Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious Awareness

[David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>]

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