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our sense of our own role in our culture provides us with our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> identity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therefore with guidance for our behavior. The cultural values,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> derived
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our ancestors’ experiences long ago, as represented in our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> instilled in us and direct our behavior today. A body continues in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> state
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Human
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> remain fundamentally unchanged unless it is deliberately changed;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> will not happen unless we feel the need to do so and know how to do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Culture resides in the subconscious mind. Many others have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the need to change the way we, as a society, think: many have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tried,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> using means such as meditation, sleep deprivation, psychoactive
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> substances,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> chanting, philosophical inquiry, etc. to accomplish this change and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> been successful to a degree. However, it seems they were not able
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> lastingly infuse into society at large their newfound vision, due
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> addressing the status quo at the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   5
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> root/source, which is the culture. Understanding how language >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> makes it possible to change our culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                      How did language arise?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   How did language arise? Originally, our progenitors’ vocalizing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> expressed internal-goings-on/emotion and did not refer to anything
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> external
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to them. It was advantageous to members of the group to be informed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional conditions of other members. Much later, when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> developed enough for them to see the connectedness of the sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> uttered to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the things the sounds were uttered in reaction to, they realized
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> could bring to mind the thought of the things by uttering their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> associated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds, (names). The beginning of talking about things was the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture,and the talking about things refocused the talkers’
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> attention away from the experience of the emotional reactions to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the words, and toward thoughts related to the things to which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> words
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referred. While they were busy directing their attention to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> related
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to the things to which the words referred, they were being
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotionally
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  affected by the vocal sounds they were making to form their words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects of the sounds they were making vocally were experienced
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> subliminally, while
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consciously, they were dealing with the thoughts of the things >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referred
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by their words. The affects-on-us/meanings-of things cannot be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> proven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they had and all we have to go on are the effects on us of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the effects on us of the sounds of the words that represent the >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While the effects of the things are changeable through time and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unique to each individual, the effects on us of the sounds of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relatively consistent and universal. Having nothing else to go on,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the effects on us of the vocal sounds of words as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> revealing/representing the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects on us of the things referred to by the words. In this way,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is formed and passed to succeeding generations. Our world views
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> come from the sense of the meaning of things as represented by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our words rather than from the sense of meaning we may gain from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience of the things themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Do vocal sounds, themselves, communicate? When someone utters a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sound, such as a sigh, a growl, a whimper, a scream, etc., do we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of how they are feeling? If so, they are communicating their >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> condition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> does that communication take place? Do we receive information
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> communicated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in such a manner consciously, subconsciously or by both ways? What
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> means by which an emotion can be conveyed by sound? Can emotion, or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> else be communicated by the articulate sounds of our vowels and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consonants,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or do only non-articulate vocal sounds convey meaning? If we allow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal sounds, simply as sounds, communicate,  then is it possible
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that the vocal sounds we use to make words also communicate as well
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> used as words? What would be the effect of using inherently >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotionally
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaningful sounds as symbols to represent external things? Would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> inherent meaning of the sounds affect our perception of the things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  represented by the sounds?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   6
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   These considerations may shed light on the issue of the root >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> human behavior. Naturally, those who contemplate our condition and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> improve it if they could, would be attentive to these matters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   All of life’s processes exist as movements. Emotional
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> patterns of motion. Similar structures, in keeping with the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mechanics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> resonation, impart, on each other, their movements. Our vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> apparatuses
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> facilitate our ability to move with each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The vibrations made by the body convey the condition of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> body to other similar/human emotional bodies, and to some degree,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> animal emotional bodies. The more similar the other body, the more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> condition is transposed. Humans receive each others’ vocal and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> body-language communications more readily than other species
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> receive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> human
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> communication. Similar structures transmit their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> resonation/vibration
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> each other more readily than do dissimilar structures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   My quest for understanding of human behavior began long ago.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> around the age of six, I became increasingly aware that the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> folkways
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> formal institutions of our society were lacking in humanity and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sense. I asked myself why this was so. As a child, I attributed the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to people’s personal psychology and it was not until I was in my
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> teens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that I realized that the cause of the problem is our culture. It
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> shortly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> after that that I understood how verbal/vocal communication works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of The Problem seemed and seems to be the culture which is created
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relationship between vocal sounds and what they, as words, refer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   Some of the reasoning that preceded this realization was first,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are not created evil, but rather simply with survival instincts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that if we were able to act sanely/rationally, we would be doing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> produces the best results for everyone. Third, it must be something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> learned, some misinformation, that causes us to behave in ways not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> own self-interest. Fourth, when I considered the question of from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> false information came, I identified as the source, the culture. >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Later,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> realized that we do not, for sure, know the meaning of anything,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as far as we know, the only thing constant and predictable about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is its name, (the word-sound we produce in order to bring to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whatever thing to which we choose to refer). After a time, I became
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> aware of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how the different vocal sounds we produce when we speak words, each
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in us a unique effect and how those effects inform us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subconsciously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  the affect on us, (the meaning), of the thing itself to which the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds refer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   At this time, I also learned that the sequence of sounds of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> letters
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of our alphabet represents a sequential delineation of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> emotional/experiential events. From A to Z, the succession of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the letters of our alphabet is an example of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pattern-projection/recognition,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the pattern, in this case, being the seminal emotional events that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> humans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience during their lives, in chronological order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   7
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Emotions happen to us: They seem to come from the “great
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mystery”,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> God,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or whatever image we may use to portray a place from which strong
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> compelling feelings emanate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Given, all the vocal sounds that people can make, how would one
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> arrange
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the sounds sequentially and from what archetype, (model), would the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of that sequence come? Even if the originators of the present
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> alphabet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> deliberately imposed a pattern on their arrangement of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> letter-sounds,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whatever world view that existed in their minds caused them to feel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> comfortable with the sequence of sounds they chose. The sequence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> must have been agreeable with the story that was represented in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> minds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by those sounds in that sequence. If one admits that vocal sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affect us,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then how could a story, a sequence of affects,  not be told by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in which the sounds exist? Whether or not the originators of any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> alphabet had a conscious reason for arranging the sounds of that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> alphabet in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the sequence in which they appear, subconscious reasons were
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> influencing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their arrangement none the less. Does this story, told by our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  alphabet make sense? Does it seem to be an accurate
>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> main events in a human’s life?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We tend to cling to our culture as if our lives depended on it,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> drowning person might cling to a life preserver. Culture offers an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> answer,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -in this case subconsciously apprehended-, to the question,  “What
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings of things?” Without culture, there tends to be no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what things mean. Language informs us of the meanings of named
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words. Those who use the same
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience the same sense of the meanings of the things that make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> worlds. That sense emanates from the deep levels of their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their final assessment of the meanings of things results from their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> processing that deep, culturally caused base sense of meaning
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lens of their perception of their own relationship to the society
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   For the sake of clarity, let us consider, hypothetically,  what
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> result/s would be of using meaningful sounds to refer to things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings of the sounds spill over into the perceived meanings of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or would the meanings of the things influence the perceived
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds? Or would neither influence the other or would they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> each
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> other? Which has a stronger meaning-pressure, the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> voice or the things which, with the sounds, we name?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> intent of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Just as our becoming-human progenitors were gaining
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciousness,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ability to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> contemplate the consequences of their actions), they were, for the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> time, using vocal expressions as words to refer to specific things,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to express immediate emotional goings-on. Since they vocalized
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> under duress, their words were expressions born of fear rather than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> conscious understanding. The mind concentrates on problems, on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> could potentially be destructive to the perceiver. When this >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fear-based
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thinking bias becomes institutionalized in language, the language
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a source of anxiety. The more we verbalize about any given problem,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> stressed-out we become. This reminds me of an Eskimo method of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> killing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wolf. They would smear congealed blood on a very sharp knife and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the blade pointing upward, where wolves frequented. When a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wolf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> licked
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the blood, it would bleed and lick its own blood not knowing it was
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bleeding
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to death. We are wolfish for knowledge and we pursue it by using
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  main thinking tool, our language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                      The Unrecognized Role of Language
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Culture is the hidden law-of-the-land. We are creatures of >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> its subjects. Our culture originally  enhanced our survivability
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> technologically advanced world, may become the instrument of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> destruction. Our culturally motivated ways of relating to one
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have once been viable, although perhaps immoral, and now, with our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> powerful
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ability to cause environmental change, are untenable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    ”The release of atom power has changed everything except our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mankind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” --- Albert
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   I wish to change what is in that “heart”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The referential function of human language is merely the “tip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> iceberg” of the role of language. Its larger and more profound >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unacknowledged: It is spoken language’s informing us of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to which we verbally refer. We are moved in a primal way by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> produce with our voice and, in the absence of any “objective”, >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> information regarding (the affects on us)/(the meanings of) the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our world, we accept the affects on us of the vocal sounds of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> representing the affects on us of the things to which our words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this way, we are informed subliminally, simply by learning our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language, of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the meaning of our world. How else could we, as very young
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> children,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> achieved a sense of how we were affected by the numerous things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> made up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our world?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   This matter is of paramount importance because we act in >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> accordance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with how we perceive our world, (with what our world means to us),
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sense of that meaning is derived from  the affects upon us of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much of human behavior that is commonly attributed to “human
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nature”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> actually motivated by cultural nature, which is created by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>                                                   9
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   How and what would our society be if we had a culture which
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> instilled
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in us the values that we would consciously choose to hold?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Presently,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simply assimilate the culture in which we are born. Once we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mechanism of cultural transmission, we will be able to change our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   However, it seems that many of us may be too timid to venture
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> forth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from the false security of our unquestioned and familiar values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> expressed to me that language is a product of nature and that to >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> deliberately would produce an unnatural result, a Frankenstein >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consequences of which would probably be destructive. To those I >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we are inherently unable to venture out of the natural realm, as we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inextricably woven into the web of nature. Furthermore it is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> entirely
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> correct and wholesome for us, with the goal of improving our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> survivability,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to choose to correct our culture at its source. Once we see how we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> help
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ourselves, we would be within our progressive evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tradition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all our knowledge to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>   Vocal sounds either communicate as vocal sounds or they do not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> assume that vocal sounds do not communicate, then language only >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> blindly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unintelligently refers to things. If we assume that vocal sounds do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> communicate something, as vocal sounds, then language does more
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer to things: it also informs us about the things named. Which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do any of us believe that our vocal sounds do not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> express/communicate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> anything? If we believe that vocal sounds communicate/express
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then what is it that they communicate/express? If vocal sounds do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> communicate as sounds, do they loose that communicative function
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> incorporated into words or do they continue to be expressive when
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   If vocal sounds that constitute words communicate something as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then what effect does the sound of a word exert on our perception
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing to which that word refers?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Many seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meanings of vocal sounds, including the sounds of words, are the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they cause within each of us and not the things to which they refer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> uttered as words. Another point that aided me in understanding the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of language is that we really do not know the meaning of anything
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behave as though our taken-for-granted assumptions are valid only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they have not been held to the light of inquiry. It is only that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> resides in our subconscious and of which we are not conscious and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consequently do not question, that we act as if we “know” for sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? When asked how he managed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> coordinate the movements of all those legs, he became aware of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> previously unconscious process of walking and then could not walk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sense of the meanings of things that we dependably share with the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> others of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our society is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  instilled in each of us by the relationship between the sounds of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> words and the things to which those words refer. Words are the link
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our autonomic, cultural sense of meaning and the things that make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world. We give things a familiarity by attaching to them sounds >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our body. Our words are related to things because the vocal sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words are related to our reactions to those things. We may not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience an emotional reaction to the things that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   10
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> make up our world. It is during our seminal moments that we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> emotional reactions to things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   What meaning, if any, do things have if we are not affected by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things? All meaning is relative. If we were totally unaffected by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would it be meaningful? How would whatever meaning it may have be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perceived?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly, what we want to know about something, (anything), is how
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us, (what it is?).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    After many attempts to share these findings with those in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> academia,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their lack of understanding, even more their lack of interest in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> understanding the ideas I was putting forth , dampened my impulse
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> reach
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> out to those whom I previously had thought were most likely to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> these findings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   I figured that what I was saying was challenging on a deep
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> most, who would otherwise gain a glimpse of it. My discovery, seems
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> threaten the sense of security of those who consciously or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> treat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their culture as an idol. Some of us, especially those of highly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exercised
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> intellectual abilities, feel that security is to be had by being
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “explain” the meaning of things. By uttering words, (sounds), about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what meaning is revealed? Doing so may create the illusion of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by seeming to make the named things familiar. But does it, only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inform
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with the effect/meaning of the sounds of words, or with the meaning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things as well? What are the meanings of the things?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   It appears that culture is the root of all normal human
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all behave according to our values and assumptions and those derive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture. Do our academicians know what culture is, how it relates
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> people who are instilled with it and how it may be changed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We are informed subliminally of the meaning of our world by the
>>>>>>>>>> language that we speak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Why is it so difficult for people to understand how language
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> generates
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture? What is/are the missing piece/s of information that they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> order to grasp that concept?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   A better way is possible. We need only the vision of this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as an everyday experience, in order for us to act in accord with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciousness of how to act in order to create the world we wish
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> status quo, not the rarity that it now is. This changing of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> quo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can be accomplished by changing the culture and changing culture is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> accomplished by changing language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affect of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   11
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We have no way of knowing the final meaning of anything. We
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we know what a thing will do to us in the immediate future but what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how it will affect us much later? When we become aware of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> question its meaning and once something is questioned, we never
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gain a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of its absolute meaning Only that which remains in the subconscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not question. The feelings that well up from our subconscious, in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reaction
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to various things, seems to be true absolutely. Our feelings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our train of thought.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The certainty of the uninformed is typically replaced by the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wonderment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the “enlightened”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Our culture/language supplies us with a sense of knowing the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all things for which we have a name. This sense of the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helps us to feel secure in the face of an uncertain, threatening >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gain that sense of knowing the meaning of things simply be having
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things. Our subconscious accepts the affects of the sound of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> being the affects of the things to which the words refer.  The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> stand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for the things we name with them and replace, subliminally, our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the things referred to with our perception  of the words >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words are all we have to go on for the sensing of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning/effect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dynamic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> enable abstract thought and planning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affect of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   When we utter vocal sounds that are simply sounds and not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may, more easily,  experience consciously, the effects of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when we speak words. When we speak words, we typically experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consciously the referential function of the words and not the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the sounds of the words, while we experience the effects of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds of words subliminally. Because we experience the one thing,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referential meanings of the words), consciously, and the other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds), subconsciously, we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   12
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> subconsciously interpret the subliminal effects of the vocal
>>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> being the effects of the things to which the words refer. The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mind supplies us with the bottom line of the meaning of whatever it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are considering because we cannot reason with the subconscious mind
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can with the conscious mind. Whatever we are conscious of, we can
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and whatever we question becomes uncertain. However we have a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language-based
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subconscious reaction to that which the (meaning-of)/(effect-on-us)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> consciously unknown as long as we have a word for it, and that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reaction creates an experience of and hence a sense of knowing the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of that which, prior to being named, did not seem to be known. The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> made of sounds of our body, stands in for the unknown thing, the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> separate from our body. In the absence of any objective sense of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meanings of things, we rely on our words to provide us with a sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> knowing,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  because knowing relieves us of the stress of anxiety. We are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> driven
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the perceived safety of our familiar culture, as represented in our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> language, by the stress of the fear generated by not knowing. One
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> willing to accept the mystery of existence in order to experience,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the bias of existing culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Considering words to be things in and of themselves, (sounds),
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only a means to refer to things, will enable us to examine them for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inherent meaning. The primary meaning of a word is not the thing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represents. It is, rather, the affects on us of it’s sounds. We
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consider the meaning of the word to be the thing to which the word
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and we subconsciously experience the meaning of the word as the >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us of its sounds. Because we experience, profoundly and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consistently,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects on us of our human vocal sounds while we experience less
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> intimately
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and less consistently the effects on us of the things to which we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words, the emotional effects of the words as sounds overrides the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects of the things named, and informs us of the nature of named
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   In a similar way that explorers laid claim to land in the name
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> monarch, we tend to lay claim to that which we name in order to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> render
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seemingly familiar and known.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Everything that we perceive subconsciously creates an emotional
>>>>>>>>>> reaction that may be experienced consciously and everything that
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perceive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciously affects us subconsciously as well. We consciously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> perceive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds of spoken language and we are also affected subconsciously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> same sounds. In the course of verbal communication, we think of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to which our words refer while subconsciously we are emotionally
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affected by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the sounds of our words. This simultaneous occurrence of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing and the subconscious experience of the emotion generated by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sound
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the word we use to refer to that thing, subliminally informs us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> affect-on-us ,(the-meaning-of), the thing. In this way, we acquire
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the affects-on-us, (the-meanings-of), everything for which we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word. This is important because our actions in relation to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> make up our world are motivated by our perceptions of the meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  those things. Therefore, if we would change, for the better, our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> societies’ behavior, we ought to change our languages.
>>>>>>>>>>   Since spoken language is crucial in determining the course of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> events, it would be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   13
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> better if we consciously agreed with the subliminal sense of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of things which is instilled in us by our language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We humans are not doing so well with our relationships with one
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that we should be complacent regarding the improvement of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   People have been attempting to address social and economic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> challenges
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ever since there were people. All the religions were attempts to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> basis for our behavior. Marxism was/is an attempt to remedy social
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> economic inequality and exploitation. “Hippie” communes were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> instituted to provide healthy social environments. Organized
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> politics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> codified legal systems were/are created, supposedly, to improve our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> condition. Why is it unclear whether any of these deliberate
>>>>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>> structures actually made/make our situation better or worse? Could
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that the cause of our malaise is something that is not being >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> those who strive to improve our lot? For how many years, for how
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> centuries and millennium will we try to fix our broken world by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> laws, religions, political and economic institutions before we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doing so does not deal with the source of the problem? Marx’s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mistake
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> believing that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  economics is the foundation upon which all of society’s other
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> institutions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are based. It seemed reasonable to him that since life is based
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> biological economics of survival, that economics must be the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> determining
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> force in society. He did not see that our culture provides us with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the meaning of all recognized things thereby assuaging the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fear/terror
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that naturally arises as a result of our consciousness of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> vulnerability and that we tend to protect and defend that culture
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> because of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the perceived security which it provides. Once culture is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> established,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> causes the economic and social relationships to be what they are,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cannot be lastingly changed without changing the culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The culture, created by language forms our values which then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> influence the decisions we make consciously and  subconsciously.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                            What
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> culture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I define culture as the common fundamental values held by the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of a society. These values derive from our perception of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (the affects on us of), the things that make up our world. “Things”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whatever we identify as being distinguishable from other things,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> include feelings, thoughts, values, people and ideals. The meanings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things are one with and the same as the affects on us of those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do we acquire our sense of, (the affects on us of)/(the meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of),
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things? Is it from our own individual experiences with things? Is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what we say to ourselves and to each other about things? If it were
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> individual experience, how would we achieve consensus and if we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> could,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> why
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would all cultures not be pretty much the same?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Most would hold that even within a given society our individual
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are not the same and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   14
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> surely the popular view of what our values are, indicated by a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cursory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> survey of our behavior, seems to support that conclusion. When
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> attempting to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> assess the values that underlie behavior we should consider the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> influence of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the role that each individual sees themselves as playing within
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> culture. Given the same subliminal, fundamental values, individuals
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> any society tend to behave not only relative to those basic values
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relative to how they perceive themselves, (who they perceive >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be), within their society.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   It seems that the cause of the problem of why we do so many
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seemingly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> destructive and self-defeating things must be so basic, so
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> escape our awareness. It must be housed in the subconscious mind
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our attempts to address it have been futile. It is that which we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> don’t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> consciously know that we subconsciously know that sometimes makes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> why we do what we do. Our emotional reactions are influenced by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> resides in the subconscious just as they are by that of which we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> conscious, and often, we create rationales to explain our behavior,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the actual reasons for the feelings that motivate us may be other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we choose to think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What does every cultural group share within itself that affects
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> members profoundly and without their conscious knowledge? Where are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hidden rules, by which we live, to be found? Our culture is an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> artifact,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inherited from distant ancestors, formed in an environment vastly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than today. Ways of interacting with one another that may have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seemed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> work then now appear to be dysfunctional. The primary example is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> war,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> before weapons of mutual destruction, was rationalizable by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> victors. But
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now, with nuclear weapons, would there be any victors? We still
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> did then but we cannot afford to act today as we may have believed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> could
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then. Our technology has evolved tremendously but our culture has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are ill-equipped to cope with the situation our technology has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> enabled
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> us to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> create. Furthermore, even if war seemed winnable, wouldn’t we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> peace?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   If we admit that vocal sounds inherently affect us, as do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> expressions and general body posture, then we may ask how our sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of the things which make up our world is affected by using
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols to refer to them. What is the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> strength of the emotional effects upon us of our symbols compared
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional effects of the things to which they refer? Considering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional effects of the things themselves vary with context and is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> peculiar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of each of us, and that the emotional effects of the vocal symbols
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> relatively consistent and universal, can we assume that the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> symbols create the perceived meanings of the things? Is this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the same or different within the conscious and subconscious minds?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conscious or subconscious mind more strongly influence our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> behaviors affected by our subconscious minds even when we are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  consciously think we should do?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We either are or are not affected by our vocal utterances. I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we are. If we were not affected by our vocal utterances, we would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> vocalize. The whole purpose of vocalizing is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                                                   15
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> communication! And in order to communicate, we must be affected by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which we use to communicate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What, we may ask, is communicated by vocalizing? What is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> communicated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when other animals vocalize? It is clear that animals communicate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> instantaneous emotional states by their vocalizations. How is this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> communication accomplished? The vibrating of the body of the >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocalizer,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (sender),  causes the body of the receiver to vibrate in sympathy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> receiver experiences the motions and consequently the emotions of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sender. This simple process is the foundation of our vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> verbal activity, (our language), and our culture. Many of us seem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> balk at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> accepting the idea that our lofty retorical proclamations are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> founded
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> such primal processes. If you are one of these, consider that our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> genetic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> blueprint is shared, in the majority, by all other vertebrates and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> largely
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by all other animals. To those who disparage animals, please be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reminded
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that the Grand Creator authored ALL of everything, not only us and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> those of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whom we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  approve.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What are the ingredients that make up the mix of influences
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> determine human behavior? Given that we are intelligent enough to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and cherish the truths that are our guiding principles, and given
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are not born self destructive, then for what reason/s did we act as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From where does the false information come that motivates much of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> behavior? “Human nature” does not account for our inhuman actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of our destructiveness must exist among the things which we learn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    From what ultimate source do we acquire our information
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of our world? Our culture is that source.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What have we got to go on in order to achieve a sense of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our world other than the words we speak?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Do we have a benchmark for establishing the meaning of things?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> everything is relative, what is it relative to? We need not look
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than ourselves to find that. How could it be otherwise? We look out
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> eyes and hear with our ears and think that we can objectively >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nature of each and every thing that we examine. However, with our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> survival
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in the balance, as it inescapably is, how whatever it is that we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> examine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relates to our survival determines what it must mean to us. How we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> affected by the things that constitute our world establishes their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vocal sounds we make express and convey the different emotional
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we experience. Our words are made up of these body-sounds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words convey emotional meaning and inform us of the affects on us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for which we have names.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Language exists in both the conscious and the subconscious. We
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> conscious of the words we speak and of the things to which they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> refer,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> while
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they inform us subconsciously of the effects on us, (the meanings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of),
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things to which they refer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Does it matter what things mean? Does it matter what we think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> mean? Do our actions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                                                   16
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> relative to them depend on what they mean to us?  Do we act in >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things according to what they mean to us? How do we know the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ultimate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on us of any thing? Is the effect on us of any thing its meaning?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> any thing mean to us anything other than what its effect on us is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> obtain a sense of the meanings of things? Do we get that sense of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> affects-on-us/ the-meanings-of things directly from our own
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things or as mediated by language?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Of all forms of body language, (vocalization, facial expression
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> overall body posture), only one of them,vocalization, is commonly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represent things other than conditions of the emotional body. Our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> posture is very communicative of our physical-emotional state
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> deliberate intent and is sometimes used deliberately to convey the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Facial expression can be more finely communicative of our state of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> being/feeling than is general body posture. Vocalization, while
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> profoundly expressive/communicative, is, by civilized people,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exclusively reserved for uttering words. While we are not aware of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> affect upon ourselves of the phones we utter, we are aware of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upon ourselves of the emotional embellishments we add to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Often,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consciously add emotional content to our words in order to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> embellish
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referential meaning. Since we are busy, often consciously,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referential meaning of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  our words, we are unaware of the emotional impact of the sounds
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> make
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> them up. Each distinct articulate vocal sound affects us in its own
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the workings of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture-creating function of language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We not only refer to things with our words. More profoundly, we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inform
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ourselves of the very meaning of those things simply by using a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal sound), to refer to them.  This information as to the affects
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upon us,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (the meanings of), the things which make up our world, constitutes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> culture. Culture is information, (in-formation). Since we are not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the nature of this information, it exists in our subconscious
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> according to a subconscious program put in place by our language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understand how we receive information regarding the meaning or our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world, we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can change that information so that it agrees with what we believe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nature of our world. Our culture was passed down, from long ago;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> before
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> electronics, before motorized transport and the printing press. If
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to deliberately create our language today, would we create the one
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> currently use? If so or if not, why? Would we know how to create a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  language that conveys the meanings of things that are their actual
>>>>>>>>>> meanings? If we would know, how would we know? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   That which affects us profoundly and constantly must be in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> proximity. Things right in front of us are often overlooked when we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for that which affects us powerfully. We tend to assume that if the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of major difficulties were so close to us, it would be obvious and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have discovered them by now. Let us reexamine our major influences
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> look
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for what causes us to behave as we do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Our species, is plenty smart enough to understand why our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> saints
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> prophets are correct when they exhort us to be “good”.  We create
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> secular
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> laws that mirror our religious tenants and are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   17
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to any critique of our behavior. Our feelings of guilt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> well developed. Why then do we act as we do; making war against one
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and engaging in all kinds of destructive activity?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   I have heard many claim that it is simply “human nature” to act
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> destructive ways. Those who believe that, feel that there is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> done to correct our human malaise other than punishment. Evil ones
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> trimmed back, like a noxious and thorny vine. I do not subscribe to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> depressing idea and know that the truth of the matter is that we >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> humans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inherently survival oriented and will learn whatever seems as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> further our survival. It is because of our native intelligence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our survival desire that we voluntarily stretch our consciousness
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> order
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to glimpse a better way for ourselves to carry on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   What are the forces that influence our behavior? What we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> good and correct does not, it seems, by itself, determine our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not fully believe that what seems to be right to us is truly right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there some other influence that informs us of what the world and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things and concepts and people in it mean to us, something else
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> influences our perception of how we must behave in order to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> survive?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   Our behavior is related to how we are affected by the things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> make
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up our world. We behave in relation to the various things that fill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> awareness, according to how they affect our survivability, (how we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PERCEIVE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that they affect our survivability). We perceive the world directly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> personal contact with it and indirectly through contact with that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represents the world to us, (our language). Language represents the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> labeling everything about which we speak, with sounds made by our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bodies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those vocal sounds are part and parcel of states of our emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> preverbal progenitors and our children when young, make vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reaction to various environmental stimuli. Those emotive sounds are
>>>>>>>>>> intuitively made sense of by all who hear them. We sense the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocalizations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and they make sense to us. The vocal sounds are made by a body in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> emotional state and cause that state to be reproduced in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> body
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the hearer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  of those sounds. The sending body vibrates and the receiving body
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vibrates
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> similarly. An emotionally linked vibrational pattern is spread from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> originator of the vocal sound-vibration to whoever’s auditory >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moved by it. The transmittance of the vibrational pattern is the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> transmission of the emotion. We are emotionally affected by the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotions of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Language is an institution, a standardized way we move our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bodies,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> specifically our vocal apparatuses, our ears, central nervous
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> emotions, in relation to the various things that make up our world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> relation to a book, we who speak English, utter the sound, “book”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> relation to a book, a Spanish-speaking person utters the sound, “
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> libro”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These two different sounds move us in different ways, giving us a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience of that which refers to and represents that object and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consequently, of the thing referred to. The primal meaning of a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effect the sound of it creates within us. The secondary, more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meaning of a word is that to which it refers. The secondary meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we commonly accept as being the one and only meaning. We are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   18
