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

[ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]

Hello all:

This is such an interesting stream that has flowed into the different 
tributaries of a delta and then joined again as it has emptied into the 
vast ocean of communal knowledge. 

I do not have the linguistic knowledge to offer much in research based 
efforts of understanding the development of metaphorical knowledge.  What 
I can offer is my observational data of working with severely mentally ill 
young adults.  Many do not grasp metaphorical speech and can become very 
agitated if a person continues on with a metaphor that has not been 
understood.  This explains why so many people who suffer mental health 
issues are unsuccessful in the academic world.

my two cents for a million dollar topic
eric 



From:   Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
To:     Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, 
Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date:   11/01/2010 01:04 PM
Subject:        Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious 
Awareness
Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu



Hi Vera,
The *Journal of Aesthetic Education* is interested in publishing it  and *
Francine** *Smolucha says she is writing it.
RL

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu> 
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> We are looking for reviews and reviewers for Vygotsky and Creativity. Do
> you think your publication would be interested and could you think of a
> reviewer?
>
> Thanks, Vera
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Lake" <
> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
> Awareness
>
>
> Thanks for the LSV Citations David as well as this:
> *
> "But that's the whole point; the emotional substratum of language is 
always
> there and it never goes away; there is no point of entropy where 
thinking
> and feeling are completely merged."
> *I will be pondering and savoring this all weekend.
>
> RL
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Robert Lake 
<boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
> >wrote:
>
>  Thanks for the Citation David!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Kellogg 
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  Rod:
>>>
>>> Yes, it seems nonaccidental that we say "I feel LIKE my brain is an
>>> erogenous zone" (for example) but we have say "I think THAT my brain 
is
>>> an
>>> erogenous zone".  The obvious comparison is indirect reported speech 
for
>>> feelings (and thus simile) but more direct forms for thoughts and 
words
>>> (we
>>> can say "Richard Shweder says, 'my brain is an erogenous zone'").
>>>
>>> But Vygotsky considers even the language of the Odyssey to be 
"lyrically
>>> colored" and therefore emotional rather than ideational; when Homer 
says
>>> "And they lay down by the shelving sea" or "When rosy fingered dawn
>>> touched
>>> the sky" we feel like we know what he means even though we cannot 
really
>>> say
>>> that what it is.
>>>
>>> Of course, in order to really understand this lyrical coloration, you
>>> need
>>> to be able to read hexameters in ancient Greek. But that's the whole
>>> point;
>>> the emotional substratum of language is always there and it never goes
>>> away;
>>> there is no point of entropy where thinking and feeling are completely
>>> merged.
>>>
>>> The photo experiment is described in Volume Four, pp. 193-194, of
>>> Vygotsky's Cllected Works, in a chapter called "Development of Speech 
and
>>> Thinking". Here's the key passage.
>>>
>>> “(I)f one and the same picture (let us say, the prisoner in jail) is
>>> shown
>>> to a three-year-old, he will say 'a man, another man, a window, a mug, 
a
>>> bench', but for a preschool child it would be 'a man is sitting, 
another
>>> is
>>> looking out of a window, and a mug is on the bench'. (...) A
>>> five-year-old
>>> establishes a connection between words in a single sentence, and an
>>> eight-year-old uses complex additional sentences. A theoretical
>>> assumption
>>> arises: can the story about the picture describe the child's thinking?
>>> (...)
>>> We will ask two children not to tell a story, but to perform what the
>>> picture shows. It develops that the children's play about the picture
>>> sometimes lasts twenty or thirty minutes, and primarily and most of 
all
>>> in
>>> the play those relations are captured that are in the picture. (...) 
The
>>> child understands very well that the people are in jail: here the 
complex
>>> narration about how the people were caught, how they were taken, that 
one
>>> looks out
>>>  the window, and that he wants to be free is added. Here a very 
complex
>>> narration is added about how the nanny was fined for not having a 
ticket
>>> on
>>> the trolley. In a word, we get a typical portrayal of what we see in 
the
>>> story of a twelve-year-old. (1997, pp. 193-194)"
>>>
>>> We did a whole foreign language replication of this experiment with 
using
>>> a video clip (with an added time element) and some second graders and
>>> wrote
>>> it up for MCA, but it was (violently) rejected so we gave up. I still
>>> have a
>>> copy of the paper if you are interested though.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 10/27/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>> Awareness
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 3:55 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Apologies for missing this, David
>>>
>>> I suspect that the relationships between affective metaphor and 
cognitive
>>> metaphor are as messy and complicated (or rich and intricate) as any
>>> other
>>> form of (imagined) boundary between thinking and feeling.
>>>
>>> When we use a simile I think we invite listeners/readers to colour one
>>> concept with features of another, often (though not always) in a 
rather
>>> generalised way. When we use a metaphor I think there is more of an
>>> invitation to the listener/reader to haul up associations from the 
murk
>>> of
>>> personal experience (what does a hot liquid feel like, what does it 
make
>>> me
>>> feel like). I realise as I write this that I am assuming that there is 
a
>>> difference between a person's 'own' 'lived-in' associations with
>>> particular
>>> words/concepts and that person's sense of a 'common' or widely shared 
set
>>> of
>>> associations (what this can be assumed to mean to other people) -
>>> actually
>>> probably many different sets of 'common' meanings for different 
subgroups
>>> of
>>> 'other people' (people of my generation, people in my professional 
field,
>>> 'kids today', people who have adolescent children .....).
>>>
>>> To a degree, our sense of how much like another person we are will 
depend
>>> on how well that other person is able to find a fit with our own
>>> meanings.
>>> We can manage an academic conversation with a relative stranger but it
>>> won't
>>> feel the same as a conversation with a relative or with someone who 
likes
>>> us
>>> enough to bother to remember how we feel about things. For babies it 
is
>>> quite easy to differentiate between 'people who like me' and 'people 
who
>>> don't know me' because the former engage in a noticeably more
>>> contingent/reciprocal way (they 'like' me both in the sense of caring
>>> about
>>> me and in the sense of adjusting to me) and this is surely a useful
>>> distinction to be able to make. For adults it is more complicated 
because
>>> there are so many gradations of liking to keep track of (guided by the
>>> steer
>>> from embarrassment when we get it wrong!) but I still think that most 
of
>>> us
>>> are highly skilled in (unconsciously) picking up cues about the degree 
to
>>> which someone
>>>  is adjusting to us (how much they like us). I also think that our own
>>> awareness of the adjustments we make when we interact with others 
forms
>>> an
>>> important part of our knowledge about other people (we can even make
>>> these
>>> adjustments when they are not present so that we can imagine, for
>>> example,
>>> how they would feel about something we are considering suggesting to
>>> them).
>>>
>>> I like the word 'graspture' but for me (and for those who like me 
enough
>>> to know what I am like!) simile is less 'violent' than metaphor, a 
black
>>> and
>>> white diagram of the full colour collision.
>>>
>>> I would like to read more about Vygotsky's replication of Stern's
>>> photograph experiment - something I know nothing about - where can I 
find
>>> this?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 04:55
>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>> Subject: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious 
Awareness
>>>
>>> Rod:
>>>
>>> I agree that there is an AFFECTIVE difference between simile and
>>> metaphor.
>>> Actually, I think that the use of "like" as a preposition is related 
to
>>> the
>>> use of "like" as a verb; the prepositional form is an objectified 
version
>>> of
>>> the affective affinity we see in the verbal form. I think that the
>>> existence
>>> of these two quite different forms is a good example of the
>>> DIFFERENTIATION
>>> and PARTITIONING that language brings about in affect (the word
>>> "articulation" springs to mind in this context).
>>>
>>> So I'm very interested in what you say about the "distancing" effect 
of
>>> simile. Do you think grammatical metaphor has the same effect of
>>> distantiation. Does "growth" suggest an objective view when we compare 
it
>>> to
>>> "grow", because "growth" does not have an identifiable subject or 
object?
>>>
>>> Of course, what Lakoff and Johnson are writing about is not affect but
>>> COGNITIVE metaphor. The idea is that underlying a whole range of
>>> linguistic
>>> expressions is some kind of non-verbal IMAGE, e.g. "anger is a hot
>>> liquid",
>>> quite independent of its verbal expression. From that perspective, 
there
>>> is
>>> no difference between simile and metaphor, and there is also no
>>> difference
>>> between metonymy and metaphor (because metonymy is simply a special 
case
>>> of
>>> a linguistic realization of a cognitive metaphor). All stem from a
>>> completely undifferentiated, unpartitioned, unarticulated mental
>>> equivalence
>>> (I think it's no accident that almost all of Lakoff's and Johnson's
>>> cognitive metaphors can be expressed as mathematical equations, 
although
>>> none of them are really reversible the way that equations are: we 
cannot
>>> say
>>> that a hot liquid = anger).
>>>
>>> Actually, I didn't say that Piaget believed that children are capable 
of
>>> reasoning "What kind of thought would I be expressing if I were making
>>> the
>>> acoustic sounds/articulatory gestures that I am now hearing?" Quite 
the
>>> contrary. This belief is the core of the "analysis by synthesis" views 
of
>>> speech perception, whether they originate in New Haven (Liberman) or
>>> Cambridge, MA (Halle). Piaget holds that the child's thinking does not
>>> achieve the Copernican Revolution of decentration until seven or 
eight,
>>> so
>>> Liberman or Halle would have to argue for innate mechanisms that 
"think"
>>> in
>>> a decentred way quite against the child's grain.
>>>
>>> Vygotsky has no such problem. The child is a social being from birth, 
and
>>> it is some time before children actually differentiate themselves from
>>> the
>>> "Ur-wir", the proto-we. It seems to me that this is completely 
consistent
>>> with an ontogenetic "analysis by synthesis"; the child understands
>>> because
>>> the child has not really differentiated speaker from hearer. The
>>> occasional
>>> failures of this type of understanding, in fact, play a not
>>> inconsequential
>>> part in the process of the child's differentiation of "I" from "we",
>>> which
>>> is only expressed, not generated, in the child's use of negation.
>>>
>>> Vygotsky mentions his replication of the Stern photograph experiment,
>>> where a three year old is given a photo and responds with a list of 
the
>>> objects in it ("a man", "another man", "a window", "a mug") and a five
>>> year
>>> old can add processes ("the man is sitting" "the other man is looking 
out
>>> the window") but only the twelve year old can tell the story of how 
the
>>> men
>>> came to be sitting in prison. When Vygotsky replicates this, he asks 
the
>>> children to ROLE PLAY the picture. Since this forces the kids to add 
the
>>> element of time, the five year olds come up with a twenty minute role
>>> play
>>> that is fully as complex as the narrative of the twelve year olds.
>>>
>>> When Vygotsky does this, he is trying to show that the idea that young
>>> children see pictures as a whole and do not differentiate the life
>>> stories
>>> within it is simply wrong. But in interpreting his result, we risk
>>> falling
>>> into a rather Piagetian analysis, which holds that speech is really an
>>> afterthought and not the cause of the child's thinking, because the 
child
>>> is
>>> capable of expressing in action so much more than what he can 
articulate
>>> in
>>> differentiated speech. I think this is part of what is bugging Martin.
>>>
>>> Two ways of debugging this occur to me. The first is that if we accept
>>> Vygotsky's account that verbal thinking (not all thinking) develops 
from
>>> the
>>> "introvolution" of speech, we have to clearly differentiate between 
the
>>> child's UNDERSTANDING of speech in the environment (which is semantic,
>>> i.e.
>>> NOT entirely dependent on a phasal, lexicogrammatical, partitioning of
>>> speech) and the child's ability to "articulate" (which is).
>>>
>>> The second point is that Vygotsky's definition of speech changes. For 
the
>>> very young child, speech includes the child's actions and in fact is 
more
>>> about the child's gestures and the child's use of the affordances in 
the
>>> environment than about vocabulary and grammar. Early speech is 
dominated
>>> by
>>> indication and nomination; signifying comes later.
>>>
>>> In the same way, metaphor comes first, because the child has to be 
able
>>> to
>>> accept that a gesture can "stand for" an object, and a word can "stand
>>> for"
>>> the idealized relationship between gesture and object. Similes are a 
kind
>>> of
>>> violent graspture of the conscious awareness of metaphor. So to speak.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 1:08 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> So many ideas to respond to and so little time!
>>>
>>> Isn't it more likely that our associations between 'mmm' and baby 
related
>>> concepts may be more to do with the fact that this is one of the first
>>> recognisable sounds produced by babies? Mamas, Moms, mothers and 
mummies
>>> all
>>> over the world have reason to like the idea that these first sounds 
refer
>>> to
>>> them (fathers are left with papa or dada). But how things may have 
begun
>>> is
>>> always only a part of the story - layers upon layers of cultural
>>> associations and connotations are wrapped around the infant word as it 
is
>>> used in particular kinds of situations and contexts.
>>>
>>> A Carol pointed out, phonemes are category labels rather than names of
>>> 'things' - a way of splitting the infinite variations of sound into a
>>> limited number of chunks. After the age of about 9 months we begin to
>>> actively filter our perception of speech sounds to privilege 
meaningful
>>> distinctions in the languages used around us so there are probably 
many
>>> more
>>> SPEECH sounds than any one of us thinks there are because we think 
only
>>> of
>>> the sounds we are still able to discriminate.
>>>
>>> Where J.G. differs from David's version of Piaget's view, that 'You 
have
>>> to imagine what you would be thinking if you were making the noises 
that
>>> you
>>> are hearing', he seems to me to be closer to Reddy's 'second person
>>> perspective' which has been aired here in the past - babies don't have 
to
>>> 'imagine' or 'think' - they have only to engage or respond.
>>>
>>> Also, while there may be some very general, physiological, associative
>>> principles in the affective force of sounds (large, grande, enorme 
versus
>>> little, teensy weensy, petit, piccolo for example, and associations 
with
>>> 'squeak' and 'roar') there is also space for enormous variation in the
>>> effect that words have when they are spoken in different ways by 
people
>>> with
>>> different kinds of voice and by people in different moods (you really 
can
>>> hear the difference between someone reciting letter of the alphabet 
while
>>> smiling or while frowning).
>>>
>>> Here's an experiment - download the transcript of Vikram 
Ramachandran's
>>> lecture 'Phantoms in the brain' from
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/radio4/reith2003/lecture1.shtml?print
>>>
>>> Read the first paragraph or two before you click on the 'listen' 
button
>>> and then compare the experience of your reading and hearing
>>> Ramachandran's
>>> voice (all of the lectures from this series are still well worth
>>> listening
>>> to).
>>>
>>> Sounds and words may 'have' some power of signification, whether 
because
>>> of their/our physiological properties or because of the layers of
>>> association they have accumulated (some of which may be forgotten by 
or
>>> unknown to most of us) but this is a thin, diagrammatic sort of 
meaning.
>>> It
>>> is when they are performed by a speaker (or singer) that they can 
serve
>>> as
>>> an interface, allowing us to hear through them and engage with/respond 
to
>>> the life of another person.
>>>
>>> So - apologies for my thin, diagrammatic contribution.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>> P.S. I still think there is a significant affective distinction 
between
>>> the effect of a simile and the effect of a metaphor - a simile 
announces
>>> itself while a metaphor can get to you more immediately.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>> Sent: 13 October 2010 06:58
>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>
>>> We can see that J.G. really does believe that vowels and consonants 
are
>>> semantic, just as Khlebnikov did. Leonard Bernstein, in his Harvard
>>> Lectures
>>> on the "Semantics of Music" had a very similar theory about "mmm";
>>> associating it with nursing, nipples, and micturation. It's the kind 
of
>>> thing that the "perceptionists" that Vygotsky criticizes in 
"Psychology
>>> of
>>> Art" believed.
>>>
>>> Of course, there is some evidence to support this; we often find that
>>> "milk" and "mammary glands" and "mothers" and "mommas" are associated
>>> with
>>> the first bilabial sounds that babies make: Korean, Chinese, Arabic,
>>> Tibetan
>>> and many other languages can provide us with examples, and it's easy 
to
>>> imagine a world where babies are responsible for teaching mothers
>>> Motherese
>>> as an international language. It's our world, more or less.
>>>
>>> But there are many languages, including English, where the /m/ sound 
is
>>> associated with NEGATIVES: "malady", "malevolent", "malefactor", etc.
>>> Worse,
>>> there are certain "things" or even "emotions" which by their very 
nature
>>> cannot be directly expressed in a vowel or a consonant.
>>>
>>> Consider the number "zero" or the grammatical category of negation. 
It's
>>> really NOT possible (IMpossible, to use an "em") to express something
>>> that
>>> does not exist by something that does exist in a direct, iconic 
manner.
>>> Something that exists, exists. It doesn't not exist. The only way for 
it
>>> to
>>> mean something that does not exist is indirectly, that is, 
symbolically.
>>>
>>> We had a related problem in class. The kids are playing a game with
>>> cards,
>>> where they are supposed to ask "Can you swim?" and if the responder
>>> answers
>>> "Yes, I can" (because there is a sign on the back of the card 
indicating
>>> "yes") the child is allowed to keep the card.
>>>
>>> But the teacher has to begin by explaining what the cards mean. And 
the
>>> problem is that the card shows an actual child swimming, not a child 
who
>>> "can" swim. So the solution is a process of what Robert Lake would 
call
>>> metaphor, of having something stand for something else (e.g. "one 
minus
>>> one
>>> EQUALS zero").
>>>
>>> T: Look (indicating the card)! She is swimming. She's swimming. 
So...she
>>> can swim. Now...(indicating himself). I am not swimming. I'm teaching,
>>> right? BUT...I can swim. Can you swim?
>>> S: Yes.
>>> T: Good. Can she swim? Can he swim? Ask her. Ask him. How many 
swimmers
>>> in
>>> this group? How many swimmers in our class?
>>>
>>> You can see that the way the teacher handles the problem of presenting
>>> POTENTIAL rather than ACTUAL swimming is to TRANSFER the meaning to
>>> another
>>> situation; to have the card stand for something else.
>>>
>>> I guess I would simply call this process semiosis, and that's why I 
think
>>> that it is part of language development at every single point, bar 
none.
>>> Every form of semiosis, without exception, is a form of metaphor, 
because
>>> the creation of a sign is precisely the creation of something that 
stands
>>> for something else that is not itself.
>>>
>>> BUT...phonemes really do not exist, except as abstractions (in fact, I
>>> think they do not even exist as abstractions except for people who are
>>> literate). They are like the spaces that we IMAGINE we hear (but do 
not
>>> actually hear, except in quite special circumstances) between words.
>>> Since
>>> they don't exist, they can stand for other things that don't exist. As
>>> Lear
>>> says, "Nothing will come from nothing". He forgot to add that this
>>> nothing
>>> gives us everything!
>>>
>>> Never mind. Let's notice the form of Mike's question. He doesn't ask
>>> whether phonemes exist or not. He simply asks whether one can produce 
a
>>> particular sound (the example he gives is only an example; it's the
>>> letter
>>> "em") without there being more than one phoneme "there". Where? In the
>>> mind,
>>> of course.
>>>
>>> The simple, snotty answer is YES, because phonemes ONLY have
>>> psychological
>>> reality (and even then only in the minds of literate people, not in 
the
>>> minds of illiterates and children).
>>>
>>> So there are as many sounds as you think there are: no more and no 
less,
>>> and if you go "mmmmmmm" as J.G. suggests and ask how many sounds your
>>> hearer
>>> hears, he or she will probably say "one". We can easily find people 
who
>>> will
>>> say the same thing about the letter "em" in almost any first grade 
class.
>>>
>>> But the complex answer is much more interesting. It seems to me that
>>> consonants DEPEND on vowels in a way that is not reciprocally true. 
You
>>> CAN
>>> pronounce the sound "a" without any vowel, and "a" is in fact a word 
(and
>>> one of the most common words in our language).
>>>
>>> At the morphological level, we see the same non-reciprocal dependency
>>> relation: In the word "reworked", both "re-" and "-ed" depend on 
"work"
>>> for
>>> their meaning, but not vice versa. Which can also be seen at the level 
of
>>> relative clauses.
>>>
>>> In an exchange (which is where I think J.G. really needs to look for 
the
>>> emotional fountainhead of his semantic system) we find that we can 
have
>>> an
>>> initiate ("Who are you?") without a response, but a response without 
an
>>> initiate is not a response at all.
>>>
>>> Why? As far as I know, non-human systems of communication (e.g. bird
>>> calls, whale songs, computer coding) do not have this kind of
>>> non-symmetrical dependency at any level at all. It's one word = one
>>> emotion,
>>> more or less like the extremely impoverished view of language that 
J.G.
>>> presents in his paper.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that non-symmetrical dependency is an essential 
resource
>>> for making a very finite group of phenomena potentially stand for a
>>> potentially infinite one (as is polysemy, or as Robert Lake says,
>>> "metaphor").
>>>
>>> This super-productivity is what allows human languages to SIGNIFY 
rather
>>> than simply SIGNAL. But of course this superproductivity brings with 
it
>>> developmental crises, too.
>>>
>>> I have one other comment on the "reception by production" theories 
that
>>> Joseph Gilbert, Liberman, and Chomsky and Halle are putting forward. 
ALL
>>> of
>>> these theories assume a kind of RECIPROCITY, an act of EMPATHY, a
>>> DECENTRATION that Piaget rules out until the child is at least seven
>>> years
>>> old. You have to imagine what you would be thinking if you were making
>>> the
>>> noises that you are hearing. So if Piaget is right, children should 
not
>>> be
>>> able to learn to speak until they are seven or eight.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/12/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 9:55 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Mike Cole:
>>> The sound of the voiced "M" is mmmmmmmmmm, commonly uttered to express
>>> pleasure, as in the reaction to something good tasting. The name of 
the
>>> letter is a peripheral issue.
>>>
>>>        J.G.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:44 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> > David and Joseph.
>>> >
>>> > A question. The alphabetic character, M, may represent a phoneme. 
But
>>> can
>>> > one say the letter M without there being two phonemes there?
>>> > mike
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <
>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I just want to pick up on ONE aspect of this (very long and almost
>>> >> completely unsourced) document, and try to source it, because it's 
a
>>> truism
>>> >> in our field that none of us can stand alone.
>>> >>
>>> >> Even if this were not true in an epistemological sense (there is 
only
>>> so
>>> >> much brilliance a lone genius is capable of) it would be absolutey 
>>
>>> true
>>> in a
>>> >> publishing sense (a long document is unpublishable without a long 
list
>>> of
>>> >> references, preferably including all of its potential reviewers).
>>> >>
>>> >> It's this:
>>> >>
>>> >> "The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first 
and
>>> >> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to 
refer
>>> to
>>> >> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus 
of
>>> the
>>> >> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal 
apparatus
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>> emotion
>>> >> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>> intent of
>>> >> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>> hearer
>>> an
>>> >> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer."
>>> >>
>>> >> This is the "reception through production" theory of speech 
perception
>>> that
>>> >> was popular in the 1980s. It does have BIG advantages over passive
>>> theories
>>> >> of reception that preceded it(for one thing, it's much more
>>> parsimonious;
>>> >> the same system can be used for receiving speech and for 
transmitting
>>> it).
>>> >>
>>> >>  There are really TWO variations of this theory:
>>> >>
>>> >> a) The "motor" theory, associated with Alvin Liberman and the 
Haskins
>>> >> Laboratories. This theory relies on the idea of "articulatory
>>> gestures". By
>>> >> recognizing the kinds of "articulatory gestures" required by >>
>>> particular
>>> >> sounds, the hearer, through an act of empathy with the speaker, 
asks
>>> >> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures 
like
>>> that
>>> >> in this situation?"
>>> >>
>>> >> b) The "analysis by synthesis" theory, associated with Chomsky and
>>> Halle at
>>> >> MIT. This theory relies on pure unempbodied ACOUSTIC knowledge 
rather
>>> than
>>> >> articulatory gestures. By recognizing the acoustic patterns (see 
the
>>> theory
>>> >> of "distinctive features" laid out in Chomsky and Halle, The Sound
>>> Patterns
>>> >> of English), the hearer through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>> asks
>>> >> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures 
like
>>> that
>>> >> in this situation?"
>>> >>
>>> >> I think that BOTH of these variants of the theory have in common a
>>> >> recognition that in perception we get a lot more than we hear; 
people
>>> do NOT
>>> >> rely on the stream of vowels and consonants as their sole source of
>>> >> information. Perception is a supreme act of what Bruner calls 
"going
>>> beyond
>>> >> the information given".
>>> >>
>>> >> Contrary to this, all theories of perception which are based on an
>>> analogy
>>> >> with the ALPHABET assume that the stream of vowels and consonants
>>> really
>>> >> does carry the information (or, as Joseph Gilbert puts it, 
emotion).
>>> >>
>>> >> In Vygotsky's time, this theory was advocated by the brilliant >>
>>> futurist
>>> >> poet Khlebnikov, who wrote quite extensively on the "emotional >>
>>> valence"
>>> of
>>> >> particular phonemes, and constructed whole poems on this 
association
>>> (e.g.
>>> >> "Zangezi", which was composed after a long series of experiments on 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> "semantics" of individual phonemes). As you can imagine, they don't
>>> >> translate very well!
>>> >>
>>> >> David Kellogg
>>> >> Seoul National University of Education
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> 
wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Genetic Belly Button and the Functional 
Belly
>>> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> >> Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 11:03 PM
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>                                                                 1
>>> >>
>>> >>                      Language Creates Culture
>>> >>
>>> >>     Language functions, in human society, as the generator of 
culture.
>>> By
>>> >> the effects on
>>> >> us of the sounds we utter, we inform ourselves of the effects on us 
of
>>> the
>>> >> things which
>>> >> make up our world. Since the only sense of the meaning of any thing 
is
>>> one
>>> >> and the same
>>> >> as the effect on us of the thing, and since we relate to our world
>>> through
>>> >> our words, language informs us of the meanings of things. This
>>> informing
>>> >> takes place when we use vocal sounds as words to refer to things.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We exist in a vacuous condition vis-à-vis any objective knowing 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> ultimate meaning of anything. We do not know the ultimate affect on 
us
>>> of
>>> >> anything. If we operated by instinct, our choices would not depend 
on
>>> >> knowing, as our choices do. In this culls context, we are informed 
by
>>> the
>>> >> affects on us of the sounds of our words of the affects on us of 
the
>>> things
>>> >> to which our words refer.
>>> >>
>>> >>     In the vacuum of outer space, a ship can be propelled by the
>>> constant,
>>> >> subtle force of an ion drive. In the outer space of our 
cluelessness
>>> >> as
>>> to
>>> >> the meaning of anything, we are informed of that meaning by the 
affect
>>> on us
>>> >> of the sounds of our words.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Spoken language is sound made by the body and used to refer to, 
to
>>> >> signify, things. We must thoroughly understand the basis of 
language
>>> >> in
>>> >> order to understand anything else about language. Why do we use >>
>>> certain
>>> >> words to signify certain things? Why are there similarities and
>>> differences
>>> >> among the various languages in how sound is used to refer to 
things?
>>> >> Is
>>> >> there a correlation between and among emotional states and vocal
>>> sounds?
>>> >> These and other questions must be answered if we are to know how
>>> language
>>> >> works.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We are born into a language-using group and learn the meanings 
of
>>> the
>>> >> things that
>>> >> make up our world simply by learning our group’s language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We have a distinct and unique reaction to each vocal sound just 
as
>>> we
>>> >> do to
>>> >> each facial expression and postural position. All forms of body
>>> language,
>>> >> postural, facial
>>> >> and vocal, are expressions of states of our internal goings-on, are
>>> born of
>>> >> those feeling/emotional states. and recreate these states by 
resonant
>>> >> entrainment.
>>> >>
>>> >>         The languages we humans speak currently are the results of 
the
>>> >> experiential contributions of our ancestors. However they, (our >>
>>> distant
>>> >> relatives), felt about whatever they had words for, we now feel 
again
>>> in the
>>> >> present moment, when we utter the words they originally uttered.
>>> Therefore
>>> >> language functions somewhat as a seed: the experience of past 
peoples
>>> was
>>> >> represented in the words they spoke and now, when we voice those >>
>>> words,
>>> we
>>> >> re-experience what they did.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Language is institutionalized perception. How we, as a society,
>>> >> perceive our world, is
>>> >>                                                     2
>>> >>
>>> >> determined by the the affects on us of our vocal sounds, (a form of
>>> body
>>> >> language), we use to refer to the things that make it up.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Our actions are determined by our perceptions. If we want to >>
>>> change
>>> the
>>> >> way we act we must change the way we perceive our world. And we can
>>> change
>>> >> how we perceive our world by changing how we refer to the things 
that
>>> >> constitute our world.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The feelings/emotions of actors on stage and of all of us, are
>>> >> communicated by our actions. The way someone moves tells us much 
about
>>> how
>>> >> they feel. Our face conveys extensive and subtle information about 
our
>>> >> emotional state. The sounds of our voices carry emotional content. 
>>
>>> And,
>>> >> although we normally are not aware of it, the articulate vocal 
sounds,
>>> (the
>>> >> sounds of our vowels and consonants), are loaded with information 
>>
>>> about
>>> our
>>> >> emotional goings-on. The information that comes from the articulate
>>> sounds
>>> >> of our words rather than from the emotional overlay we place on 
them
>>> due to
>>> >> our transitory emotional states, is the same no matter what moods 
we
>>> may be
>>> >> experiencing while we speak. That aspect of information conveyance 
is
>>> >> institutionalized/standardized. The tone of voice, cadence, and 
volume
>>> >> dynamics can be unique to each situation without altering the
>>> fundamental
>>> >> referential communication.
>>> >>
>>> >>     One can experience the effect on ourselves of the various vocal
>>> sounds
>>> >> by, while in a sensitive, receptive mode, saying those sounds out 
loud
>>> and
>>> >> sensing their effects. I have done that and have, it seems, 
discovered
>>> their
>>> >> meanings. You can do that also. Doing so oneself will give one a 
more
>>> >> complete sense of the effects of vocal utterances than one could
>>> experience
>>> >> by reading what someone else has written about the effects of the 
>>
>>> vocal
>>> >> sounds on the emotions.
>>> >>
>>> >>     This covert function of language must be brought to light  in 
>>
>>> order
>>> for
>>> >> us to be able to understand the importance of recreating culture. 
We
>>> must
>>> >> understand that our behavior, as a society, is fundamentally linked 
to
>>> our
>>> >> culture, which is a result of our language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We do not objectively know the ultimate meaning of anything and
>>> >> consequently experience our sense of the meanings of things from 
the
>>> effects
>>> >> on us of our words.
>>> >>
>>> >>     These familiar phrases suggest a perception, perhaps a mystical
>>> >> perception, of the importance of the spoken word.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The final word.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What’s the word?
>>> >>
>>> >>     In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the
>>> word
>>> >> was God.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The tongue is the rudder of the soul. It is not what passes 
into
>>> our
>>> >> lips that defiles us but
>>> >>                                                     3
>>> >>
>>> >> every untoward utterance that proceeds out of our mouths.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Words, as sounds, affect us subliminally, supplying us with a
>>> feeling
>>> >> for whatever we name. It is that feeling that we experience from 
the
>>> sounds
>>> >> of our words that supplies us with a subliminal consensus for our
>>> >> world-view.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We cannot realistically expect humans to act in a way >>
>>> contradictory
>>> to
>>> >> their culture’s bias. Marx’s economic/social theory was used as a
>>> rallying
>>> >> standard to
>>> >> enable regime change. After those individuals who had experienced 
the
>>> >> tyranny of the czar had left the scene, the body-politic eventually
>>> rejected
>>> >> collectivism, (the transplanted economic organ). Russian culture is
>>> >> fundamentally the same as it was when the roots of its present >>
>>> language
>>> were
>>> >> established and Russian society naturally reverted to its cultural
>>> default
>>> >> mode after the revolution. After a short time, the czar was 
replaced
>>> >> by
>>> the
>>> >> head commissar. Marx held that the economic relationships within
>>> society
>>> >> create all other human relations. It seems that culture is the 
cause
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> nature of human relationships within any society.
>>> >>
>>> >>                                                       The Culture 
Made
>>> Us
>>> >> Do It
>>> >>                                           “The unrecognized 
function
>>> >> of
>>> >> language”
>>> >>
>>> >>     As an iceberg exists mostly under the surface of the water 
which
>>> >> supports it, the fundamental consequence of language tends to be >>
>>> hidden
>>> >> under the surface of our awareness. Most crucial human activities 
go
>>> >> on
>>> >> without awareness, for example, all of the bodily functions. Many
>>> conscious
>>> >> activities proceed without much deliberate awareness. Once one 
knows
>>> well
>>> >> how to drive a car, much less awareness is needed to operate the
>>> vehicle.
>>> >> The subconscious mind supports the same kinds of activities as does 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> conscious mind, however with less effort. Anything that can be
>>> automated,
>>> >> is.  Automating essential activities frees the conscious mind to 
focus
>>> on
>>> >> issues about which we feel we need to learn in order to more
>>> effectively
>>> >> cope, (those issues that require conscious attention until new
>>> behavioral
>>> >> patterns are in place). There is no need to be aware of processes 
that
>>> take
>>> >> place well enough without attention. It is only when a problem 
arises
>>> that
>>> >> we
>>> >>  humans, in an attempt to solve it, focus our awareness on it. If 
we
>>> are
>>> >> coping well enough without awareness, why be aware? We don’t fix
>>> something
>>> >> if it doesn’t seem broken. We don’t reinvent our wheel as long as 
it’s
>>> >> rolling. However, upon examination, our human condition appears to 
>>
>>> have
>>> been
>>> >> painfully broken for as long as we can recall, and must be 
repaired.
>>> How may
>>> >> we fix it?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Could it be that our behavior is governed by something that we
>>> cannot
>>> >> see, something of which we are not cognizant? Is there anything in 
our
>>> >> nature that would preclude such a possibility, the possibility that 
>>
>>> our
>>> >> behavior may be directed by influences not within the purview of 
our
>>> >> everyday consciousness? What could such a force be?
>>> >>
>>> >>     The ability to produce simple vocal sounds made it’s appearance 
on
>>> the
>>> >> scene before our
>>> >>                                                     4
>>> >>
>>> >> progenitors made words of those sounds. The ability to vocalize
>>> >> articulately is a prerequisite to the ability to verbalize. Words
>>> appeared
>>> >> when our ancient ancestors became cognizant of the relatedness of
>>> stimuli to
>>> >> their own vocal reactions to them. When they began deliberately 
using
>>> >> vocalizations to bring to mind things, they made the transition >>
>>> between
>>> >> deriving their sense of the meaning of things by direct experience 
of
>>> the
>>> >> things to deriving a sense of the meaning of things by experiencing 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> affects of the sounds of the words for the things. This 
supersession
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> primal world by the linguistic world was the start of culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Being able to talk about things was very advantageous to our
>>> distant
>>> >> relatives. They could confer and plan. More important, they >>
>>> experienced
>>> a
>>> >> common sense of the meaning of the things in their world by using
>>> common
>>> >> symbols with which to refer to them.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Culture was advantageous to our ancestors in the ancient,
>>> >> pre-industrial environment. Now our technology provides us with the
>>> power to
>>> >> create and reside in an artificial environment, however one made
>>> according
>>> >> to the values inherent in our primitive culture. Our culture 
provides
>>> us
>>> >> with marching orders and our technology enables us to march very
>>> forcefully.
>>> >> Are we marching toward the edge of a precipice?
>>> >>
>>> >>     All action is preceded by a decision to act, be that decision
>>> >> consciously or subconsciously made. All decisions are based on a
>>> >> consideration of the consequences of those decisions. These effects 
on
>>> us of
>>> >> the consequences of our actions are the same as and identical with 
the
>>> >> meanings of those actions. How do we know the meanings of things? 
How
>>> do we
>>> >> know the affects on us of any thing? Do we know the effects on us 
of
>>> things
>>> >> directly as a consequence of our direct experience with them or by
>>> indirect
>>> >> experience with them by using and experiencing the words for those
>>> things?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Language is the factory and culture is the product. Culture is 
an
>>> >> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from which it
>>> springs.
>>> >> Language is emotionally evocative sounds used to represent things,
>>> thereby
>>> >> conveying to us a sense of the affects-on-us/the-meanings-of those
>>> things.
>>> >> Our sense of our own role in our culture provides us with our 
identity
>>> and
>>> >> therefore with guidance for our behavior. The cultural values, 
derived
>>> from
>>> >> our ancestors’ experiences long ago, as represented in our 
language,
>>> are
>>> >> instilled in us and direct our behavior today. A body continues in 
its
>>> state
>>> >> of motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Human 
culture
>>> will
>>> >> remain fundamentally unchanged unless it is deliberately changed; 
and
>>> that
>>> >> will not happen unless we feel the need to do so and know how to do 
>>
>>> it.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Culture resides in the subconscious mind. Many others have 
spoken
>>> about
>>> >> the need to change the way we, as a society, think: many have 
tried,
>>> >> by
>>> >> using means such as meditation, sleep deprivation, psychoactive
>>> substances,
>>> >> chanting, philosophical inquiry, etc. to accomplish this change and 
>>
>>> may
>>> have
>>> >> been successful to a degree. However, it seems they were not able 
to
>>> >> lastingly infuse into society at large their newfound vision, due 
to
>>> not
>>> >> addressing the status quo at the
>>> >>                                                     5
>>> >>
>>> >> root/source, which is the culture. Understanding how language >>
>>> functions
>>> >> makes it possible to change our culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>                        How did language arise?
>>> >>
>>> >>     How did language arise? Originally, our progenitors’ vocalizing
>>> only
>>> >> expressed internal-goings-on/emotion and did not refer to anything
>>> external
>>> >> to them. It was advantageous to members of the group to be informed 
of
>>> the
>>> >> emotional conditions of other members. Much later, when 
consciousness
>>> >> developed enough for them to see the connectedness of the sounds
>>> uttered to
>>> >> the things the sounds were uttered in reaction to, they realized 
that
>>> they
>>> >> could bring to mind the thought of the things by uttering their
>>> associated
>>> >> sounds, (names). The beginning of talking about things was the 
start
>>> >> of
>>> >> culture,and the talking about things refocused the talkers’ 
conscious
>>> >> attention away from the experience of the emotional reactions to 
the
>>> sounds
>>> >> of the words, and toward thoughts related to the things to which 
the
>>> words
>>> >> referred. While they were busy directing their attention to 
thoughts
>>> related
>>> >> to the things to which the words referred, they were being 
emotionally
>>> >>  affected by the vocal sounds they were making to form their words. 
>>
>>> So,
>>> the
>>> >> effects of the sounds they were making vocally were experienced
>>> >> subliminally, while
>>> >>
>>> >> consciously, they were dealing with the thoughts of the things >>
>>> referred
>>> to
>>> >> by their words. The affects-on-us/meanings-of things cannot be 
proven.
>>> All
>>> >> they had and all we have to go on are the effects on us of the 
things
>>> and
>>> >> the effects on us of the sounds of the words that represent the >>
>>> things.
>>> >> While the effects of the things are changeable through time and
>>> somewhat
>>> >> unique to each individual, the effects on us of the sounds of the 
>>
>>> words
>>> are
>>> >> relatively consistent and universal. Having nothing else to go on, 
we
>>> accept
>>> >> the effects on us of the vocal sounds of words as
>>> revealing/representing the
>>> >> effects on us of the things referred to by the words. In this way,
>>> culture
>>> >> is formed and passed to succeeding generations. Our world views
>>> typically
>>> >> come from the sense of the meaning of things as represented by the
>>> sounds of
>>> >> our words rather than from the sense of meaning we may gain from 
the
>>> direct
>>> >> experience of the things themselves.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Do vocal sounds, themselves, communicate? When someone utters a
>>> vocal
>>> >> sound, such as a sigh, a growl, a whimper, a scream, etc., do we 
get a
>>> sense
>>> >> of how they are feeling? If so, they are communicating their >>
>>> condition.
>>> How
>>> >> does that communication take place? Do we receive information
>>> communicated
>>> >> in such a manner consciously, subconsciously or by both ways? What 
is
>>> the
>>> >> means by which an emotion can be conveyed by sound? Can emotion, or
>>> anything
>>> >> else be communicated by the articulate sounds of our vowels and
>>> consonants,
>>> >> or do only non-articulate vocal sounds convey meaning? If we allow 
>>
>>> that
>>> >> vocal sounds, simply as sounds, communicate,  then is it possible 
or
>>> likely
>>> >> that the vocal sounds we use to make words also communicate as well
>>> when
>>> >> used as words? What would be the effect of using inherently >>
>>> emotionally
>>> >> meaningful sounds as symbols to represent external things? Would 
the
>>> >> inherent meaning of the sounds affect our perception of the things
>>> >>  represented by the sounds?
>>> >>
>>> >>                                                     6
>>> >>
>>> >>     These considerations may shed light on the issue of the root >>
>>> causes
>>> of
>>> >> human behavior. Naturally, those who contemplate our condition and
>>> would
>>> >> improve it if they could, would be attentive to these matters.
>>> >>
>>> >>     All of life’s processes exist as movements. Emotional 
conditions
>>> are
>>> >> patterns of motion. Similar structures, in keeping with the 
mechanics
>>> of
>>> >> resonation, impart, on each other, their movements. Our vocal
>>> apparatuses
>>> >> facilitate our ability to move with each other.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The vibrations made by the body convey the condition of the
>>> emotional
>>> >> body to other similar/human emotional bodies, and to some degree, 
to
>>> other
>>> >> animal emotional bodies. The more similar the other body, the more 
the
>>> >> condition is transposed. Humans receive each others’ vocal and 
other
>>> >> body-language communications more readily than other species 
receive
>>> human
>>> >> communication. Similar structures transmit their 
resonation/vibration
>>> to
>>> >> each other more readily than do dissimilar structures.
>>> >>
>>> >>     My quest for understanding of human behavior began long ago. 
When
>>> >> I
>>> was
>>> >> around the age of six, I became increasingly aware that the 
folkways
>>> and
>>> >> formal institutions of our society were lacking in humanity and 
common
>>> >> sense. I asked myself why this was so. As a child, I attributed the
>>> problem
>>> >> to people’s personal psychology and it was not until I was in my 
late
>>> teens
>>> >> that I realized that the cause of the problem is our culture. It 
was
>>> shortly
>>> >> after that that I understood how verbal/vocal communication works. 
The
>>> cause
>>> >> of The Problem seemed and seems to be the culture which is created 
by
>>> the
>>> >> relationship between vocal sounds and what they, as words, refer 
to.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Some of the reasoning that preceded this realization was first,
>>> that we
>>> >> are not created evil, but rather simply with survival instincts.
