Re: [xmca] fetishism | word meaning

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 7 June 2011 21:31, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Do you hold that vocal sounds affect us emotionally/feeling-wise?
>
>
Hi Jospeh,  I'm assuming this question is directed at me?

They are capable of emotional influence.  Though this a function of the
person, rather than the sound.  For example, deaf people aren't influenced
that much.

It's not clear to me how this relates to your usage of "are" in "words are
vocal sounds".

Will let you mull it over.

Huw



>        Joseph Gilbert
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>  On 7 June 2011 16:27, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Words are vocal sounds. Vocal sounds are meaningful.
>>>
>>>
>> I think you have an elision here, Joseph.
>>
>> If you take "are" as the plural of "is", you're effectively saying:
>>
>> "A word is a sound, sound is meaningful."
>>
>> Hence you appear to be conflating the relation of equivalence with
>> aggregation:
>>
>> (Spoken) Words are (composed of) vocal sounds.
>>
>> Just as you might say "Pyramids are (composed of) stone"  rather than
>> "Pyramids are buildings".
>>
>> Huw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>               Joseph Gilbert
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>>>
>>>  Peirce explicitly contended that the meaning of any sign (including
>>> words,
>>>
>>>> thoughts, arguments, feelings, or whatever), _qua_ signs, lies in the
>>>> virtuality of potential future interpretations (just by virtue of the
>>>> fundamental nature of what it is to be a sign, i.e., in the activity of
>>>> sign-relations).
>>>>
>>>> Also, notice that I'm using "meaning" as something that we -- and our
>>>> words, thoughts, etc. -- DO, not something they contain, convey, etc. I
>>>> recently noticed similar usage in the title of Jay's MCA review of
>>>> Sfard's
>>>> book, which speaks of "Meaning Mathematically," not "mathematical
>>>> meaning."
>>>> The latter locution could mean the same as Jay's, but it also would
>>>> allow
>>>> the more familiar reading of "meaning" as a noun. If we need to begin
>>>> meaning differently than how we might be heard to mean in positivist
>>>> discourse, I think we need to begin choosing speaking that resists
>>>> assimilation to that discourse.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, mike cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  The poem is neat and your explication brings to mind a recurrent
>>>> thought
>>>>
>>>>> when I encounter the core idea of "the thought is completed in the
>>>>> word."
>>>>> I
>>>>> (think I) know what LSV and Mandelshtam are saying, but I always have
>>>>> this
>>>>> thought that the thought is not yet completed, not in so far as it is
>>>>> taken
>>>>> up, perhaps transformed, and comes back again at a later time, in some
>>>>> new,
>>>>> albeit related, form, to begin that side of the cycle over again.
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  I clipped the wrong line from Martin's post in that last message. I
>>>>>
>>>>>> meant
>>>>>> the Dickinson verse in reponse to the line that now appears below from
>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Dickinson's verse, what's not timeless is not merely the meaning
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> word does as a lexical unit in a language (i.e., in the philological
>>>>>> sense),
>>>>>> but even in a specific utterance the word spoken continues meaning, as
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> continues living, non-timelessly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   For LSV word-meaning is not timeless. It changes over time; he
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  study philology for nothing!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  A word is dead
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    When it is said
>>>>>>>  Some say.
>>>>>>> I say it just
>>>>>>> Begins to live
>>>>>>>  That day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    --Emily Dickinson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it helpful to think of meaning as something that words do --
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> something they contain, convey, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Tony Whitson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> UD School of Education
>>>>>> NEWARK  DE  19716
>>>>>>
>>>>>> twhitson@udel.edu
>>>>>> _______________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "those who fail to reread
>>>>>>  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>>>>                -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Tony Whitson
>>>> UD School of Education
>>>> NEWARK  DE  19716
>>>>
>>>> twhitson@udel.edu
>>>> _______________________________
>>>>
>>>> "those who fail to reread
>>>>  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>>                 -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>  __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca