[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] fetishism | word meaning
On 10 June 2011 00:14, Joseph Gilbert <email@example.com> wrote:
> Do you suppose that there is any, or do you experience any, relationship
> between any particular phone, when heard, and a particular feeling-reaction.
Yes, I do suppose.
> If we admit that there is no perception without being affected by the thing
> perceived, then phones must affect us. So, what is the effect of a given
Fear of phone spam in my case.
> Are we affected identically by all phones or differently by different
Differently, for me.
> What is the mechanism of non-verbal, vocal communication in humans and
> other species?
My hypothesis is that it is various degrees of dialogical appreciation,
dependent on the sophistication of the nervous system.
> If we are, in fact, affected feeling-wise by our specific phones, then how
> is our subliminal perception of things affected by the vocal sounds we use
> to refer to them?
I'd say that the tone (timbre) of our sounds is, to some degree, a function
of our affect, etc.
There are more subtleties, ofcourse. In a particular mood, particular
images (including words) will come to mind.
> I see that the preponderance of spoken language's communicative
> function takes place subconsciously. Do you recognize or look for the
> subconscious effects on us of the sounds we use to form our spoken words?
> On a personal note, do you sense any arrogance in your reply to my
> last e-mail?
No. Mostly clarity. Take care though, Joseph. Some people find it very
easy to project their experiences.
> First you identify yourselves as "scientists and schlors".
No. I identified. Note that this list is not comprehensive. Here be
scholars and scientists doesn't exclude readers and those of curious minds.
I think this kind of error is making things difficult for you, Joseph.
Very well. So you are... I already knew that. Therefore, what? I am
> heartened to hear you refer to your group as "A well meaning and thoughtful
> bunch". That is something we all should strive for. Were you saying that I
> was "inflicting you with help"? Were you saying that I was not being
> "precise" enough for the purposes of this exchange? Finally, I was not
> intentionally aksing questions, but rather sharing thoughts on a subject
> with which you seemingly deal. A questioner/requester, in the your context,
> is a supplicant. Are you suggesting that I assume that role here?
None other than the basic protocol of genuine assistance. Without good
feedback that is sought out, we're lost.
> As a matter of personal curiouity; what answers were you seeking
> that caused you to pursue these studies?
Pretty much as it says on the members list.
> I was looking to understand how we are, as a species, affected by
> our spoken language, - our culture.
There's plenty to wonder about there. It's obviously something you have
lots of energy for.
> J. Gilbert
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 20:22, Joseph Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Dear All:
>>> I do not intend to offend, however faced with the choice in front of me
>>> withdrawing from this forum or of sharing my perspective on spoken
>>> I choose the later. If one is passionately pursuing understanding, one,
>>> above all else, looks for the causes of whatever one is seeking to
>>> understand. I am not interested in participating in pointless chit-chat
>>> as a
>>> social activity/exercise. And I am not much interested in what others who
>>> came before have said about my subject of interest, if their
>>> do not facilitate my own understanding. I have found the information I
>>> to share only by focusing on the fundamental causative forces that
>>> spoken language.
>> If those I would like to share my findings with would be more
>>> concerned with delving into the matter before us, and be willing to
>>> sincerely look for answers, than they are to maintain and defend their
>>> assumed position, I believe a genuine dialog could take place. Rarifying
>>> discussion by unnecessarily complicating the search for clarity creates a
>>> false aura of expertise around those who are initiated into the lingo,
>>> seems to enable them to establish and protect their status as
>>> for the ivory-towered dispensers of "truth".
>> xmca is an extension of a (scientific) journal, mca. Here be scientists
>> scholars. A well meaning and thoughtful bunch, mind you. However, to
>> being inflicted with help, some precision is required. If you want to
>> increase the chances of a particular kind of answer, or dialogue, you'll
>> need to ask a particular kind of question/request.
>> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list