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> generally not aware of the primary meaning, because we are
>>>>>>>>>> affected
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal sounds of our words subliminally and by the secondary,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referential,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of words consciously.  Awareness of the primary meanings of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds was superseded by the awareness of the >> secondary,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -referential-,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaning of vocal sounds used as words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   To understand the functionality, the “nuts and bolts”, of >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to free ourselves of domination by culture, to be the masters of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rather than its subjects. We have been inextricably attached to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> culture, for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> better or for worse, ever since our use of language began. Now we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> intentionally create a language/culture that informs us as we would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be informed, of the effects on us, (the meanings of), all the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Certainly we agree that we are affected by the sounds we utter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then is the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consequence of referring to all the things to which we refer, (all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> things that make up our conscious world), with inherently
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> sounds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we were able to refer to things with “meaningless” symbols, then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would be conveying is the thought of the thing. When we refer to >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols, we are also informing ourselves of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> meanings of the things to which we are referring. Is there such a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> meaningless symbol? Is anything meaningless? In order to perceive
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anything,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> including a symbol, that symbol must register upon our senses and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> order
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to register upon our senses, the sensed thing must affect us. No >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us, equals no perception by us. Whatever the affect on us is, is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> fundamental meaning of the sensed thing. When we refer to things,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> primarily being affected by the symbol which we use to do the >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> referring
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> secondarily by the memory, if there is a memory, of the thing to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  are referring. When we refer to something with which we have no >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience, we have only the symbol, (word), to affect us and thus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> inform
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   If there is a discrete connection between a vocal sound and  a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and a connection likewise between a particular vocal sound and a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effect on the emotions, then there is a connection between the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of the sound and the thing to which that sound, (word), refers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   We are aware that sound has an effect and that the word is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sound
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that the word has an effect and that the word refers to a thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aware that, for all intents and purposes, the effect seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How we are affected by a thing, our perception of a thing, is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> subliminally as being the meaning of the thing. Our actions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things in our world, are related to the perceived meanings of those
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   We feel the feelings generated by the sounds of our words at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> same
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> time as we are deliberately focusing on the things to which the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> refer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a consequence, we associate particular vocal-sound-generated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> feelings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with particular things. The thing does not define the feeling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rather,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> feeling defines the thing. The feeling of the word determines what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> accepted subliminally as the meaning of the thing. The word enables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> experience feelings of the meanings of things not present, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> direct experience. It establishes a sense of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                                   19
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consensus which wells up from the subconscious minds among the >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> speakers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a given language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   All throughout human history, language has been playing this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> role
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consensus creator based on the information we derive from the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> words regarding the-affects-on-us/the-meanings-of, the things that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> our worlds. If we would rather live in a culture of our own
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> creation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> than in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just any one in which we happened to be born, we might consider
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> experimenting with cultural change through language renewal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   I have been asked what I hope to achieve with this information.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> desire is that we become aware of the forces that affect us so that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> be able to change the circumstances that exist to circumstances
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would prefer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Because of the inherent shortcomings inherent in existing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> languages,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> although words can be used in a kindly manner to help get us back
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> track
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when we lose our way, they cannot, in and of themselves, guide
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> determined to see things in a certain way. Only the willing can be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can we help people to be willing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   I observe that culture is the prosthetic subconscious of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> society,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which we who live in a particular society share with one another
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> have in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> common. It has to do with our world-view. Our world view is formed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> things mean to us. How do we obtain our sense of the meaning of our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we share t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
>>>>>> *Assistant Professor
>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>>>>> Georgia Southern University
>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>>>>> Phone: (912) 478-5125
>>>>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>>>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
>>>>>> midwife.*
>>>>>> *-*John Dewey.
>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
>>>>> *Assistant Professor
>>>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>>>> Georgia Southern University
>>>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>>>> Phone: (912) 478-5125
>>>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>>>>>
>>>>> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
>>>>> midwife.*
>>>>> *-*John Dewey.
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
>>> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>


-- 
*Robert Lake  Ed.D.
*Assistant Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-5125
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460

 *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
midwife.*
*-*John Dewey.
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca