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

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

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