Huw:Do you suppose that there is any, or do you experience any, relationship between any particular phone, when heard, and a particular feeling-reaction. 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 phone? Are we affected identically by all phones or differently by different phones? What is the mechanism of non-verbal, vocal communication in humans and other species? 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 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? First you identify yourselves as "scientists and schlors". 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? As a matter of personal curiouity; what answers were you seeking that caused you to pursue these studies? I was looking to understand how we are, as a species, affected by our spoken language, - our culture.
J. Gilbert On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
On 9 June 2011 20:22, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:Dear All:I do not intend to offend, however faced with the choice in front of me of withdrawing from this forum or of sharing my perspective on spoken language, I choose the later. If one is passionately pursuing understanding, one,above all else, looks for the causes of whatever one is seeking tounderstand. 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 pronouncements do not facilitate my own understanding. I have found the information I wish to share only by focusing on the fundamental causative forces that producedspoken language.If those I would like to share my findings with would be moreconcerned with delving into the matter before us, and be willing tosincerely look for answers, than they are to maintain and defend their assumed position, I believe a genuine dialog could take place. Rarifying the discussion by unnecessarily complicating the search for clarity creates a false aura of expertise around those who are initiated into the lingo, and seems to enable them to establish and protect their status as gate- keepersfor the ivory-towered dispensers of "truth".xmca is an extension of a (scientific) journal, mca. Here be scientists and scholars. A well meaning and thoughtful bunch, mind you. However, to avoidbeing inflicted with help, some precision is required. If you want toincrease the chances of a particular kind of answer, or dialogue, you'llneed to ask a particular kind of question/request. Huw __________________________________________ _____ 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