>>> Second,
>>> >> that if we were able to act sanely/rationally, we would be doing 
what
>>> >> produces the best results for everyone. Third, it must be something 
we
>>> >> learned, some misinformation, that causes us to behave in ways not 
in
>>> our
>>> >> own self-interest. Fourth, when I considered the question of from 
>>
>>> where
>>> this
>>> >> false information came, I identified as the source, the culture. >>
>>> Later,
>>> I
>>> >> realized that we do not, for sure, know the meaning of anything, 
and
>>> that,
>>> >> as far as we know, the only thing constant and predictable about 
any
>>> thing
>>> >> is its name, (the word-sound we produce in order to bring to
>>> consciousness
>>> >> whatever thing to which we choose to refer). After a time, I became
>>> aware of
>>> >> how the different vocal sounds we produce when we speak words, each
>>> create
>>> >> in us a unique effect and how those effects inform us 
subconsciously
>>> >> of
>>> >>  the affect on us, (the meaning), of the thing itself to which the 
>>
>>> word
>>> >> sounds refer.
>>> >>
>>> >>     At this time, I also learned that the sequence of sounds of the
>>> letters
>>> >> of our alphabet represents a sequential delineation of
>>> >> emotional/experiential events. From A to Z, the succession of the
>>> sounds of
>>> >> the letters of our alphabet is an example of
>>> pattern-projection/recognition,
>>> >> the pattern, in this case, being the seminal emotional events that
>>> humans
>>> >> experience during their lives, in chronological order.
>>> >>
>>> >>                                                     7
>>> >>
>>> >>     Emotions happen to us: They seem to come from the “great 
mystery”,
>>> God,
>>> >> or whatever image we may use to portray a place from which strong 
and
>>> >> compelling feelings emanate.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Given, all the vocal sounds that people can make, how would one
>>> arrange
>>> >> the sounds sequentially and from what archetype, (model), would the
>>> pattern
>>> >> of that sequence come? Even if the originators of the present 
alphabet
>>> >> deliberately imposed a pattern on their arrangement of the
>>> letter-sounds,
>>> >> whatever world view that existed in their minds caused them to feel
>>> most
>>> >> comfortable with the sequence of sounds they chose. The sequence 
they
>>> chose
>>> >> must have been agreeable with the story that was represented in 
their
>>> minds
>>> >> by those sounds in that sequence. If one admits that vocal sounds
>>> affect us,
>>> >> then how could a story, a sequence of affects,  not be told by the
>>> sequence
>>> >> in which the sounds exist? Whether or not the originators of any
>>> particular
>>> >> alphabet had a conscious reason for arranging the sounds of that
>>> alphabet in
>>> >> the sequence in which they appear, subconscious reasons were
>>> influencing
>>> >> their arrangement none the less. Does this story, told by our
>>> >>  alphabet make sense? Does it seem to be an accurate representation 
of
>>> the
>>> >> main events in a human’s life?
>>> >>
>>> >>     We tend to cling to our culture as if our lives depended on it, 
as
>>> a
>>> >> drowning person might cling to a life preserver. Culture offers an
>>> answer,
>>> >> -in this case subconsciously apprehended-, to the question,  “What 
are
>>> the
>>> >> meanings of things?” Without culture, there tends to be no 
consensus
>>> about
>>> >> what things mean. Language informs us of the meanings of named 
things
>>> by the
>>> >> affects on us of the sounds of our words. Those who use the same
>>> language
>>> >> experience the same sense of the meanings of the things that make 
up
>>> their
>>> >> worlds. That sense emanates from the deep levels of their 
subconscious
>>> and
>>> >> their final assessment of the meanings of things results from their
>>> >> processing that deep, culturally caused base sense of meaning 
through
>>> the
>>> >> lens of their perception of their own relationship to the society 
in
>>> which
>>> >> they live.
>>> >>
>>> >>     For the sake of clarity, let us consider, hypothetically,  what 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> result/s would be of using meaningful sounds to refer to things. 
Would
>>> the
>>> >> meanings of the sounds spill over into the perceived meanings of 
the
>>> things
>>> >> or would the meanings of the things influence the perceived 
meanings
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> sounds? Or would neither influence the other or would they 
influence
>>> each
>>> >> other? Which has a stronger meaning-pressure, the sounds we make 
with
>>> our
>>> >> voice or the things which, with the sounds, we name?
>>> >>
>>> >>     The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions 
first
>>> and
>>> >> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to 
refer
>>> to
>>> >> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus 
of
>>> the
>>> >> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal 
apparatus
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>> emotion
>>> >> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>> intent of
>>> >> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>> hearer
>>> an
>>> >> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer.
>>> >>     Just as our becoming-human progenitors were gaining 
consciousness,
>>> (the
>>> >> ability to
>>> >>                                                     8
>>> >>
>>> >> contemplate the consequences of their actions), they were, for the
>>> first
>>> >> time, using vocal expressions as words to refer to specific things, 
>>
>>> not
>>> only
>>> >> to express immediate emotional goings-on. Since they vocalized
>>> primarily
>>> >> under duress, their words were expressions born of fear rather than 
of
>>> >> conscious understanding. The mind concentrates on problems, on 
issues
>>> that
>>> >> could potentially be destructive to the perceiver. When this >>
>>> fear-based
>>> >> thinking bias becomes institutionalized in language, the language
>>> itself is
>>> >> a source of anxiety. The more we verbalize about any given problem, 
>>
>>> the
>>> more
>>> >> stressed-out we become. This reminds me of an Eskimo method of 
killing
>>> a
>>> >> wolf. They would smear congealed blood on a very sharp knife and 
set
>>> >> it
>>> out,
>>> >> with the blade pointing upward, where wolves frequented. When a 
wolf
>>> licked
>>> >> the blood, it would bleed and lick its own blood not knowing it was
>>> bleeding
>>> >> to death. We are wolfish for knowledge and we pursue it by using 
our
>>> >>  main thinking tool, our language.
>>> >>
>>> >>                        The Unrecognized Role of Language
>>> >>
>>> >>     Culture is the hidden law-of-the-land. We are creatures of >>
>>> culture,
>>> and
>>> >> its subjects. Our culture originally  enhanced our survivability 
and,
>>> in a
>>> >> technologically advanced world, may become the instrument of our
>>> >> destruction. Our culturally motivated ways of relating to one 
another
>>> may
>>> >> have once been viable, although perhaps immoral, and now, with our
>>> powerful
>>> >> ability to cause environmental change, are untenable.
>>> >>
>>> >>      ”The release of atom power has changed everything except our 
way
>>> of
>>> >> thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of 
mankind.
>>> If
>>> >> only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” --- Albert
>>> Einstein
>>> >>
>>> >>     I wish to change what is in that “heart”.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The referential function of human language is merely the “tip 
of
>>> the
>>> >> iceberg” of the role of language. Its larger and more profound >>
>>> function
>>> is
>>> >> unacknowledged: It is spoken language’s informing us of the 
meanings
>>> >> of
>>> all
>>> >> to which we verbally refer. We are moved in a primal way by the 
sounds
>>> we
>>> >> produce with our voice and, in the absence of any “objective”, >>
>>> absolute
>>> >> information regarding (the affects on us)/(the meanings of) the 
things
>>> of
>>> >> our world, we accept the affects on us of the vocal sounds of our 
>>
>>> words
>>> as
>>> >> representing the affects on us of the things to which our words 
refer.
>>> In
>>> >> this way, we are informed subliminally, simply by learning our
>>> language, of
>>> >> the meaning of our world. How else could we, as very young 
children,
>>> have
>>> >> achieved a sense of how we were affected by the numerous things 
that
>>> made up
>>> >> our world?
>>> >>
>>> >>     This matter is of paramount importance because we act in >>
>>> accordance
>>> >> with how we perceive our world, (with what our world means to us), 
and
>>> our
>>> >> sense of that meaning is derived from  the affects upon us of our
>>> words.
>>> >> Much of human behavior that is commonly attributed to “human 
nature”
>>> >> is
>>> >> actually motivated by cultural nature, which is created by 
language.
>>> >>                                                     9
>>> >>
>>> >>     How and what would our society be if we had a culture which
>>> instilled
>>> >> in us the values that we would consciously choose to hold? 
Presently,
>>> we
>>> >> simply assimilate the culture in which we are born. Once we 
understand
>>> the
>>> >> mechanism of cultural transmission, we will be able to change our 
>>
>>> group
>>> >> program.
>>> >>
>>> >>     However, it seems that many of us may be too timid to venture 
>>
>>> forth
>>> >> from the false security of our unquestioned and familiar values. 
Some
>>> have
>>> >> expressed to me that language is a product of nature and that to >>
>>> change
>>> it
>>> >> deliberately would produce an unnatural result, a Frankenstein >>
>>> culture,
>>> the
>>> >> consequences of which would probably be destructive. To those I >>
>>> suggest
>>> that
>>> >> we are inherently unable to venture out of the natural realm, as we 
>>
>>> are
>>> >> inextricably woven into the web of nature. Furthermore it is 
entirely
>>> >> correct and wholesome for us, with the goal of improving our
>>> survivability,
>>> >> to choose to correct our culture at its source. Once we see how we 
may
>>> help
>>> >> ourselves, we would be within our progressive evolutionary 
tradition
>>> >> to
>>> use
>>> >> all our knowledge to do so.
>>> >> .
>>> >>     Vocal sounds either communicate as vocal sounds or they do not. 
If
>>> we
>>> >> assume that vocal sounds do not communicate, then language only >>
>>> blindly
>>> and
>>> >> unintelligently refers to things. If we assume that vocal sounds do
>>> >> communicate something, as vocal sounds, then language does more 
than
>>> merely
>>> >> refer to things: it also informs us about the things named. Which 
is
>>> true?
>>> >> Do any of us believe that our vocal sounds do not 
express/communicate
>>> >> anything? If we believe that vocal sounds communicate/express
>>> something,
>>> >> then what is it that they communicate/express? If vocal sounds do
>>> >> communicate as sounds, do they loose that communicative function 
when
>>> >> incorporated into words or do they continue to be expressive when 
used
>>> in
>>> >> words?
>>> >>
>>> >>     If vocal sounds that constitute words communicate something as
>>> sounds,
>>> >> then what effect does the sound of a word exert on our perception 
of
>>> the
>>> >> thing to which that word refers?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Many seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that the 
primary
>>> >> meanings of vocal sounds, including the sounds of words, are the
>>> effects
>>> >> they cause within each of us and not the things to which they refer
>>> when
>>> >> uttered as words. Another point that aided me in understanding the
>>> function
>>> >> of language is that we really do not know the meaning of anything 
but
>>> rather
>>> >> behave as though our taken-for-granted assumptions are valid only
>>> because
>>> >> they have not been held to the light of inquiry. It is only that 
which
>>> >> resides in our subconscious and of which we are not conscious and
>>> >> consequently do not question, that we act as if we “know” for sure.
>>> Remember
>>> >> the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? When asked how he managed 
to
>>> >> coordinate the movements of all those legs, he became aware of the
>>> >> previously unconscious process of walking and then could not walk. 
The
>>> only
>>> >> sense of the meanings of things that we dependably share with the
>>> others of
>>> >> our society is
>>> >>  instilled in each of us by the relationship between the sounds of 
our
>>> >> words and the things to which those words refer. Words are the link
>>> between
>>> >> our autonomic, cultural sense of meaning and the things that make 
up
>>> our
>>> >> world. We give things a familiarity by attaching to them sounds >>
>>> created
>>> by
>>> >> our body. Our words are related to things because the vocal sounds 
of
>>> our
>>> >> words are related to our reactions to those things. We may not
>>> ordinarily
>>> >> experience an emotional reaction to the things that
>>> >>                                                     10
>>> >>
>>> >> make up our world. It is during our seminal moments that we 
experience
>>> >> emotional reactions to things.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What meaning, if any, do things have if we are not affected by
>>> those
>>> >> things? All meaning is relative. If we were totally unaffected by
>>> something,
>>> >> would it be meaningful? How would whatever meaning it may have be
>>> perceived?
>>> >> Clearly, what we want to know about something, (anything), is how 
it
>>> affects
>>> >> us, (what it is?).
>>> >>
>>> >>      After many attempts to share these findings with those in
>>> academia,
>>> >> their lack of understanding, even more their lack of interest in
>>> >> understanding the ideas I was putting forth , dampened my impulse 
to
>>> reach
>>> >> out to those whom I previously had thought were most likely to
>>> understand
>>> >> these findings.
>>> >>
>>> >>     I figured that what I was saying was challenging on a deep 
level
>>> >> to
>>> >> most, who would otherwise gain a glimpse of it. My discovery, seems 
to
>>> >> threaten the sense of security of those who consciously or 
otherwise
>>> treat
>>> >> their culture as an idol. Some of us, especially those of highly
>>> exercised
>>> >> intellectual abilities, feel that security is to be had by being 
able
>>> to
>>> >> “explain” the meaning of things. By uttering words, (sounds), about
>>> things,
>>> >> what meaning is revealed? Doing so may create the illusion of
>>> understanding
>>> >> by seeming to make the named things familiar. But does it, only 
inform
>>> us
>>> >> with the effect/meaning of the sounds of words, or with the meaning 
of
>>> the
>>> >> things as well? What are the meanings of the things?
>>> >>
>>> >>     It appears that culture is the root of all normal human 
behavior.
>>> We
>>> >> all behave according to our values and assumptions and those derive
>>> from our
>>> >> culture. Do our academicians know what culture is, how it relates 
to
>>> the
>>> >> people who are instilled with it and how it may be changed?
>>> >>
>>> >>     We are informed subliminally of the meaning of our world by the
>>> >> language that we speak.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Why is it so difficult for people to understand how language
>>> generates
>>> >> culture? What is/are the missing piece/s of information that they 
need
>>> in
>>> >> order to grasp that concept?
>>> >>
>>> >>     A better way is possible. We need only the vision of this 
better
>>> world,
>>> >> as an everyday experience, in order for us to act in accord with 
it.
>>> The
>>> >> consciousness of how to act in order to create the world we wish 
must
>>> be the
>>> >> status quo, not the rarity that it now is. This changing of the 
status
>>> quo
>>> >> can be accomplished by changing the culture and changing culture is
>>> >> accomplished by changing language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make 
with
>>> our
>>> >> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>> affects
>>> us.
>>> >> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery 
>>
>>> and
>>> >> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>> affect of
>>> >> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>> >>                                                     11
>>> >>
>>> >>     We have no way of knowing the final meaning of anything. We 
might
>>> think
>>> >> we know what a thing will do to us in the immediate future but what
>>> about
>>> >> how it will affect us much later? When we become aware of 
something,
>>> >> we
>>> >> question its meaning and once something is questioned, we never 
gain a
>>> sense
>>> >> of its absolute meaning Only that which remains in the subconscious 
we
>>> do
>>> >> not question. The feelings that well up from our subconscious, in
>>> reaction
>>> >> to various things, seems to be true absolutely. Our feelings 
strongly
>>> affect
>>> >> our train of thought.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The certainty of the uninformed is typically replaced by the
>>> wonderment
>>> >> of the “enlightened”.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Our culture/language supplies us with a sense of knowing the
>>> meaning of
>>> >> all things for which we have a name. This sense of the meaning of
>>> things
>>> >> helps us to feel secure in the face of an uncertain, threatening >>
>>> world.
>>> We
>>> >> gain that sense of knowing the meaning of things simply be having 
>>
>>> words
>>> for
>>> >> things. Our subconscious accepts the affects of the sound of the 
words
>>> as
>>> >> being the affects of the things to which the words refer.  The 
words
>>> stand
>>> >> for the things we name with them and replace, subliminally, our
>>> perception
>>> >> of the things referred to with our perception  of the words >>
>>> themselves.
>>> The
>>> >> words are all we have to go on for the sensing of the 
meaning/effect
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> things.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems 
to
>>> have
>>> >> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects 
of
>>> things
>>> >> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
>>> >> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the
>>> meanings of
>>> >> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group
>>> dynamic
>>> >> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time 
>>
>>> while
>>> how
>>> >> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share 
experience,
>>> >> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal
>>> experience
>>> >> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it. 
Words
>>> >> enable abstract thought and planning.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for
>>> things
>>> >> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the 
things
>>> >> themselves.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make 
with
>>> our
>>> >> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>> affects
>>> us.
>>> >> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery 
>>
>>> and
>>> >> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>> affect of
>>> >> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>> >>
>>> >>     When we utter vocal sounds that are simply sounds and not 
words,
>>> >> we
>>> >> may, more easily,  experience consciously, the effects of the 
sounds,
>>> than
>>> >> when we speak words. When we speak words, we typically experience
>>> >> consciously the referential function of the words and not the 
affects
>>> on us
>>> >> of the sounds of the words, while we experience the effects of the
>>> vocal
>>> >> sounds of words subliminally. Because we experience the one thing, 
>>
>>> (the
>>> >> referential meanings of the words), consciously, and the other 
thing,
>>> (the
>>> >> affects on us of the sounds), subconsciously, we
>>> >>                                                     12
>>> >>
>>> >> subconsciously interpret the subliminal effects of the vocal sounds 
as
>>> >> being the effects of the things to which the words refer. The
>>> subconscious
>>> >> mind supplies us with the bottom line of the meaning of whatever it 
is
>>> we
>>> >> are considering because we cannot reason with the subconscious mind 
>>
>>> and
>>> we
>>> >> can with the conscious mind. Whatever we are conscious of, we can
>>> question
>>> >> and whatever we question becomes uncertain. However we have a
>>> language-based
>>> >> subconscious reaction to that which the (meaning-of)/(effect-on-us) 
is
>>> >> consciously unknown as long as we have a word for it, and that
>>> subconscious
>>> >> reaction creates an experience of and hence a sense of knowing the
>>> meaning
>>> >> of that which, prior to being named, did not seem to be known. The
>>> word,
>>> >> made of sounds of our body, stands in for the unknown thing, the 
thing
>>> >> separate from our body. In the absence of any objective sense of 
the
>>> >> meanings of things, we rely on our words to provide us with a sense 
of
>>> >> knowing,
>>> >>  because knowing relieves us of the stress of anxiety. We are 
driven
>>> into
>>> >> the perceived safety of our familiar culture, as represented in our
>>> >> language, by the stress of the fear generated by not knowing. One 
must
>>> be
>>> >> willing to accept the mystery of existence in order to experience, 
>>
>>> free
>>> from
>>> >> the bias of existing culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Considering words to be things in and of themselves, (sounds), 
and
>>> not
>>> >> only a means to refer to things, will enable us to examine them for
>>> their
>>> >> inherent meaning. The primary meaning of a word is not the thing 
which
>>> it
>>> >> represents. It is, rather, the affects on us of it’s sounds. We
>>> consciously
>>> >> consider the meaning of the word to be the thing to which the word
>>> refers
>>> >> and we subconsciously experience the meaning of the word as the >>
>>> effects
>>> on
>>> >> us of its sounds. Because we experience, profoundly and 
consistently,
>>> the
>>> >> effects on us of our human vocal sounds while we experience less
>>> intimately
>>> >> and less consistently the effects on us of the things to which we 
>>
>>> refer
>>> with
>>> >> words, the emotional effects of the words as sounds overrides the
>>> emotional
>>> >> effects of the things named, and informs us of the nature of named
>>> things.
>>> >>
>>> >>     In a similar way that explorers laid claim to land in the name 
of
>>> the
>>> >> monarch, we tend to lay claim to that which we name in order to 
render
>>> it
>>> >> seemingly familiar and known.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Everything that we perceive subconsciously creates an emotional
>>> >> reaction that may be experienced consciously and everything that we
>>> perceive
>>> >> consciously affects us subconsciously as well. We consciously 
perceive
>>> the
>>> >> sounds of spoken language and we are also affected subconsciously 
by
>>> those
>>> >> same sounds. In the course of verbal communication, we think of the
>>> things
>>> >> to which our words refer while subconsciously we are emotionally
>>> affected by
>>> >> the sounds of our words. This simultaneous occurrence of the 
thought
>>> >> of
>>> a
>>> >> thing and the subconscious experience of the emotion generated by 
the
>>> sound
>>> >> of the word we use to refer to that thing, subliminally informs us 
of
>>> the
>>> >> affect-on-us ,(the-meaning-of), the thing. In this way, we acquire 
a
>>> sense
>>> >> of the affects-on-us, (the-meanings-of), everything for which we 
have
>>> >> a
>>> >> word. This is important because our actions in relation to the 
things
>>> that
>>> >> make up our world are motivated by our perceptions of the meanings 
of
>>> >>  those things. Therefore, if we would change, for the better, our
>>> >> societies’ behavior, we ought to change our languages.
>>> >>     Since spoken language is crucial in determining the course of 
>>
>>> human
>>> >> events, it would be
>>> >>                                                     13
>>> >>
>>> >> better if we consciously agreed with the subliminal sense of the
>>> meanings
>>> >> of things which is instilled in us by our language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We humans are not doing so well with our relationships with one
>>> another
>>> >> that we should be complacent regarding the improvement of our 
culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>     People have been attempting to address social and economic
>>> challenges
>>> >> ever since there were people. All the religions were attempts to
>>> provide a
>>> >> basis for our behavior. Marxism was/is an attempt to remedy social 
and
>>> >> economic inequality and exploitation. “Hippie” communes were 
typically
>>> >> instituted to provide healthy social environments. Organized 
politics
>>> and
>>> >> codified legal systems were/are created, supposedly, to improve our
>>> >> condition. Why is it unclear whether any of these deliberate social
>>> >> structures actually made/make our situation better or worse? Could 
it
>>> be
>>> >> that the cause of our malaise is something that is not being >>
>>> recognized
>>> by
>>> >> those who strive to improve our lot? For how many years, for how 
many
>>> >> centuries and millennium will we try to fix our broken world by
>>> creating
>>> >> laws, religions, political and economic institutions before we 
decide
>>> that
>>> >> doing so does not deal with the source of the problem? Marx’s 
mistake
>>> was
>>> >> believing that
>>> >>  economics is the foundation upon which all of society’s other
>>> institutions
>>> >> are based. It seemed reasonable to him that since life is based 
upon
>>> the
>>> >> biological economics of survival, that economics must be the
>>> determining
>>> >> force in society. He did not see that our culture provides us with 
a
>>> sense
>>> >> of the meaning of all recognized things thereby assuaging the
>>> fear/terror
>>> >> that naturally arises as a result of our consciousness of our 
physical
>>> >> vulnerability and that we tend to protect and defend that culture
>>> because of
>>> >> the perceived security which it provides. Once culture is 
established,
>>> it
>>> >> causes the economic and social relationships to be what they are, 
and
>>> they
>>> >> cannot be lastingly changed without changing the culture.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The culture, created by language forms our values which then
>>> strongly
>>> >> influence the decisions we make consciously and  subconsciously.
>>> >>
>>> >>                                                              What 
is
>>> >> culture?
>>> >>
>>> >>     I define culture as the common fundamental values held by the
>>> members
>>> >> of a society. These values derive from our perception of the 
meanings
>>> of,
>>> >> (the affects on us of), the things that make up our world. “Things” 
>>
>>> are
>>> >> whatever we identify as being distinguishable from other things, 
which
>>> >> include feelings, thoughts, values, people and ideals. The meanings 
of
>>> >> things are one with and the same as the affects on us of those 
things.
>>> How
>>> >> do we acquire our sense of, (the affects on us of)/(the meanings 
of),
>>> >> things? Is it from our own individual experiences with things? Is 
it
>>> from
>>> >> what we say to ourselves and to each other about things? If it were
>>> based on
>>> >> individual experience, how would we achieve consensus and if we 
could,
>>> why
>>> >> would all cultures not be pretty much the same?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Most would hold that even within a given society our individual
>>> values
>>> >> are not the same and
>>> >>                                                     14
>>> >>
>>> >> surely the popular view of what our values are, indicated by a 
cursory
>>> >> survey of our behavior, seems to support that conclusion. When
>>> attempting to
>>> >> assess the values that underlie behavior we should consider the
>>> influence of
>>> >> the role that each individual sees themselves as playing within 
their
>>> >> culture. Given the same subliminal, fundamental values, individuals
>>> within
>>> >> any society tend to behave not only relative to those basic values 
but
>>> also
>>> >> relative to how they perceive themselves, (who they perceive >>
>>> themselves
>>> to
>>> >> be), within their society.
>>> >>
>>> >>     It seems that the cause of the problem of why we do so many
>>> seemingly
>>> >> destructive and self-defeating things must be so basic, so 
fundamental
>>> as to
>>> >> escape our awareness. It must be housed in the subconscious mind 
since
>>> all
>>> >> our attempts to address it have been futile. It is that which we 
don’t
>>> >> consciously know that we subconsciously know that sometimes makes 
us
>>> wonder
>>> >> why we do what we do. Our emotional reactions are influenced by 
that
>>> which
>>> >> resides in the subconscious just as they are by that of which we 
are
>>> >> conscious, and often, we create rationales to explain our behavior,
>>> while
>>> >> the actual reasons for the feelings that motivate us may be other 
than
>>> what
>>> >> we choose to think.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What does every cultural group share within itself that affects 
>>
>>> its
>>> >> members profoundly and without their conscious knowledge? Where are 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> hidden rules, by which we live, to be found? Our culture is an
>>> artifact,
>>> >> inherited from distant ancestors, formed in an environment vastly
>>> different
>>> >> than today. Ways of interacting with one another that may have 
seemed
>>> to
>>> >> work then now appear to be dysfunctional. The primary example is 
war,
>>> which
>>> >> before weapons of mutual destruction, was rationalizable by the
>>> victors. But
>>> >> now, with nuclear weapons, would there be any victors? We still 
think
>>> as we
>>> >> did then but we cannot afford to act today as we may have believed 
we
>>> could
>>> >> then. Our technology has evolved tremendously but our culture has 
not.
>>> We
>>> >> are ill-equipped to cope with the situation our technology has 
enabled
>>> us to
>>> >> create. Furthermore, even if war seemed winnable, wouldn’t we 
prefer
>>> peace?
>>> >>
>>> >>     If we admit that vocal sounds inherently affect us, as do 
facial
>>> >> expressions and general body posture, then we may ask how our sense 
of
>>> the
>>> >> meaning of the things which make up our world is affected by using
>>> >> inherently meaningful symbols to refer to them. What is the 
relative
>>> >> strength of the emotional effects upon us of our symbols compared 
to
>>> the
>>> >> emotional effects of the things to which they refer? Considering 
that
>>> the
>>> >> emotional effects of the things themselves vary with context and is
>>> peculiar
>>> >> of each of us, and that the emotional effects of the vocal symbols 
is
>>> >> relatively consistent and universal, can we assume that the 
meanings
>>> >> of
>>> the
>>> >> symbols create the perceived meanings of the things? Is this
>>> relationship
>>> >> the same or different within the conscious and subconscious minds? 
>>
>>> Does
>>> our
>>> >> conscious or subconscious mind more strongly influence our 
behavior?
>>> Are our
>>> >> behaviors affected by our subconscious minds even when we are 
trying
>>> >> to
>>> do
>>> >> what we
>>> >>  consciously think we should do?
>>> >>
>>> >>     We either are or are not affected by our vocal utterances. I 
see
>>> that
>>> >> we are. If we were not affected by our vocal utterances, we would 
not
>>> >> vocalize. The whole purpose of vocalizing is
>>> >>                                                     15
>>> >>
>>> >> communication! And in order to communicate, we must be affected by 
>>
>>> that
>>> >> which we use to communicate.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What, we may ask, is communicated by vocalizing? What is
>>> communicated
>>> >> when other animals vocalize? It is clear that animals communicate 
>>
>>> their
>>> >> instantaneous emotional states by their vocalizations. How is this
>>> >> communication accomplished? The vibrating of the body of the >>
>>> vocalizer,
>>> >> (sender),  causes the body of the receiver to vibrate in sympathy. 
The
>>> >> receiver experiences the motions and consequently the emotions of 
the
>>> >> sender. This simple process is the foundation of our vocal 
activity,
>>> our
>>> >> verbal activity, (our language), and our culture. Many of us seem 
to
>>> balk at
>>> >> accepting the idea that our lofty retorical proclamations are 
founded
>>> upon
>>> >> such primal processes. If you are one of these, consider that our
>>> genetic
>>> >> blueprint is shared, in the majority, by all other vertebrates and
>>> largely
>>> >> by all other animals. To those who disparage animals, please be
>>> reminded
>>> >> that the Grand Creator authored ALL of everything, not only us and
>>> those of
>>> >> whom we
>>> >>  approve.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What are the ingredients that make up the mix of influences 
that
>>> >> determine human behavior? Given that we are intelligent enough to
>>> appreciate
>>> >> and cherish the truths that are our guiding principles, and given 
that
>>> we
>>> >> are not born self destructive, then for what reason/s did we act as 
we
>>> have?
>>> >> From where does the false information come that motivates much of 
our
>>> >> behavior? “Human nature” does not account for our inhuman actions. 
The
>>> cause
>>> >> of our destructiveness must exist among the things which we learn.
>>> >>
>>> >>      From what ultimate source do we acquire our information 
regarding
>>> the
>>> >> meaning of our world? Our culture is that source.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What have we got to go on in order to achieve a sense of the
>>> meaning of
>>> >> our world other than the words we speak?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Do we have a benchmark for establishing the meaning of things? 
If
>>> >> everything is relative, what is it relative to? We need not look
>>> further
>>> >> than ourselves to find that. How could it be otherwise? We look out
>>> from our
>>> >> eyes and hear with our ears and think that we can objectively >>
>>> determine
>>> the
>>> >> nature of each and every thing that we examine. However, with our
>>> survival
>>> >> in the balance, as it inescapably is, how whatever it is that we
>>> examine
>>> >> relates to our survival determines what it must mean to us. How we 
are
>>> >> affected by the things that constitute our world establishes their
>>> meaning.
>>> >> The vocal sounds we make express and convey the different emotional
>>> effects
>>> >> we experience. Our words are made up of these body-sounds. 
Therefore,
>>> our
>>> >> words convey emotional meaning and inform us of the affects on us 
of
>>> things
>>> >> for which we have names.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Language exists in both the conscious and the subconscious. We 
are
>>> >> conscious of the words we speak and of the things to which they 
refer,
>>> while
>>> >> they inform us subconsciously of the effects on us, (the meanings 
of),
>>> those
>>> >> things to which they refer.
>>> >>     Does it matter what things mean? Does it matter what we think 
they
>>> >> mean? Do our actions
>>> >>                                                     16
>>> >>
>>> >> relative to them depend on what they mean to us?  Do we act in >>
>>> relation
>>> to
>>> >> things according to what they mean to us? How do we know the 
ultimate
>>> effect
>>> >> on us of any thing? Is the effect on us of any thing its meaning? 
How
>>> can
>>> >> any thing mean to us anything other than what its effect on us is? 
How
>>> do we
>>> >> obtain a sense of the meanings of things? Do we get that sense of 
the
>>> >> affects-on-us/ the-meanings-of things directly from our own 
experience
>>> with
>>> >> things or as mediated by language?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Of all forms of body language, (vocalization, facial expression 
>>
>>> and
>>> >> overall body posture), only one of them,vocalization, is commonly 
used
>>> to
>>> >> represent things other than conditions of the emotional body. Our
>>> general
>>> >> posture is very communicative of our physical-emotional state 
without
>>> our
>>> >> deliberate intent and is sometimes used deliberately to convey the
>>> same.
>>> >> Facial expression can be more finely communicative of our state of
>>> >> being/feeling than is general body posture. Vocalization, while 
being
>>> >> profoundly expressive/communicative, is, by civilized people,
>>> ordinarily
>>> >> exclusively reserved for uttering words. While we are not aware of 
the
>>> >> affect upon ourselves of the phones we utter, we are aware of the
>>> effect
>>> >> upon ourselves of the emotional embellishments we add to them. 
Often,
>>> we
>>> >> consciously add emotional content to our words in order to 
embellish
>>> their
>>> >> referential meaning. Since we are busy, often consciously, 
processing
>>> the
>>> >> referential meaning of
>>> >>  our words, we are unaware of the emotional impact of the sounds 
that
>>> make
>>> >> them up. Each distinct articulate vocal sound affects us in its own
>>> unique
>>> >> way. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the workings of 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> culture-creating function of language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We not only refer to things with our words. More profoundly, we
>>> inform
>>> >> ourselves of the very meaning of those things simply by using a 
word,
>>> (a
>>> >> vocal sound), to refer to them.  This information as to the affects
>>> upon us,
>>> >> (the meanings of), the things which make up our world, constitutes 
our
>>> >> culture. Culture is information, (in-formation). Since we are not 
>>
>>> aware
>>> of
>>> >> the nature of this information, it exists in our subconscious 
minds.
>>> >> We
>>> act
>>> >> according to a subconscious program put in place by our language. 
If
>>> >> we
>>> >> understand how we receive information regarding the meaning or our
>>> world, we
>>> >> can change that information so that it agrees with what we believe 
to
>>> be the
>>> >> nature of our world. Our culture was passed down, from long ago; 
from
>>> before
>>> >> electronics, before motorized transport and the printing press. If 
we
>>> were
>>> >> to deliberately create our language today, would we create the one 
we
>>> >> currently use? If so or if not, why? Would we know how to create a
>>> >>  language that conveys the meanings of things that are their actual
>>> >> meanings? If we would know, how would we know? If not, why not?
>>> >>
>>> >>     That which affects us profoundly and constantly must be in 
close
>>> >> proximity. Things right in front of us are often overlooked when we
>>> search
>>> >> for that which affects us powerfully. We tend to assume that if the
>>> causes
>>> >> of major difficulties were so close to us, it would be obvious and 
we
>>> would
>>> >> have discovered them by now. Let us reexamine our major influences 
to
>>> look
>>> >> for what causes us to behave as we do.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Our species, is plenty smart enough to understand why our 
saints
>>> and
>>> >> prophets are correct when they exhort us to be “good”.  We create
>>> secular
>>> >> laws that mirror our religious tenants and are
>>> >>                                                     17
>>> >>
>>> >> sensitive to any critique of our behavior. Our feelings of guilt 
seem
>>> to be
>>> >> well developed. Why then do we act as we do; making war against one
>>> another
>>> >> and engaging in all kinds of destructive activity?
>>> >>
>>> >>     I have heard many claim that it is simply “human nature” to act 
in
>>> >> destructive ways. Those who believe that, feel that there is 
nothing
>>> >> to
>>> be
>>> >> done to correct our human malaise other than punishment. Evil ones 
>>
>>> must
>>> be
>>> >> trimmed back, like a noxious and thorny vine. I do not subscribe to
>>> that
>>> >> depressing idea and know that the truth of the matter is that we >>
>>> humans
>>> are
>>> >> inherently survival oriented and will learn whatever seems as 
though
>>> >> it
>>> will
>>> >> further our survival. It is because of our native intelligence 
coupled
>>> with
>>> >> our survival desire that we voluntarily stretch our consciousness 
in
>>> order
>>> >> to glimpse a better way for ourselves to carry on.
>>> >>
>>> >>     What are the forces that influence our behavior? What we 
believe
>>> >> to
>>> be
>>> >> good and correct does not, it seems, by itself, determine our 
actions.
>>> Do we
>>> >> not fully believe that what seems to be right to us is truly right? 
Or
>>> is
>>> >> there some other influence that informs us of what the world and 
all
>>> the
>>> >> things and concepts and people in it mean to us, something else 
that
>>> >> influences our perception of how we must behave in order to 
survive?
>>> >>
>>> >>     Our behavior is related to how we are affected by the things 
that
>>> make
>>> >> up our world. We behave in relation to the various things that fill 
>>
>>> our
>>> >> awareness, according to how they affect our survivability, (how we
>>> PERCEIVE
>>> >> that they affect our survivability). We perceive the world directly
>>> through
>>> >> personal contact with it and indirectly through contact with that 
>>
>>> which
>>> >> represents the world to us, (our language). Language represents the
>>> world by
>>> >> labeling everything about which we speak, with sounds made by our
>>> bodies.
>>> >> Those vocal sounds are part and parcel of states of our emotions. 
Our
>>> >> preverbal progenitors and our children when young, make vocal 
sounds
>>> >> in
>>> >> reaction to various environmental stimuli. Those emotive sounds are
>>> >> intuitively made sense of by all who hear them. We sense the
>>> vocalizations
>>> >> and they make sense to us. The vocal sounds are made by a body in 
an
>>> >> emotional state and cause that state to be reproduced in the 
emotional
>>> body
>>> >> of the hearer
>>> >>  of those sounds. The sending body vibrates and the receiving body
>>> vibrates
>>> >> similarly. An emotionally linked vibrational pattern is spread from 
>>
>>> the
>>> >> originator of the vocal sound-vibration to whoever’s auditory >>
>>> apparatus
>>> is
>>> >> moved by it. The transmittance of the vibrational pattern is the
>>> >> transmission of the emotion. We are emotionally affected by the
>>> emotions of
>>> >> others.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Language is an institution, a standardized way we move our 
bodies,
>>> >> specifically our vocal apparatuses, our ears, central nervous 
system
>>> and
>>> >> emotions, in relation to the various things that make up our world. 
In
>>> >> relation to a book, we who speak English, utter the sound, “book”. 
In
>>> >> relation to a book, a Spanish-speaking person utters the sound, “
>>> libro”.
>>> >> These two different sounds move us in different ways, giving us a
>>> different
>>> >> experience of that which refers to and represents that object and
>>> >> consequently, of the thing referred to. The primal meaning of a 
word
>>> >> is
>>> the
>>> >> effect the sound of it creates within us. The secondary, more 
distant
>>> >> meaning of a word is that to which it refers. The secondary meaning 
is
>>> what
>>> >> we commonly accept as being the one and only meaning. We are
>>> >>                                                     18
>>> >>
>>> >> generally not aware of the primary meaning, because we are affected 
by
>>> the
>>> >> vocal sounds of our words subliminally and by the secondary,
>>> referential,
>>> >> meaning of words consciously.  Awareness of the primary meanings of
>>> vocal
>>> >> sounds was superseded by the awareness of the >> secondary,
>>> -referential-,
>>> >> meaning of vocal sounds used as words.
>>> >>
>>> >>     To understand the functionality, the “nuts and bolts”, of >>
>>> language,
>>> is
>>> >> to free ourselves of domination by culture, to be the masters of
>>> culture
>>> >> rather than its subjects. We have been inextricably attached to
>>> culture, for
>>> >> better or for worse, ever since our use of language began. Now we 
can
>>> >> intentionally create a language/culture that informs us as we would
>>> like to
>>> >> be informed, of the effects on us, (the meanings of), all the 
things
>>> >> we
>>> >> name.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Certainly we agree that we are affected by the sounds we utter.
>>> What
>>> >> then is the
>>> >> consequence of referring to all the things to which we refer, (all 
the
>>> >> things that make up our conscious world), with inherently 
meaningful
>>> sounds?
>>> >> If we were able to refer to things with “meaningless” symbols, then 
>>
>>> all
>>> we
>>> >> would be conveying is the thought of the thing. When we refer to >>
>>> things
>>> with
>>> >> inherently meaningful symbols, we are also informing ourselves of 
the
>>> >> meanings of the things to which we are referring. Is there such a 
>>
>>> thing
>>> as a
>>> >> meaningless symbol? Is anything meaningless? In order to perceive
>>> anything,
>>> >> including a symbol, that symbol must register upon our senses and 
in
>>> order
>>> >> to register upon our senses, the sensed thing must affect us. No >>
>>> effect
>>> on
>>> >> us, equals no perception by us. Whatever the affect on us is, is 
the
>>> >> fundamental meaning of the sensed thing. When we refer to things, 
we
>>> are
>>> >> primarily being affected by the symbol which we use to do the >>
>>> referring
>>> and
>>> >> secondarily by the memory, if there is a memory, of the thing to 
which
>>> we
>>> >>  are referring. When we refer to something with which we have no >>
>>> direct
>>> >> experience, we have only the symbol, (word), to affect us and thus 
to
>>> inform
>>> >> us.
>>> >>
>>> >>     If there is a discrete connection between a vocal sound and  a
>>> thing,
>>> >> and a connection likewise between a particular vocal sound and a
>>> specific
>>> >> effect on the emotions, then there is a connection between the 
effect
>>> on us
>>> >> of the sound and the thing to which that sound, (word), refers.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We are aware that sound has an effect and that the word is 
sound
>>> and
>>> >> that the word has an effect and that the word refers to a thing. 
Are
>>> >> we
>>> >> aware that, for all intents and purposes, the effect seems to be 
the
>>> thing.
>>> >> How we are affected by a thing, our perception of a thing, is 
accepted
>>> >> subliminally as being the meaning of the thing. Our actions 
relative
>>> >> to
>>> the
>>> >> things in our world, are related to the perceived meanings of those
>>> things.
>>> >>
>>> >>     We feel the feelings generated by the sounds of our words at 
the
>>> same
>>> >> time as we are deliberately focusing on the things to which the 
words
>>> refer.
>>> >> As a consequence, we associate particular vocal-sound-generated
>>> feelings
>>> >> with particular things. The thing does not define the feeling. 
Rather,
>>> the
>>> >> feeling defines the thing. The feeling of the word determines what 
is
>>> >> accepted subliminally as the meaning of the thing. The word enables 
us
>>> to
>>> >> experience feelings of the meanings of things not present, and 
unknown
>>> by
>>> >> direct experience. It establishes a sense of
>>> >>                                                     19
>>> >>
>>> >> consensus which wells up from the subconscious minds among the >>
>>> speakers
>>> of
>>> >> a given language.
>>> >>
>>> >>     All throughout human history, language has been playing this 
role
>>> of
>>> >> consensus creator based on the information we derive from the 
sounds
>>> >> of
>>> our
>>> >> words regarding the-affects-on-us/the-meanings-of, the things that 
>>
>>> make
>>> up
>>> >> our worlds. If we would rather live in a culture of our own 
creation
>>> than in
>>> >> just any one in which we happened to be born, we might consider
>>> >> experimenting with cultural change through language renewal.
>>> >>
>>> >>     I have been asked what I hope to achieve with this information. 
My
>>> >> desire is that we become aware of the forces that affect us so that 
we
>>> may
>>> >> be able to change the circumstances that exist to circumstances 
that
>>> >> we
>>> >> would prefer.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Because of the inherent shortcomings inherent in existing
>>> languages,
>>> >> although words can be used in a kindly manner to help get us back 
on
>>> track
>>> >> when we lose our way, they cannot, in and of themselves, guide 
anyone
>>> who is
>>> >> determined to see things in a certain way. Only the willing can be
>>> helped.
>>> >> How can we help people to be willing?
>>> >>
>>> >>     I observe that culture is the prosthetic subconscious of 
society,
>>> that
>>> >> which we who live in a particular society share with one another 
and
>>> have in
>>> >> common. It has to do with our world-view. Our world view is formed 
by
>>> what
>>> >> things mean to us. How do we obtain our sense of the meaning of our
>>> world?
>>> >> Do we share t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> *Assistant Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-5125
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460
>
> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> midwife.*
> *-*John Dewey.
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>


-- 
*Robert Lake  Ed.D.
*Assistant Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-5125
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460

 *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
midwife.*
*-*John Dewey.
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca