Re: [xmca] dialogue on future of Vygotsky studies

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

Dear Andy and CHAT family,
I guess the mechanics will be determined by the willing participants. I
would love to have a "side bar" google group discussion that could  expand
up to 5,000 words, in a dialogue format wherein each participant contributes
one or two paragraphs at a time.

I am also proposing that this serve as an exploratory overview or beginning
of a newly edited volume of 10-12 essays. Correct me if I am wrong, but  I
know of no other similar work since
Harry Daniels (1993) collected and edited *Charting the Agenda: Educational
Activity After Vygotsky.*

What do you think?
*RL*

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> This looks like an interesting project in its own right, Robert. But can
> you clarify the mechanics of your idea a little.
> Are you proposing setting up an email group and recording exchanges on the
> topic, or of just grabbing bits and pieces off xmca?
> I am intrigued ...
>
> Andy
>
> Robert Lake wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone!
>>
>> I am still working on the manuscript for the * Vygotsky on Education
>> Primer* for Peter Lang Publishers.
>>
>> In the last section of the last chapter, I am hoping to provide an
>> overview
>> of  the future of Vygoskyian studies in both theoretical and practical
>>  terms. In keeping with the tone of this
>> listserve, I  welcome the bricological expression  of paragraph length
>> dialogue in a way that will engage the
>> readers, who would normally not be accustomed to the kind of metalanguage
>> we often use and appreciate
>> amongstourselves. (*Think pre-service teacher candidates*).
>>
>>
>> If you would like to participate, I would love to cite your comments
>> directly into the text if they will fit this purpose.
>>
>> Thanks so much!
>>
>> *Robert Lake*
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> eric--
>>>
>>> I wonder...everybody, no matter how mentally disturbed, has to be capable
>>> of some figurative language. I remember once Halliday remarked that "I
>>> want
>>> you to stand up" is really an INTERPERSONAL metaphor, because you've got
>>> a command pretending to be a statement, and I asked him if it wasn't true
>>> to
>>> say that the whole of language was a phonological metaphor, because we've
>>> got words pretending to be statements, commands, questions, gestures, and
>>> so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> So I sometimes wonder if the distinction we make between figurative and
>>> non-figurative language is nothing but a formalism, like the distinction
>>> between, say, metaphor and metonymy, or even the distinction between
>>> metaphor and simile. Of course, as you say (and as Rod says) these
>>> formalisms can matter a lot. But they are nevertheless a lot more
>>> pervasive
>>> than the overt markings that we have bedecked them with, and so it seems
>>> they must also be found in the language of the mentally disturbed
>>> (perhaps
>>> as "literal" statements that are obvioiusly untrue).
>>>
>>> Choose the best (that is, the most developmentally
>>> sophisticated) continuation for the following utterance.
>>>
>>> Romeo: "Soft! What light from yonder window breaks! ...
>>>
>>> a) It is like the east and Juliet is like the sun."
>>> b) It is the east and Juliet is like the sun."
>>> c) It is the east and Julie is the sun."
>>> d) Juliet's eyes are nothing like the sun."
>>>
>>> I think Vygotsky would choose d) because a), b), and c) are merely
>>> generalizations from one object to another, while d) combines both
>>> generalization (from one object to another) and abstraction (the
>>> isolation
>>> of a single feature, namely Juliet's eyes).
>>>
>>> In Chapter Five of Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky points out that the
>>> function of abstraction, which is really a kind of metonymy, is
>>> ontogenetically very ancient. Every time the very young child undergoes a
>>> routine, the child is bound to feel on some level that "this is like
>>> that".
>>>
>>> But any "perizhvanie", any instance of the "feeling of what happens to
>>> you"
>>> is different in an almost infinite number of ways from any other
>>> "perizhvanie". So the belief that "today is just like yesterday" always
>>> involves privileging some features of an experience and discounting
>>> others.
>>> This is by no means a mechanical process; we are not talking about a
>>> Galton
>>> photograph; on the contrary, it is a most discriminating and subtle
>>> judgment.
>>>
>>> I think that ALL of the "complexes" we see in Chapter Five can actually
>>> be
>>> seen as just such abstractions from childly activities, although of
>>> course
>>> the resulting structure is thought of as a set of concrete experiences
>>> and
>>> not a concept.
>>>
>>> For example, the "associative complex" is really a meta-object, a set of
>>> objects each of which represents a projection of some different feature
>>> of
>>> the nuclear objects (the "brainstorming" "mind-maps" of which elementary
>>> school teachers are so proud are really just associative complexes).
>>>
>>> The "collection complex" is, as Vygotsky says, a tool kit abstracted from
>>> practical routines: brushing teeth, getting dressed, having meals, going
>>> to
>>> bed.
>>>
>>> The "chain complex" seems to me to be abstracted from games such as
>>> "tag",
>>> where the loser of a particular bout becomes the "hero" of the next bout.
>>>
>>> The "diffuse complex" is, as Vygotsky says, a result of the limitless
>>> diffusion of characteristics we see in imaginative tales.
>>>
>>> It's really only the pseudocomplex that is metaphorical rather than
>>> metonymic, because the child's word "stands for" a thinking process that
>>> is
>>> quite different, but given the exactly the same name. Of course, it is a
>>> metaphor-in-itself rather than a metaphor-for-others or a
>>> metaphor-for-myself (that is to say, nobody except maybe Vygotsky
>>> actually
>>> KNOWS that the child's pseudocomplex is a metaphor for the adult
>>> concept).
>>>
>>> In order to become a metaphor-for-myself, I have to abstract away all the
>>> features that make the metaphor work and resynthesize them as a concept.
>>> But
>>> of course a metaphor for a concept is not a metaphor: it's the concept
>>> itself, for a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 11/1/10, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>> Awareness
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 11:45 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello all:
>>>
>>> This is such an interesting stream that has flowed into the different
>>> tributaries of a delta and then joined again as it has emptied into the
>>> vast ocean of communal knowledge.
>>>
>>> I do not have the linguistic knowledge to offer much in research based
>>> efforts of understanding the development of metaphorical knowledge.  What
>>> I can offer is my observational data of working with severely mentally
>>> ill
>>> young adults.  Many do not grasp metaphorical speech and can become very
>>> agitated if a person continues on with a metaphor that has not been
>>> understood.  This explains why so many people who suffer mental health
>>> issues are unsuccessful in the academic world.
>>>
>>> my two cents for a million dollar topic
>>> eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:   Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>>> To:     Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date:   11/01/2010 01:04 PM
>>> Subject:        Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of
>>> Conscious
>>> Awareness
>>> Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Vera,
>>> The *Journal of Aesthetic Education* is interested in publishing it  and
>>> *
>>> Francine** *Smolucha says she is writing it.
>>> RL
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>> We are looking for reviews and reviewers for Vygotsky and Creativity. Do
>>>> you think your publication would be interested and could you think of a
>>>> reviewer?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Vera
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Lake" <
>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:35 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>> Awareness
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the LSV Citations David as well as this:
>>>> *
>>>> "But that's the whole point; the emotional substratum of language is
>>>>
>>>>
>>> always
>>>
>>>
>>>> there and it never goes away; there is no point of entropy where
>>>>
>>>>
>>> thinking
>>>
>>>
>>>> and feeling are completely merged."
>>>> *I will be pondering and savoring this all weekend.
>>>>
>>>> RL
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Robert Lake
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  Thanks for the Citation David!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Kellogg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Rod:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it seems nonaccidental that we say "I feel LIKE my brain is an
>>>>>> erogenous zone" (for example) but we have say "I think THAT my brain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>> erogenous zone".  The obvious comparison is indirect reported speech
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for
>>>
>>>
>>>> feelings (and thus simile) but more direct forms for thoughts and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> words
>>>
>>>
>>>> (we
>>>>>> can say "Richard Shweder says, 'my brain is an erogenous zone'").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Vygotsky considers even the language of the Odyssey to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "lyrically
>>>
>>>
>>>> colored" and therefore emotional rather than ideational; when Homer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> says
>>>
>>>
>>>> "And they lay down by the shelving sea" or "When rosy fingered dawn
>>>>>> touched
>>>>>> the sky" we feel like we know what he means even though we cannot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> really
>>>
>>>
>>>> say
>>>>>> that what it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, in order to really understand this lyrical coloration, you
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to be able to read hexameters in ancient Greek. But that's the whole
>>>>>> point;
>>>>>> the emotional substratum of language is always there and it never goes
>>>>>> away;
>>>>>> there is no point of entropy where thinking and feeling are completely
>>>>>> merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The photo experiment is described in Volume Four, pp. 193-194, of
>>>>>> Vygotsky's Cllected Works, in a chapter called "Development of Speech
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thinking". Here's the key passage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “(I)f one and the same picture (let us say, the prisoner in jail) is
>>>>>> shown
>>>>>> to a three-year-old, he will say 'a man, another man, a window, a mug,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> bench', but for a preschool child it would be 'a man is sitting,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> another
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>> looking out of a window, and a mug is on the bench'. (...) A
>>>>>> five-year-old
>>>>>> establishes a connection between words in a single sentence, and an
>>>>>> eight-year-old uses complex additional sentences. A theoretical
>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>> arises: can the story about the picture describe the child's thinking?
>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>> We will ask two children not to tell a story, but to perform what the
>>>>>> picture shows. It develops that the children's play about the picture
>>>>>> sometimes lasts twenty or thirty minutes, and primarily and most of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> all
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>> the play those relations are captured that are in the picture. (...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>
>>>
>>>> child understands very well that the people are in jail: here the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> complex
>>>
>>>
>>>> narration about how the people were caught, how they were taken, that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> one
>>>
>>>
>>>> looks out
>>>>>>  the window, and that he wants to be free is added. Here a very
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> complex
>>>
>>>
>>>> narration is added about how the nanny was fined for not having a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ticket
>>>
>>>
>>>> on
>>>>>> the trolley. In a word, we get a typical portrayal of what we see in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> story of a twelve-year-old. (1997, pp. 193-194)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We did a whole foreign language replication of this experiment with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> using
>>>
>>>
>>>> a video clip (with an added time element) and some second graders and
>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>> it up for MCA, but it was (violently) rejected so we gave up. I still
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> copy of the paper if you are interested though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Wed, 10/27/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>>> Awareness
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 3:55 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies for missing this, David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the relationships between affective metaphor and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> cognitive
>>>
>>>
>>>> metaphor are as messy and complicated (or rich and intricate) as any
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> form of (imagined) boundary between thinking and feeling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we use a simile I think we invite listeners/readers to colour one
>>>>>> concept with features of another, often (though not always) in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> rather
>>>
>>>
>>>> generalised way. When we use a metaphor I think there is more of an
>>>>>> invitation to the listener/reader to haul up associations from the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> murk
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> personal experience (what does a hot liquid feel like, what does it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> make
>>>
>>>
>>>> me
>>>>>> feel like). I realise as I write this that I am assuming that there is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> difference between a person's 'own' 'lived-in' associations with
>>>>>> particular
>>>>>> words/concepts and that person's sense of a 'common' or widely shared
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> set
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> associations (what this can be assumed to mean to other people) -
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> probably many different sets of 'common' meanings for different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> subgroups
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> 'other people' (people of my generation, people in my professional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> field,
>>>
>>>
>>>> 'kids today', people who have adolescent children .....).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To a degree, our sense of how much like another person we are will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> depend
>>>
>>>
>>>> on how well that other person is able to find a fit with our own
>>>>>> meanings.
>>>>>> We can manage an academic conversation with a relative stranger but it
>>>>>> won't
>>>>>> feel the same as a conversation with a relative or with someone who
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> likes
>>>
>>>
>>>> us
>>>>>> enough to bother to remember how we feel about things. For babies it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> quite easy to differentiate between 'people who like me' and 'people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> who
>>>
>>>
>>>> don't know me' because the former engage in a noticeably more
>>>>>> contingent/reciprocal way (they 'like' me both in the sense of caring
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> me and in the sense of adjusting to me) and this is surely a useful
>>>>>> distinction to be able to make. For adults it is more complicated
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> because
>>>
>>>
>>>> there are so many gradations of liking to keep track of (guided by the
>>>>>> steer
>>>>>> from embarrassment when we get it wrong!) but I still think that most
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> us
>>>>>> are highly skilled in (unconsciously) picking up cues about the degree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> which someone
>>>>>>  is adjusting to us (how much they like us). I also think that our own
>>>>>> awareness of the adjustments we make when we interact with others
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> forms
>>>
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>> important part of our knowledge about other people (we can even make
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> adjustments when they are not present so that we can imagine, for
>>>>>> example,
>>>>>> how they would feel about something we are considering suggesting to
>>>>>> them).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the word 'graspture' but for me (and for those who like me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> enough
>>>
>>>
>>>> to know what I am like!) simile is less 'violent' than metaphor, a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> black
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>> white diagram of the full colour collision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to read more about Vygotsky's replication of Stern's
>>>>>> photograph experiment - something I know nothing about - where can I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> find
>>>
>>>
>>>> this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 04:55
>>>>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Simile, Metaphor and the Graspture of Conscious
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Awareness
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rod:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that there is an AFFECTIVE difference between simile and
>>>>>> metaphor.
>>>>>> Actually, I think that the use of "like" as a preposition is related
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>> use of "like" as a verb; the prepositional form is an objectified
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> the affective affinity we see in the verbal form. I think that the
>>>>>> existence
>>>>>> of these two quite different forms is a good example of the
>>>>>> DIFFERENTIATION
>>>>>> and PARTITIONING that language brings about in affect (the word
>>>>>> "articulation" springs to mind in this context).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm very interested in what you say about the "distancing" effect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> simile. Do you think grammatical metaphor has the same effect of
>>>>>> distantiation. Does "growth" suggest an objective view when we compare
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>> "grow", because "growth" does not have an identifiable subject or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> object?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, what Lakoff and Johnson are writing about is not affect but
>>>>>> COGNITIVE metaphor. The idea is that underlying a whole range of
>>>>>> linguistic
>>>>>> expressions is some kind of non-verbal IMAGE, e.g. "anger is a hot
>>>>>> liquid",
>>>>>> quite independent of its verbal expression. From that perspective,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> there
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>> no difference between simile and metaphor, and there is also no
>>>>>> difference
>>>>>> between metonymy and metaphor (because metonymy is simply a special
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> case
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> a linguistic realization of a cognitive metaphor). All stem from a
>>>>>> completely undifferentiated, unpartitioned, unarticulated mental
>>>>>> equivalence
>>>>>> (I think it's no accident that almost all of Lakoff's and Johnson's
>>>>>> cognitive metaphors can be expressed as mathematical equations,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> although
>>>
>>>
>>>> none of them are really reversible the way that equations are: we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> cannot
>>>
>>>
>>>> say
>>>>>> that a hot liquid = anger).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I didn't say that Piaget believed that children are capable
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> reasoning "What kind of thought would I be expressing if I were making
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> acoustic sounds/articulatory gestures that I am now hearing?" Quite
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> contrary. This belief is the core of the "analysis by synthesis" views
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> speech perception, whether they originate in New Haven (Liberman) or
>>>>>> Cambridge, MA (Halle). Piaget holds that the child's thinking does not
>>>>>> achieve the Copernican Revolution of decentration until seven or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> eight,
>>>
>>>
>>>> so
>>>>>> Liberman or Halle would have to argue for innate mechanisms that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "think"
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>> a decentred way quite against the child's grain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vygotsky has no such problem. The child is a social being from birth,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is some time before children actually differentiate themselves from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "Ur-wir", the proto-we. It seems to me that this is completely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> consistent
>>>
>>>
>>>> with an ontogenetic "analysis by synthesis"; the child understands
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the child has not really differentiated speaker from hearer. The
>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>> failures of this type of understanding, in fact, play a not
>>>>>> inconsequential
>>>>>> part in the process of the child's differentiation of "I" from "we",
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is only expressed, not generated, in the child's use of negation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vygotsky mentions his replication of the Stern photograph experiment,
>>>>>> where a three year old is given a photo and responds with a list of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> objects in it ("a man", "another man", "a window", "a mug") and a five
>>>>>> year
>>>>>> old can add processes ("the man is sitting" "the other man is looking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> out
>>>
>>>
>>>> the window") but only the twelve year old can tell the story of how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> men
>>>>>> came to be sitting in prison. When Vygotsky replicates this, he asks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> children to ROLE PLAY the picture. Since this forces the kids to add
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> element of time, the five year olds come up with a twenty minute role
>>>>>> play
>>>>>> that is fully as complex as the narrative of the twelve year olds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Vygotsky does this, he is trying to show that the idea that young
>>>>>> children see pictures as a whole and do not differentiate the life
>>>>>> stories
>>>>>> within it is simply wrong. But in interpreting his result, we risk
>>>>>> falling
>>>>>> into a rather Piagetian analysis, which holds that speech is really an
>>>>>> afterthought and not the cause of the child's thinking, because the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> child
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>> capable of expressing in action so much more than what he can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> articulate
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>> differentiated speech. I think this is part of what is bugging Martin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two ways of debugging this occur to me. The first is that if we accept
>>>>>> Vygotsky's account that verbal thinking (not all thinking) develops
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> from
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>> "introvolution" of speech, we have to clearly differentiate between
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> child's UNDERSTANDING of speech in the environment (which is semantic,
>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>> NOT entirely dependent on a phasal, lexicogrammatical, partitioning of
>>>>>> speech) and the child's ability to "articulate" (which is).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second point is that Vygotsky's definition of speech changes. For
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> very young child, speech includes the child's actions and in fact is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> more
>>>
>>>
>>>> about the child's gestures and the child's use of the affordances in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> environment than about vocabulary and grammar. Early speech is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> dominated
>>>
>>>
>>>> by
>>>>>> indication and nomination; signifying comes later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way, metaphor comes first, because the child has to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> able
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>> accept that a gesture can "stand for" an object, and a word can "stand
>>>>>> for"
>>>>>> the idealized relationship between gesture and object. Similes are a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> kind
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> violent graspture of the conscious awareness of metaphor. So to speak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 1:08 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So many ideas to respond to and so little time!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it more likely that our associations between 'mmm' and baby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> related
>>>
>>>
>>>> concepts may be more to do with the fact that this is one of the first
>>>>>> recognisable sounds produced by babies? Mamas, Moms, mothers and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> mummies
>>>
>>>
>>>> all
>>>>>> over the world have reason to like the idea that these first sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> refer
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>> them (fathers are left with papa or dada). But how things may have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> begun
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>> always only a part of the story - layers upon layers of cultural
>>>>>> associations and connotations are wrapped around the infant word as it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> used in particular kinds of situations and contexts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Carol pointed out, phonemes are category labels rather than names of
>>>>>> 'things' - a way of splitting the infinite variations of sound into a
>>>>>> limited number of chunks. After the age of about 9 months we begin to
>>>>>> actively filter our perception of speech sounds to privilege
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> meaningful
>>>
>>>
>>>> distinctions in the languages used around us so there are probably
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> many
>>>
>>>
>>>> more
>>>>>> SPEECH sounds than any one of us thinks there are because we think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> only
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> the sounds we are still able to discriminate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where J.G. differs from David's version of Piaget's view, that 'You
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>
>>>
>>>> to imagine what you would be thinking if you were making the noises
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> you
>>>>>> are hearing', he seems to me to be closer to Reddy's 'second person
>>>>>> perspective' which has been aired here in the past - babies don't have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> 'imagine' or 'think' - they have only to engage or respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, while there may be some very general, physiological, associative
>>>>>> principles in the affective force of sounds (large, grande, enorme
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> versus
>>>
>>>
>>>> little, teensy weensy, petit, piccolo for example, and associations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>
>>>
>>>> 'squeak' and 'roar') there is also space for enormous variation in the
>>>>>> effect that words have when they are spoken in different ways by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> people
>>>
>>>
>>>> with
>>>>>> different kinds of voice and by people in different moods (you really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>
>>>
>>>> hear the difference between someone reciting letter of the alphabet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> while
>>>
>>>
>>>> smiling or while frowning).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's an experiment - download the transcript of Vikram
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ramachandran's
>>>
>>>
>>>> lecture 'Phantoms in the brain' from
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/radio4/reith2003/lecture1.shtml?print
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the first paragraph or two before you click on the 'listen'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> button
>>>
>>>
>>>> and then compare the experience of your reading and hearing
>>>>>> Ramachandran's
>>>>>> voice (all of the lectures from this series are still well worth
>>>>>> listening
>>>>>> to).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds and words may 'have' some power of signification, whether
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> because
>>>
>>>
>>>> of their/our physiological properties or because of the layers of
>>>>>> association they have accumulated (some of which may be forgotten by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>>> unknown to most of us) but this is a thin, diagrammatic sort of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It
>>>>>> is when they are performed by a speaker (or singer) that they can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> serve
>>>
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>>> an interface, allowing us to hear through them and engage with/respond
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> the life of another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So - apologies for my thin, diagrammatic contribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. I still think there is a significant affective distinction
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> between
>>>
>>>
>>>> the effect of a simile and the effect of a metaphor - a simile
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> announces
>>>
>>>
>>>> itself while a metaphor can get to you more immediately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>> Sent: 13 October 2010 06:58
>>>>>> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can see that J.G. really does believe that vowels and consonants
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> semantic, just as Khlebnikov did. Leonard Bernstein, in his Harvard
>>>>>> Lectures
>>>>>> on the "Semantics of Music" had a very similar theory about "mmm";
>>>>>> associating it with nursing, nipples, and micturation. It's the kind
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> thing that the "perceptionists" that Vygotsky criticizes in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Psychology
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> Art" believed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, there is some evidence to support this; we often find that
>>>>>> "milk" and "mammary glands" and "mothers" and "mommas" are associated
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the first bilabial sounds that babies make: Korean, Chinese, Arabic,
>>>>>> Tibetan
>>>>>> and many other languages can provide us with examples, and it's easy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> imagine a world where babies are responsible for teaching mothers
>>>>>> Motherese
>>>>>> as an international language. It's our world, more or less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there are many languages, including English, where the /m/ sound
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> associated with NEGATIVES: "malady", "malevolent", "malefactor", etc.
>>>>>> Worse,
>>>>>> there are certain "things" or even "emotions" which by their very
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> nature
>>>
>>>
>>>> cannot be directly expressed in a vowel or a consonant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the number "zero" or the grammatical category of negation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's
>>>
>>>
>>>> really NOT possible (IMpossible, to use an "em") to express something
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> does not exist by something that does exist in a direct, iconic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Something that exists, exists. It doesn't not exist. The only way for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>> mean something that does not exist is indirectly, that is,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> symbolically.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We had a related problem in class. The kids are playing a game with
>>>>>> cards,
>>>>>> where they are supposed to ask "Can you swim?" and if the responder
>>>>>> answers
>>>>>> "Yes, I can" (because there is a sign on the back of the card
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> indicating
>>>
>>>
>>>> "yes") the child is allowed to keep the card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the teacher has to begin by explaining what the cards mean. And
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> problem is that the card shows an actual child swimming, not a child
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> who
>>>
>>>
>>>> "can" swim. So the solution is a process of what Robert Lake would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> call
>>>
>>>
>>>> metaphor, of having something stand for something else (e.g. "one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> minus
>>>
>>>
>>>> one
>>>>>> EQUALS zero").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T: Look (indicating the card)! She is swimming. She's swimming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So...she
>>>
>>>
>>>> can swim. Now...(indicating himself). I am not swimming. I'm teaching,
>>>>>> right? BUT...I can swim. Can you swim?
>>>>>> S: Yes.
>>>>>> T: Good. Can she swim? Can he swim? Ask her. Ask him. How many
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> swimmers
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>> this group? How many swimmers in our class?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can see that the way the teacher handles the problem of presenting
>>>>>> POTENTIAL rather than ACTUAL swimming is to TRANSFER the meaning to
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> situation; to have the card stand for something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I would simply call this process semiosis, and that's why I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> think
>>>
>>>
>>>> that it is part of language development at every single point, bar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> none.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Every form of semiosis, without exception, is a form of metaphor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> because
>>>
>>>
>>>> the creation of a sign is precisely the creation of something that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> stands
>>>
>>>
>>>> for something else that is not itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT...phonemes really do not exist, except as abstractions (in fact, I
>>>>>> think they do not even exist as abstractions except for people who are
>>>>>> literate). They are like the spaces that we IMAGINE we hear (but do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>
>>>
>>>> actually hear, except in quite special circumstances) between words.
>>>>>> Since
>>>>>> they don't exist, they can stand for other things that don't exist. As
>>>>>> Lear
>>>>>> says, "Nothing will come from nothing". He forgot to add that this
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> gives us everything!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never mind. Let's notice the form of Mike's question. He doesn't ask
>>>>>> whether phonemes exist or not. He simply asks whether one can produce
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> particular sound (the example he gives is only an example; it's the
>>>>>> letter
>>>>>> "em") without there being more than one phoneme "there". Where? In the
>>>>>> mind,
>>>>>> of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple, snotty answer is YES, because phonemes ONLY have
>>>>>> psychological
>>>>>> reality (and even then only in the minds of literate people, not in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> minds of illiterates and children).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there are as many sounds as you think there are: no more and no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> less,
>>>
>>>
>>>> and if you go "mmmmmmm" as J.G. suggests and ask how many sounds your
>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>> hears, he or she will probably say "one". We can easily find people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> who
>>>
>>>
>>>> will
>>>>>> say the same thing about the letter "em" in almost any first grade
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> class.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the complex answer is much more interesting. It seems to me that
>>>>>> consonants DEPEND on vowels in a way that is not reciprocally true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You
>>>
>>>
>>>> CAN
>>>>>> pronounce the sound "a" without any vowel, and "a" is in fact a word
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> (and
>>>
>>>
>>>> one of the most common words in our language).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the morphological level, we see the same non-reciprocal dependency
>>>>>> relation: In the word "reworked", both "re-" and "-ed" depend on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "work"
>>>
>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>> their meaning, but not vice versa. Which can also be seen at the level
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> relative clauses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In an exchange (which is where I think J.G. really needs to look for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> emotional fountainhead of his semantic system) we find that we can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>> initiate ("Who are you?") without a response, but a response without
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> an
>>>
>>>
>>>> initiate is not a response at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? As far as I know, non-human systems of communication (e.g. bird
>>>>>> calls, whale songs, computer coding) do not have this kind of
>>>>>> non-symmetrical dependency at any level at all. It's one word = one
>>>>>> emotion,
>>>>>> more or less like the extremely impoverished view of language that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> J.G.
>>>
>>>
>>>> presents in his paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that non-symmetrical dependency is an essential
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> resource
>>>
>>>
>>>> for making a very finite group of phenomena potentially stand for a
>>>>>> potentially infinite one (as is polysemy, or as Robert Lake says,
>>>>>> "metaphor").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This super-productivity is what allows human languages to SIGNIFY
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> rather
>>>
>>>
>>>> than simply SIGNAL. But of course this superproductivity brings with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> developmental crises, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one other comment on the "reception by production" theories
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> Joseph Gilbert, Liberman, and Chomsky and Halle are putting forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ALL
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> these theories assume a kind of RECIPROCITY, an act of EMPATHY, a
>>>>>> DECENTRATION that Piaget rules out until the child is at least seven
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> old. You have to imagine what you would be thinking if you were making
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> noises that you are hearing. So if Piaget is right, children should
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>
>>>
>>>> be
>>>>>> able to learn to speak until they are seven or eight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/12/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The "Semantics" of Vowels and Consonants?
>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 9:55 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Mike Cole:
>>>>>> The sound of the voiced "M" is mmmmmmmmmm, commonly uttered to express
>>>>>> pleasure, as in the reaction to something good tasting. The name of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> letter is a peripheral issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       J.G.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:44 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David and Joseph.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A question. The alphabetic character, M, may represent a phoneme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one say the letter M without there being two phonemes there?
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just want to pick up on ONE aspect of this (very long and almost
>>>>>>>> completely unsourced) document, and try to source it, because it's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> truism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in our field that none of us can stand alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if this were not true in an epistemological sense (there is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only
>>>
>>>
>>>> so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> much brilliance a lone genius is capable of) it would be absolutey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> true
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> publishing sense (a long document is unpublishable without a long
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> list
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> references, preferably including all of its potential reviewers).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions first
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intent of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the "reception through production" theory of speech
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perception
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was popular in the 1980s. It does have BIG advantages over passive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> theories
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of reception that preceded it(for one thing, it's much more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parsimonious;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the same system can be used for receiving speech and for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> transmitting
>>>
>>>
>>>> it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  There are really TWO variations of this theory:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) The "motor" theory, associated with Alvin Liberman and the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Haskins
>>>
>>>
>>>> Laboratories. This theory relies on the idea of "articulatory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gestures". By
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recognizing the kinds of "articulatory gestures" required by >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds, the hearer, through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> asks
>>>
>>>
>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) The "analysis by synthesis" theory, associated with Chomsky and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halle at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIT. This theory relies on pure unempbodied ACOUSTIC knowledge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rather
>>>
>>>
>>>> than
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> articulatory gestures. By recognizing the acoustic patterns (see
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of "distinctive features" laid out in Chomsky and Halle, The Sound
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patterns
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of English), the hearer through an act of empathy with the speaker,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> asks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> himself/herself "What would I be saying if I were making gestures
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in this situation?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that BOTH of these variants of the theory have in common a
>>>>>>>> recognition that in perception we get a lot more than we hear;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> people
>>>
>>>
>>>> do NOT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rely on the stream of vowels and consonants as their sole source of
>>>>>>>> information. Perception is a supreme act of what Bruner calls
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "going
>>>
>>>
>>>> beyond
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the information given".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contrary to this, all theories of perception which are based on an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> analogy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with the ALPHABET assume that the stream of vowels and consonants
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> does carry the information (or, as Joseph Gilbert puts it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotion).
>>>
>>>
>>>> In Vygotsky's time, this theory was advocated by the brilliant >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> futurist
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> poet Khlebnikov, who wrote quite extensively on the "emotional >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> valence"
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> particular phonemes, and constructed whole poems on this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> association
>>>
>>>
>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Zangezi", which was composed after a long series of experiments on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "semantics" of individual phonemes). As you can imagine, they don't
>>>>>>>> translate very well!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Genetic Belly Button and the Functional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Belly
>>>
>>>
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 11:03 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                                1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                     Language Creates Culture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Language functions, in human society, as the generator of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture.
>>>
>>>
>>>> By
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the effects on
>>>>>>>> us of the sounds we utter, we inform ourselves of the effects on us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things which
>>>>>>>> make up our world. Since the only sense of the meaning of any thing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the same
>>>>>>>> as the effect on us of the thing, and since we relate to our world
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our words, language informs us of the meanings of things. This
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> informing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> takes place when we use vocal sounds as words to refer to things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We exist in a vacuous condition vis-à-vis any objective knowing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ultimate meaning of anything. We do not know the ultimate affect on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anything. If we operated by instinct, our choices would not depend
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> knowing, as our choices do. In this culls context, we are informed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words of the affects on us of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to which our words refer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    In the vacuum of outer space, a ship can be propelled by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> constant,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subtle force of an ion drive. In the outer space of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cluelessness
>>>
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the meaning of anything, we are informed of that meaning by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affect
>>>
>>>
>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the sounds of our words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Spoken language is sound made by the body and used to refer to,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> signify, things. We must thoroughly understand the basis of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> order to understand anything else about language. Why do we use >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words to signify certain things? Why are there similarities and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> among the various languages in how sound is used to refer to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is
>>>>>>>> there a correlation between and among emotional states and vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These and other questions must be answered if we are to know how
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We are born into a language-using group and learn the meanings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things that
>>>>>>>> make up our world simply by learning our group’s language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We have a distinct and unique reaction to each vocal sound just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do to
>>>>>>>> each facial expression and postural position. All forms of body
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> postural, facial
>>>>>>>> and vocal, are expressions of states of our internal goings-on, are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> born of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those feeling/emotional states. and recreate these states by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resonant
>>>
>>>
>>>> entrainment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        The languages we humans speak currently are the results of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> experiential contributions of our ancestors. However they, (our >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relatives), felt about whatever they had words for, we now feel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> again
>>>
>>>
>>>> in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> present moment, when we utter the words they originally uttered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language functions somewhat as a seed: the experience of past
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> peoples
>>>
>>>
>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represented in the words they spoke and now, when we voice those >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> re-experience what they did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Language is institutionalized perception. How we, as a society,
>>>>>>>> perceive our world, is
>>>>>>>>                                                    2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> determined by the the affects on us of our vocal sounds, (a form of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language), we use to refer to the things that make it up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Our actions are determined by our perceptions. If we want to >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way we act we must change the way we perceive our world. And we can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how we perceive our world by changing how we refer to the things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> constitute our world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The feelings/emotions of actors on stage and of all of us, are
>>>>>>>> communicated by our actions. The way someone moves tells us much
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about
>>>
>>>
>>>> how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they feel. Our face conveys extensive and subtle information about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> emotional state. The sounds of our voices carry emotional content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> although we normally are not aware of it, the articulate vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>
>>>
>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds of our vowels and consonants), are loaded with information
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional goings-on. The information that comes from the articulate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of our words rather than from the emotional overlay we place on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> them
>>>
>>>
>>>> due to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our transitory emotional states, is the same no matter what moods
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> may be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experiencing while we speak. That aspect of information conveyance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> institutionalized/standardized. The tone of voice, cadence, and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> volume
>>>
>>>
>>>> dynamics can be unique to each situation without altering the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referential communication.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    One can experience the effect on ourselves of the various vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by, while in a sensitive, receptive mode, saying those sounds out
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> loud
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sensing their effects. I have done that and have, it seems,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discovered
>>>
>>>
>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings. You can do that also. Doing so oneself will give one a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more
>>>
>>>
>>>> complete sense of the effects of vocal utterances than one could
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by reading what someone else has written about the effects of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds on the emotions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    This covert function of language must be brought to light  in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> order
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us to be able to understand the importance of recreating culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We
>>>
>>>
>>>> must
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understand that our behavior, as a society, is fundamentally linked
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture, which is a result of our language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We do not objectively know the ultimate meaning of anything and
>>>>>>>> consequently experience our sense of the meanings of things from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> effects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on us of our words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    These familiar phrases suggest a perception, perhaps a mystical
>>>>>>>> perception, of the importance of the spoken word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The final word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What’s the word?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The tongue is the rudder of the soul. It is not what passes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> into
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lips that defiles us but
>>>>>>>>                                                    3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> every untoward utterance that proceeds out of our mouths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Words, as sounds, affect us subliminally, supplying us with a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for whatever we name. It is that feeling that we experience from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of our words that supplies us with a subliminal consensus for our
>>>>>>>> world-view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We cannot realistically expect humans to act in a way >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> contradictory
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their culture’s bias. Marx’s economic/social theory was used as a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rallying
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> standard to
>>>>>>>> enable regime change. After those individuals who had experienced
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> tyranny of the czar had left the scene, the body-politic eventually
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rejected
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> collectivism, (the transplanted economic organ). Russian culture is
>>>>>>>> fundamentally the same as it was when the roots of its present >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> established and Russian society naturally reverted to its cultural
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mode after the revolution. After a short time, the czar was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> replaced
>>>
>>>
>>>> by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> head commissar. Marx held that the economic relationships within
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create all other human relations. It seems that culture is the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cause
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nature of human relationships within any society.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                      The Culture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Made
>>>
>>>
>>>> Us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do It
>>>>>>>>                                          “The unrecognized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> function
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> language”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    As an iceberg exists mostly under the surface of the water
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> supports it, the fundamental consequence of language tends to be >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hidden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> under the surface of our awareness. Most crucial human activities
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> go
>>>
>>>
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> without awareness, for example, all of the bodily functions. Many
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> activities proceed without much deliberate awareness. Once one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> knows
>>>
>>>
>>>> well
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how to drive a car, much less awareness is needed to operate the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The subconscious mind supports the same kinds of activities as does
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conscious mind, however with less effort. Anything that can be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> automated,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is.  Automating essential activities frees the conscious mind to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> focus
>>>
>>>
>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issues about which we feel we need to learn in order to more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effectively
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cope, (those issues that require conscious attention until new
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behavioral
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> patterns are in place). There is no need to be aware of processes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> take
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> place well enough without attention. It is only when a problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arises
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>  humans, in an attempt to solve it, focus our awareness on it. If
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> coping well enough without awareness, why be aware? We don’t fix
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if it doesn’t seem broken. We don’t reinvent our wheel as long as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it’s
>>>
>>>
>>>> rolling. However, upon examination, our human condition appears to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> painfully broken for as long as we can recall, and must be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> repaired.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we fix it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Could it be that our behavior is governed by something that we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see, something of which we are not cognizant? Is there anything in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> nature that would preclude such a possibility, the possibility that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behavior may be directed by influences not within the purview of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> everyday consciousness? What could such a force be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The ability to produce simple vocal sounds made it’s appearance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> scene before our
>>>>>>>>                                                    4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> progenitors made words of those sounds. The ability to vocalize
>>>>>>>> articulately is a prerequisite to the ability to verbalize. Words
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> appeared
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when our ancient ancestors became cognizant of the relatedness of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stimuli to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their own vocal reactions to them. When they began deliberately
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> using
>>>
>>>
>>>> vocalizations to bring to mind things, they made the transition >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> deriving their sense of the meaning of things by direct experience
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things to deriving a sense of the meaning of things by experiencing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects of the sounds of the words for the things. This
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> supersession
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> primal world by the linguistic world was the start of culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Being able to talk about things was very advantageous to our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relatives. They could confer and plan. More important, they >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experienced
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> common sense of the meaning of the things in their world by using
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> symbols with which to refer to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Culture was advantageous to our ancestors in the ancient,
>>>>>>>> pre-industrial environment. Now our technology provides us with the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> power to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create and reside in an artificial environment, however one made
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> according
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to the values inherent in our primitive culture. Our culture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> provides
>>>
>>>
>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with marching orders and our technology enables us to march very
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> forcefully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we marching toward the edge of a precipice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    All action is preceded by a decision to act, be that decision
>>>>>>>> consciously or subconsciously made. All decisions are based on a
>>>>>>>> consideration of the consequences of those decisions. These effects
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> us of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the consequences of our actions are the same as and identical with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> meanings of those actions. How do we know the meanings of things?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How
>>>
>>>
>>>> do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> know the affects on us of any thing? Do we know the effects on us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> directly as a consequence of our direct experience with them or by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> indirect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience with them by using and experiencing the words for those
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Language is the factory and culture is the product. Culture is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an
>>>
>>>
>>>> abstraction and language is the physical mechanism from which it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> springs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Language is emotionally evocative sounds used to represent things,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thereby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conveying to us a sense of the affects-on-us/the-meanings-of those
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our sense of our own role in our culture provides us with our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> identity
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> therefore with guidance for our behavior. The cultural values,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> derived
>>>
>>>
>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our ancestors’ experiences long ago, as represented in our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language,
>>>
>>>
>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instilled in us and direct our behavior today. A body continues in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> its
>>>
>>>
>>>> state
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Human
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture
>>>
>>>
>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> remain fundamentally unchanged unless it is deliberately changed;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will not happen unless we feel the need to do so and know how to do
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Culture resides in the subconscious mind. Many others have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> spoken
>>>
>>>
>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the need to change the way we, as a society, think: many have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tried,
>>>
>>>
>>>> by
>>>>>>>> using means such as meditation, sleep deprivation, psychoactive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> substances,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> chanting, philosophical inquiry, etc. to accomplish this change and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> been successful to a degree. However, it seems they were not able
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> lastingly infuse into society at large their newfound vision, due
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> addressing the status quo at the
>>>>>>>>                                                    5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> root/source, which is the culture. Understanding how language >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> makes it possible to change our culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                       How did language arise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    How did language arise? Originally, our progenitors’ vocalizing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expressed internal-goings-on/emotion and did not refer to anything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> external
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to them. It was advantageous to members of the group to be informed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional conditions of other members. Much later, when
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciousness
>>>
>>>
>>>> developed enough for them to see the connectedness of the sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uttered to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the things the sounds were uttered in reaction to, they realized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could bring to mind the thought of the things by uttering their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> associated
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds, (names). The beginning of talking about things was the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> start
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> culture,and the talking about things refocused the talkers’
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conscious
>>>
>>>
>>>> attention away from the experience of the emotional reactions to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> sounds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the words, and toward thoughts related to the things to which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> words
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referred. While they were busy directing their attention to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>
>>>
>>>> related
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to the things to which the words referred, they were being
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotionally
>>>
>>>
>>>>  affected by the vocal sounds they were making to form their words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects of the sounds they were making vocally were experienced
>>>>>>>> subliminally, while
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> consciously, they were dealing with the thoughts of the things >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referred
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by their words. The affects-on-us/meanings-of things cannot be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> proven.
>>>
>>>
>>>> All
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they had and all we have to go on are the effects on us of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the effects on us of the sounds of the words that represent the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the effects of the things are changeable through time and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unique to each individual, the effects on us of the sounds of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relatively consistent and universal. Having nothing else to go on,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> accept
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the effects on us of the vocal sounds of words as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> revealing/representing the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects on us of the things referred to by the words. In this way,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is formed and passed to succeeding generations. Our world views
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> come from the sense of the meaning of things as represented by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our words rather than from the sense of meaning we may gain from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> direct
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience of the things themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Do vocal sounds, themselves, communicate? When someone utters a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sound, such as a sigh, a growl, a whimper, a scream, etc., do we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> get a
>>>
>>>
>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of how they are feeling? If so, they are communicating their >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> condition.
>>>>>> How
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> does that communication take place? Do we receive information
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> communicated
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in such a manner consciously, subconsciously or by both ways? What
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> means by which an emotion can be conveyed by sound? Can emotion, or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> else be communicated by the articulate sounds of our vowels and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consonants,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or do only non-articulate vocal sounds convey meaning? If we allow
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal sounds, simply as sounds, communicate,  then is it possible
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>>> likely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that the vocal sounds we use to make words also communicate as well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> used as words? What would be the effect of using inherently >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotionally
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaningful sounds as symbols to represent external things? Would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> inherent meaning of the sounds affect our perception of the things
>>>>>>>>  represented by the sounds?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                    6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    These considerations may shed light on the issue of the root >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> human behavior. Naturally, those who contemplate our condition and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> improve it if they could, would be attentive to these matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    All of life’s processes exist as movements. Emotional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conditions
>>>
>>>
>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> patterns of motion. Similar structures, in keeping with the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mechanics
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resonation, impart, on each other, their movements. Our vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apparatuses
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> facilitate our ability to move with each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The vibrations made by the body convey the condition of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> body to other similar/human emotional bodies, and to some degree,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> animal emotional bodies. The more similar the other body, the more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> condition is transposed. Humans receive each others’ vocal and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> other
>>>
>>>
>>>> body-language communications more readily than other species
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> receive
>>>
>>>
>>>> human
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> communication. Similar structures transmit their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resonation/vibration
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> each other more readily than do dissimilar structures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    My quest for understanding of human behavior began long ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When
>>>
>>>
>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> around the age of six, I became increasingly aware that the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> folkways
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> formal institutions of our society were lacking in humanity and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> common
>>>
>>>
>>>> sense. I asked myself why this was so. As a child, I attributed the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to people’s personal psychology and it was not until I was in my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> late
>>>
>>>
>>>> teens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that I realized that the cause of the problem is our culture. It
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was
>>>
>>>
>>>> shortly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> after that that I understood how verbal/vocal communication works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>
>>>
>>>> cause
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of The Problem seemed and seems to be the culture which is created
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relationship between vocal sounds and what they, as words, refer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to.
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Some of the reasoning that preceded this realization was first,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are not created evil, but rather simply with survival instincts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that if we were able to act sanely/rationally, we would be doing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what
>>>
>>>
>>>> produces the best results for everyone. Third, it must be something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> learned, some misinformation, that causes us to behave in ways not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> own self-interest. Fourth, when I considered the question of from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> false information came, I identified as the source, the culture. >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Later,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> realized that we do not, for sure, know the meaning of anything,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as far as we know, the only thing constant and predictable about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any
>>>
>>>
>>>> thing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is its name, (the word-sound we produce in order to bring to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whatever thing to which we choose to refer). After a time, I became
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aware of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how the different vocal sounds we produce when we speak words, each
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in us a unique effect and how those effects inform us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subconsciously
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>  the affect on us, (the meaning), of the thing itself to which the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds refer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    At this time, I also learned that the sequence of sounds of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> letters
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of our alphabet represents a sequential delineation of
>>>>>>>> emotional/experiential events. From A to Z, the succession of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the letters of our alphabet is an example of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pattern-projection/recognition,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the pattern, in this case, being the seminal emotional events that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> humans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience during their lives, in chronological order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                    7
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Emotions happen to us: They seem to come from the “great
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mystery”,
>>>
>>>
>>>> God,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or whatever image we may use to portray a place from which strong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> compelling feelings emanate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Given, all the vocal sounds that people can make, how would one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arrange
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the sounds sequentially and from what archetype, (model), would the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of that sequence come? Even if the originators of the present
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alphabet
>>>
>>>
>>>> deliberately imposed a pattern on their arrangement of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> letter-sounds,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whatever world view that existed in their minds caused them to feel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> comfortable with the sequence of sounds they chose. The sequence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they
>>>
>>>
>>>> chose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> must have been agreeable with the story that was represented in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>
>>>
>>>> minds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by those sounds in that sequence. If one admits that vocal sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affect us,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then how could a story, a sequence of affects,  not be told by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in which the sounds exist? Whether or not the originators of any
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alphabet had a conscious reason for arranging the sounds of that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alphabet in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the sequence in which they appear, subconscious reasons were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> influencing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their arrangement none the less. Does this story, told by our
>>>>>>>>  alphabet make sense? Does it seem to be an accurate representation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> main events in a human’s life?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We tend to cling to our culture as if our lives depended on it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as
>>>
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drowning person might cling to a life preserver. Culture offers an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> answer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -in this case subconsciously apprehended-, to the question,  “What
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings of things?” Without culture, there tends to be no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consensus
>>>
>>>
>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what things mean. Language informs us of the meanings of named
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> by the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds of our words. Those who use the same
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience the same sense of the meanings of the things that make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> up
>>>
>>>
>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> worlds. That sense emanates from the deep levels of their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their final assessment of the meanings of things results from their
>>>>>>>> processing that deep, culturally caused base sense of meaning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> through
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lens of their perception of their own relationship to the society
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they live.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    For the sake of clarity, let us consider, hypothetically,  what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> result/s would be of using meaningful sounds to refer to things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings of the sounds spill over into the perceived meanings of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or would the meanings of the things influence the perceived
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds? Or would neither influence the other or would they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> influence
>>>
>>>
>>>> each
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> other? Which has a stronger meaning-pressure, the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> voice or the things which, with the sounds, we name?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The vocal sounds express/communicate states of the emotions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> first
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> foremost, and as an afterthought, so to speak, they are used to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things. They communicate emotion by moving the auditory apparatus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hearer in a manner analogous to the movements of the vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> speaker, thereby creating in the hearer an emotion analogous to the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> present in the speaker. Just as the touch of the hands conveys the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intent of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the toucher, so the vocal motion of the vocalizer creates in the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hearer
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional state analogous to that of the vocalizer.
>>>>>>>>    Just as our becoming-human progenitors were gaining
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciousness,
>>>
>>>
>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ability to
>>>>>>>>                                                    8
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> contemplate the consequences of their actions), they were, for the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> time, using vocal expressions as words to refer to specific things,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to express immediate emotional goings-on. Since they vocalized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> under duress, their words were expressions born of fear rather than
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> conscious understanding. The mind concentrates on problems, on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issues
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could potentially be destructive to the perceiver. When this >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fear-based
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thinking bias becomes institutionalized in language, the language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a source of anxiety. The more we verbalize about any given problem,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stressed-out we become. This reminds me of an Eskimo method of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> killing
>>>
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wolf. They would smear congealed blood on a very sharp knife and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> set
>>>
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with the blade pointing upward, where wolves frequented. When a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wolf
>>>
>>>
>>>> licked
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the blood, it would bleed and lick its own blood not knowing it was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bleeding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to death. We are wolfish for knowledge and we pursue it by using
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>>  main thinking tool, our language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                       The Unrecognized Role of Language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Culture is the hidden law-of-the-land. We are creatures of >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> its subjects. Our culture originally  enhanced our survivability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and,
>>>
>>>
>>>> in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> technologically advanced world, may become the instrument of our
>>>>>>>> destruction. Our culturally motivated ways of relating to one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> another
>>>
>>>
>>>> may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have once been viable, although perhaps immoral, and now, with our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> powerful
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ability to cause environmental change, are untenable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ”The release of atom power has changed everything except our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mankind.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” --- Albert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I wish to change what is in that “heart”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The referential function of human language is merely the “tip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> iceberg” of the role of language. Its larger and more profound >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unacknowledged: It is spoken language’s informing us of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to which we verbally refer. We are moved in a primal way by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> produce with our voice and, in the absence of any “objective”, >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> information regarding (the affects on us)/(the meanings of) the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our world, we accept the affects on us of the vocal sounds of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> representing the affects on us of the things to which our words
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this way, we are informed subliminally, simply by learning our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language, of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the meaning of our world. How else could we, as very young
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> children,
>>>
>>>
>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> achieved a sense of how we were affected by the numerous things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> made up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our world?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    This matter is of paramount importance because we act in >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accordance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with how we perceive our world, (with what our world means to us),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sense of that meaning is derived from  the affects upon us of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of human behavior that is commonly attributed to “human
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nature”
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> actually motivated by cultural nature, which is created by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language.
>>>
>>>
>>>>                                                    9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    How and what would our society be if we had a culture which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instilled
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in us the values that we would consciously choose to hold?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presently,
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simply assimilate the culture in which we are born. Once we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understand
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mechanism of cultural transmission, we will be able to change our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    However, it seems that many of us may be too timid to venture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> forth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from the false security of our unquestioned and familiar values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some
>>>
>>>
>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expressed to me that language is a product of nature and that to >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> deliberately would produce an unnatural result, a Frankenstein >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consequences of which would probably be destructive. To those I >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we are inherently unable to venture out of the natural realm, as we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inextricably woven into the web of nature. Furthermore it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entirely
>>>
>>>
>>>> correct and wholesome for us, with the goal of improving our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> survivability,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to choose to correct our culture at its source. Once we see how we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may
>>>
>>>
>>>> help
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ourselves, we would be within our progressive evolutionary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tradition
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all our knowledge to do so.
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>    Vocal sounds either communicate as vocal sounds or they do not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> assume that vocal sounds do not communicate, then language only >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> blindly
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unintelligently refers to things. If we assume that vocal sounds do
>>>>>>>> communicate something, as vocal sounds, then language does more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> than
>>>
>>>
>>>> merely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer to things: it also informs us about the things named. Which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do any of us believe that our vocal sounds do not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> express/communicate
>>>
>>>
>>>> anything? If we believe that vocal sounds communicate/express
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then what is it that they communicate/express? If vocal sounds do
>>>>>>>> communicate as sounds, do they loose that communicative function
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when
>>>
>>>
>>>> incorporated into words or do they continue to be expressive when
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> used
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    If vocal sounds that constitute words communicate something as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then what effect does the sound of a word exert on our perception
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing to which that word refers?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Many seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> primary
>>>
>>>
>>>> meanings of vocal sounds, including the sounds of words, are the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they cause within each of us and not the things to which they refer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uttered as words. Another point that aided me in understanding the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of language is that we really do not know the meaning of anything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but
>>>
>>>
>>>> rather
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behave as though our taken-for-granted assumptions are valid only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they have not been held to the light of inquiry. It is only that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> resides in our subconscious and of which we are not conscious and
>>>>>>>> consequently do not question, that we act as if we “know” for sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? When asked how he managed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> coordinate the movements of all those legs, he became aware of the
>>>>>>>> previously unconscious process of walking and then could not walk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>
>>>
>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sense of the meanings of things that we dependably share with the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> others of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our society is
>>>>>>>>  instilled in each of us by the relationship between the sounds of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> words and the things to which those words refer. Words are the link
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our autonomic, cultural sense of meaning and the things that make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> up
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> world. We give things a familiarity by attaching to them sounds >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> created
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our body. Our words are related to things because the vocal sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words are related to our reactions to those things. We may not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience an emotional reaction to the things that
>>>>>>>>                                                    10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> make up our world. It is during our seminal moments that we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience
>>>
>>>
>>>> emotional reactions to things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What meaning, if any, do things have if we are not affected by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things? All meaning is relative. If we were totally unaffected by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would it be meaningful? How would whatever meaning it may have be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perceived?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly, what we want to know about something, (anything), is how
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> affects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us, (what it is?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     After many attempts to share these findings with those in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> academia,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their lack of understanding, even more their lack of interest in
>>>>>>>> understanding the ideas I was putting forth , dampened my impulse
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> reach
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> out to those whom I previously had thought were most likely to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> these findings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I figured that what I was saying was challenging on a deep
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> level
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> most, who would otherwise gain a glimpse of it. My discovery, seems
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> threaten the sense of security of those who consciously or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>
>>>
>>>> treat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their culture as an idol. Some of us, especially those of highly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exercised
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intellectual abilities, feel that security is to be had by being
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> able
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “explain” the meaning of things. By uttering words, (sounds), about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what meaning is revealed? Doing so may create the illusion of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by seeming to make the named things familiar. But does it, only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inform
>>>
>>>
>>>> us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with the effect/meaning of the sounds of words, or with the meaning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things as well? What are the meanings of the things?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    It appears that culture is the root of all normal human
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all behave according to our values and assumptions and those derive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture. Do our academicians know what culture is, how it relates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> people who are instilled with it and how it may be changed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We are informed subliminally of the meaning of our world by the
>>>>>>>> language that we speak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Why is it so difficult for people to understand how language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> generates
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture? What is/are the missing piece/s of information that they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> order to grasp that concept?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    A better way is possible. We need only the vision of this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> better
>>>
>>>
>>>> world,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as an everyday experience, in order for us to act in accord with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciousness of how to act in order to create the world we wish
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> must
>>>
>>>
>>>> be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> status quo, not the rarity that it now is. This changing of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> status
>>>
>>>
>>>> quo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can be accomplished by changing the culture and changing culture is
>>>>>>>> accomplished by changing language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affect of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>>>>                                                    11
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We have no way of knowing the final meaning of anything. We
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> might
>>>
>>>
>>>> think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we know what a thing will do to us in the immediate future but what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how it will affect us much later? When we become aware of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something,
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> question its meaning and once something is questioned, we never
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gain a
>>>
>>>
>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of its absolute meaning Only that which remains in the subconscious
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not question. The feelings that well up from our subconscious, in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reaction
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to various things, seems to be true absolutely. Our feelings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> strongly
>>>
>>>
>>>> affect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our train of thought.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The certainty of the uninformed is typically replaced by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wonderment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the “enlightened”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Our culture/language supplies us with a sense of knowing the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all things for which we have a name. This sense of the meaning of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> helps us to feel secure in the face of an uncertain, threatening >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gain that sense of knowing the meaning of things simply be having
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things. Our subconscious accepts the affects of the sound of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> being the affects of the things to which the words refer.  The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>
>>>
>>>> stand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the things we name with them and replace, subliminally, our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the things referred to with our perception  of the words >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words are all we have to go on for the sensing of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning/effect
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Having words inform us of the meanings/effects of things seems
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some advantages compared to being informed of the meanings/effects
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by direct perception of the things themselves.  All those who use a
>>>>>>>> particular language have the same basic subliminal sense of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> named things and consequently, are able to participate in the group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dynamic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of their society. The words for things stay constant through time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we are affected directly by things changes. We can share
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience,
>>>
>>>
>>>> knowledge and wisdom with words. Without words, our own personal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be all we would have and we would not be able to share it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Words
>>>
>>>
>>>> enable abstract thought and planning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We think, influenced by the feelings of the sounds of words for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and feel as though we were thinking with the perception of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Are we conscious that we are affected by the sounds we make
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> voice? We are commonly aware that the quality of singers voices >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know that great orators and actors affect us with their delivery
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal character. Everyone’s voice affects us. We are aware of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affect of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tone of voice but not of the affect of articulated phonemes per se.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    When we utter vocal sounds that are simply sounds and not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words,
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> may, more easily,  experience consciously, the effects of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds,
>>>
>>>
>>>> than
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when we speak words. When we speak words, we typically experience
>>>>>>>> consciously the referential function of the words and not the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects
>>>
>>>
>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the sounds of the words, while we experience the effects of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds of words subliminally. Because we experience the one thing,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referential meanings of the words), consciously, and the other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing,
>>>
>>>
>>>> (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affects on us of the sounds), subconsciously, we
>>>>>>>>                                                    12
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> subconsciously interpret the subliminal effects of the vocal sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as
>>>
>>>
>>>> being the effects of the things to which the words refer. The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mind supplies us with the bottom line of the meaning of whatever it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are considering because we cannot reason with the subconscious mind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can with the conscious mind. Whatever we are conscious of, we can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and whatever we question becomes uncertain. However we have a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language-based
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subconscious reaction to that which the (meaning-of)/(effect-on-us)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> consciously unknown as long as we have a word for it, and that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subconscious
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reaction creates an experience of and hence a sense of knowing the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of that which, prior to being named, did not seem to be known. The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> made of sounds of our body, stands in for the unknown thing, the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing
>>>
>>>
>>>> separate from our body. In the absence of any objective sense of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> meanings of things, we rely on our words to provide us with a sense
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> knowing,
>>>>>>>>  because knowing relieves us of the stress of anxiety. We are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> driven
>>>
>>>
>>>> into
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the perceived safety of our familiar culture, as represented in our
>>>>>>>> language, by the stress of the fear generated by not knowing. One
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> must
>>>
>>>
>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> willing to accept the mystery of existence in order to experience,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the bias of existing culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Considering words to be things in and of themselves, (sounds),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only a means to refer to things, will enable us to examine them for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inherent meaning. The primary meaning of a word is not the thing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represents. It is, rather, the affects on us of it’s sounds. We
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciously
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consider the meaning of the word to be the thing to which the word
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and we subconsciously experience the meaning of the word as the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us of its sounds. Because we experience, profoundly and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consistently,
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects on us of our human vocal sounds while we experience less
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intimately
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and less consistently the effects on us of the things to which we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words, the emotional effects of the words as sounds overrides the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects of the things named, and informs us of the nature of named
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    In a similar way that explorers laid claim to land in the name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> monarch, we tend to lay claim to that which we name in order to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> render
>>>
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seemingly familiar and known.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Everything that we perceive subconsciously creates an emotional
>>>>>>>> reaction that may be experienced consciously and everything that we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perceive
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciously affects us subconsciously as well. We consciously
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perceive
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds of spoken language and we are also affected subconsciously
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> same sounds. In the course of verbal communication, we think of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to which our words refer while subconsciously we are emotionally
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affected by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the sounds of our words. This simultaneous occurrence of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thought
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing and the subconscious experience of the emotion generated by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> sound
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the word we use to refer to that thing, subliminally informs us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> affect-on-us ,(the-meaning-of), the thing. In this way, we acquire
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the affects-on-us, (the-meanings-of), everything for which we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have
>>>
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> word. This is important because our actions in relation to the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> make up our world are motivated by our perceptions of the meanings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>>  those things. Therefore, if we would change, for the better, our
>>>>>>>> societies’ behavior, we ought to change our languages.
>>>>>>>>    Since spoken language is crucial in determining the course of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> events, it would be
>>>>>>>>                                                    13
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> better if we consciously agreed with the subliminal sense of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of things which is instilled in us by our language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We humans are not doing so well with our relationships with one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that we should be complacent regarding the improvement of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture.
>>>
>>>
>>>>    People have been attempting to address social and economic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> challenges
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ever since there were people. All the religions were attempts to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> basis for our behavior. Marxism was/is an attempt to remedy social
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> economic inequality and exploitation. “Hippie” communes were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typically
>>>
>>>
>>>> instituted to provide healthy social environments. Organized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> politics
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> codified legal systems were/are created, supposedly, to improve our
>>>>>>>> condition. Why is it unclear whether any of these deliberate social
>>>>>>>> structures actually made/make our situation better or worse? Could
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that the cause of our malaise is something that is not being >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those who strive to improve our lot? For how many years, for how
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> many
>>>
>>>
>>>> centuries and millennium will we try to fix our broken world by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> laws, religions, political and economic institutions before we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> decide
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing so does not deal with the source of the problem? Marx’s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mistake
>>>
>>>
>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> believing that
>>>>>>>>  economics is the foundation upon which all of society’s other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> institutions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are based. It seemed reasonable to him that since life is based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> upon
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> biological economics of survival, that economics must be the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> determining
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> force in society. He did not see that our culture provides us with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> sense
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the meaning of all recognized things thereby assuaging the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fear/terror
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that naturally arises as a result of our consciousness of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> physical
>>>
>>>
>>>> vulnerability and that we tend to protect and defend that culture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the perceived security which it provides. Once culture is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> established,
>>>
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> causes the economic and social relationships to be what they are,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cannot be lastingly changed without changing the culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    The culture, created by language forms our values which then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> influence the decisions we make consciously and  subconsciously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                             What
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> culture?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I define culture as the common fundamental values held by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of a society. These values derive from our perception of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings
>>>
>>>
>>>> of,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the affects on us of), the things that make up our world. “Things”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whatever we identify as being distinguishable from other things,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> include feelings, thoughts, values, people and ideals. The meanings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> things are one with and the same as the affects on us of those
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do we acquire our sense of, (the affects on us of)/(the meanings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of),
>>>
>>>
>>>> things? Is it from our own individual experiences with things? Is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what we say to ourselves and to each other about things? If it were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> individual experience, how would we achieve consensus and if we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could,
>>>
>>>
>>>> why
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would all cultures not be pretty much the same?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Most would hold that even within a given society our individual
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are not the same and
>>>>>>>>                                                    14
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> surely the popular view of what our values are, indicated by a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cursory
>>>
>>>
>>>> survey of our behavior, seems to support that conclusion. When
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> attempting to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> assess the values that underlie behavior we should consider the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> influence of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the role that each individual sees themselves as playing within
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>
>>>
>>>> culture. Given the same subliminal, fundamental values, individuals
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any society tend to behave not only relative to those basic values
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but
>>>
>>>
>>>> also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relative to how they perceive themselves, (who they perceive >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be), within their society.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    It seems that the cause of the problem of why we do so many
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seemingly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> destructive and self-defeating things must be so basic, so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>
>>>
>>>> as to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> escape our awareness. It must be housed in the subconscious mind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> since
>>>
>>>
>>>> all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our attempts to address it have been futile. It is that which we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> don’t
>>>
>>>
>>>> consciously know that we subconsciously know that sometimes makes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us
>>>
>>>
>>>> wonder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why we do what we do. Our emotional reactions are influenced by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resides in the subconscious just as they are by that of which we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> conscious, and often, we create rationales to explain our behavior,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the actual reasons for the feelings that motivate us may be other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> than
>>>
>>>
>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we choose to think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What does every cultural group share within itself that affects
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> members profoundly and without their conscious knowledge? Where are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hidden rules, by which we live, to be found? Our culture is an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> artifact,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inherited from distant ancestors, formed in an environment vastly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> than today. Ways of interacting with one another that may have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seemed
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> work then now appear to be dysfunctional. The primary example is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> war,
>>>
>>>
>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> before weapons of mutual destruction, was rationalizable by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> victors. But
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now, with nuclear weapons, would there be any victors? We still
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> think
>>>
>>>
>>>> as we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> did then but we cannot afford to act today as we may have believed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> could
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then. Our technology has evolved tremendously but our culture has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are ill-equipped to cope with the situation our technology has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enabled
>>>
>>>
>>>> us to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create. Furthermore, even if war seemed winnable, wouldn’t we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> prefer
>>>
>>>
>>>> peace?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    If we admit that vocal sounds inherently affect us, as do
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> facial
>>>
>>>
>>>> expressions and general body posture, then we may ask how our sense
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of the things which make up our world is affected by using
>>>>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols to refer to them. What is the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relative
>>>
>>>
>>>> strength of the emotional effects upon us of our symbols compared
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional effects of the things to which they refer? Considering
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional effects of the things themselves vary with context and is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> peculiar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of each of us, and that the emotional effects of the vocal symbols
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> relatively consistent and universal, can we assume that the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meanings
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> symbols create the perceived meanings of the things? Is this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the same or different within the conscious and subconscious minds?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conscious or subconscious mind more strongly influence our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> behaviors affected by our subconscious minds even when we are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> trying
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>  consciously think we should do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We either are or are not affected by our vocal utterances. I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we are. If we were not affected by our vocal utterances, we would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>
>>>
>>>> vocalize. The whole purpose of vocalizing is
>>>>>>>>                                                    15
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> communication! And in order to communicate, we must be affected by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which we use to communicate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What, we may ask, is communicated by vocalizing? What is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> communicated
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when other animals vocalize? It is clear that animals communicate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instantaneous emotional states by their vocalizations. How is this
>>>>>>>> communication accomplished? The vibrating of the body of the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocalizer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (sender),  causes the body of the receiver to vibrate in sympathy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>
>>>
>>>> receiver experiences the motions and consequently the emotions of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> sender. This simple process is the foundation of our vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> activity,
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> verbal activity, (our language), and our culture. Many of us seem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> balk at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accepting the idea that our lofty retorical proclamations are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> founded
>>>
>>>
>>>> upon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> such primal processes. If you are one of these, consider that our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> genetic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> blueprint is shared, in the majority, by all other vertebrates and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> largely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by all other animals. To those who disparage animals, please be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reminded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that the Grand Creator authored ALL of everything, not only us and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whom we
>>>>>>>>  approve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What are the ingredients that make up the mix of influences
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> determine human behavior? Given that we are intelligent enough to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and cherish the truths that are our guiding principles, and given
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are not born self destructive, then for what reason/s did we act as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From where does the false information come that motivates much of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> behavior? “Human nature” does not account for our inhuman actions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>
>>>
>>>> cause
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of our destructiveness must exist among the things which we learn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     From what ultimate source do we acquire our information
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of our world? Our culture is that source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What have we got to go on in order to achieve a sense of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our world other than the words we speak?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Do we have a benchmark for establishing the meaning of things?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If
>>>
>>>
>>>> everything is relative, what is it relative to? We need not look
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> than ourselves to find that. How could it be otherwise? We look out
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eyes and hear with our ears and think that we can objectively >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nature of each and every thing that we examine. However, with our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> survival
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the balance, as it inescapably is, how whatever it is that we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> examine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relates to our survival determines what it must mean to us. How we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> affected by the things that constitute our world establishes their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vocal sounds we make express and convey the different emotional
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we experience. Our words are made up of these body-sounds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore,
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words convey emotional meaning and inform us of the affects on us
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for which we have names.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Language exists in both the conscious and the subconscious. We
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> conscious of the words we speak and of the things to which they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refer,
>>>
>>>
>>>> while
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they inform us subconsciously of the effects on us, (the meanings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of),
>>>
>>>
>>>> those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things to which they refer.
>>>>>>>>    Does it matter what things mean? Does it matter what we think
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they
>>>
>>>
>>>> mean? Do our actions
>>>>>>>>                                                    16
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> relative to them depend on what they mean to us?  Do we act in >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relation
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things according to what they mean to us? How do we know the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ultimate
>>>
>>>
>>>> effect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on us of any thing? Is the effect on us of any thing its meaning?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How
>>>
>>>
>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any thing mean to us anything other than what its effect on us is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How
>>>
>>>
>>>> do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> obtain a sense of the meanings of things? Do we get that sense of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> affects-on-us/ the-meanings-of things directly from our own
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience
>>>
>>>
>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things or as mediated by language?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Of all forms of body language, (vocalization, facial expression
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> overall body posture), only one of them,vocalization, is commonly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> used
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represent things other than conditions of the emotional body. Our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> posture is very communicative of our physical-emotional state
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> without
>>>
>>>
>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> deliberate intent and is sometimes used deliberately to convey the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facial expression can be more finely communicative of our state of
>>>>>>>> being/feeling than is general body posture. Vocalization, while
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> being
>>>
>>>
>>>> profoundly expressive/communicative, is, by civilized people,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ordinarily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exclusively reserved for uttering words. While we are not aware of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> affect upon ourselves of the phones we utter, we are aware of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> upon ourselves of the emotional embellishments we add to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Often,
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consciously add emotional content to our words in order to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embellish
>>>
>>>
>>>> their
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referential meaning. Since we are busy, often consciously,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> processing
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referential meaning of
>>>>>>>>  our words, we are unaware of the emotional impact of the sounds
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> make
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> them up. Each distinct articulate vocal sound affects us in its own
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the workings of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture-creating function of language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We not only refer to things with our words. More profoundly, we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inform
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ourselves of the very meaning of those things simply by using a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word,
>>>
>>>
>>>> (a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal sound), to refer to them.  This information as to the affects
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> upon us,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the meanings of), the things which make up our world, constitutes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>
>>>
>>>> culture. Culture is information, (in-formation). Since we are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the nature of this information, it exists in our subconscious
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> minds.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> according to a subconscious program put in place by our language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> understand how we receive information regarding the meaning or our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> world, we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can change that information so that it agrees with what we believe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> be the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nature of our world. Our culture was passed down, from long ago;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>
>>>
>>>> before
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> electronics, before motorized transport and the printing press. If
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to deliberately create our language today, would we create the one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> currently use? If so or if not, why? Would we know how to create a
>>>>>>>>  language that conveys the meanings of things that are their actual
>>>>>>>> meanings? If we would know, how would we know? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    That which affects us profoundly and constantly must be in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> close
>>>
>>>
>>>> proximity. Things right in front of us are often overlooked when we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for that which affects us powerfully. We tend to assume that if the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of major difficulties were so close to us, it would be obvious and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have discovered them by now. Let us reexamine our major influences
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> look
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for what causes us to behave as we do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Our species, is plenty smart enough to understand why our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> saints
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> prophets are correct when they exhort us to be “good”.  We create
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> secular
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> laws that mirror our religious tenants and are
>>>>>>>>                                                    17
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sensitive to any critique of our behavior. Our feelings of guilt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seem
>>>
>>>
>>>> to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well developed. Why then do we act as we do; making war against one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and engaging in all kinds of destructive activity?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I have heard many claim that it is simply “human nature” to act
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> destructive ways. Those who believe that, feel that there is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> done to correct our human malaise other than punishment. Evil ones
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> trimmed back, like a noxious and thorny vine. I do not subscribe to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> depressing idea and know that the truth of the matter is that we >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> humans
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inherently survival oriented and will learn whatever seems as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> though
>>>
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> further our survival. It is because of our native intelligence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> coupled
>>>
>>>
>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our survival desire that we voluntarily stretch our consciousness
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> order
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to glimpse a better way for ourselves to carry on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    What are the forces that influence our behavior? What we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> believe
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> good and correct does not, it seems, by itself, determine our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> actions.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not fully believe that what seems to be right to us is truly right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there some other influence that informs us of what the world and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things and concepts and people in it mean to us, something else
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> influences our perception of how we must behave in order to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> survive?
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Our behavior is related to how we are affected by the things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> make
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> up our world. We behave in relation to the various things that fill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> awareness, according to how they affect our survivability, (how we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PERCEIVE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that they affect our survivability). We perceive the world directly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> personal contact with it and indirectly through contact with that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represents the world to us, (our language). Language represents the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> world by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> labeling everything about which we speak, with sounds made by our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bodies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those vocal sounds are part and parcel of states of our emotions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our
>>>
>>>
>>>> preverbal progenitors and our children when young, make vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> reaction to various environmental stimuli. Those emotive sounds are
>>>>>>>> intuitively made sense of by all who hear them. We sense the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocalizations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and they make sense to us. The vocal sounds are made by a body in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an
>>>
>>>
>>>> emotional state and cause that state to be reproduced in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotional
>>>
>>>
>>>> body
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the hearer
>>>>>>>>  of those sounds. The sending body vibrates and the receiving body
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vibrates
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> similarly. An emotionally linked vibrational pattern is spread from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> originator of the vocal sound-vibration to whoever’s auditory >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> moved by it. The transmittance of the vibrational pattern is the
>>>>>>>> transmission of the emotion. We are emotionally affected by the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotions of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Language is an institution, a standardized way we move our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bodies,
>>>
>>>
>>>> specifically our vocal apparatuses, our ears, central nervous
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> system
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> emotions, in relation to the various things that make up our world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In
>>>
>>>
>>>> relation to a book, we who speak English, utter the sound, “book”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In
>>>
>>>
>>>> relation to a book, a Spanish-speaking person utters the sound, “
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> libro”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These two different sounds move us in different ways, giving us a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience of that which refers to and represents that object and
>>>>>>>> consequently, of the thing referred to. The primal meaning of a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect the sound of it creates within us. The secondary, more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> distant
>>>
>>>
>>>> meaning of a word is that to which it refers. The secondary meaning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we commonly accept as being the one and only meaning. We are
>>>>>>>>                                                    18
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> generally not aware of the primary meaning, because we are affected
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal sounds of our words subliminally and by the secondary,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referential,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of words consciously.  Awareness of the primary meanings of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds was superseded by the awareness of the >> secondary,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -referential-,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning of vocal sounds used as words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    To understand the functionality, the “nuts and bolts”, of >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to free ourselves of domination by culture, to be the masters of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rather than its subjects. We have been inextricably attached to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture, for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> better or for worse, ever since our use of language began. Now we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can
>>>
>>>
>>>> intentionally create a language/culture that informs us as we would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be informed, of the effects on us, (the meanings of), all the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Certainly we agree that we are affected by the sounds we utter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then is the
>>>>>>>> consequence of referring to all the things to which we refer, (all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> things that make up our conscious world), with inherently
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>
>>>
>>>> sounds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we were able to refer to things with “meaningless” symbols, then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be conveying is the thought of the thing. When we refer to >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inherently meaningful symbols, we are also informing ourselves of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> meanings of the things to which we are referring. Is there such a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaningless symbol? Is anything meaningless? In order to perceive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anything,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> including a symbol, that symbol must register upon our senses and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> order
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to register upon our senses, the sensed thing must affect us. No >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us, equals no perception by us. Whatever the affect on us is, is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> fundamental meaning of the sensed thing. When we refer to things,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> primarily being affected by the symbol which we use to do the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referring
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> secondarily by the memory, if there is a memory, of the thing to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  are referring. When we refer to something with which we have no >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience, we have only the symbol, (word), to affect us and thus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> inform
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    If there is a discrete connection between a vocal sound and  a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and a connection likewise between a particular vocal sound and a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect on the emotions, then there is a connection between the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect
>>>
>>>
>>>> on us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of the sound and the thing to which that sound, (word), refers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    We are aware that sound has an effect and that the word is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sound
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that the word has an effect and that the word refers to a thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> aware that, for all intents and purposes, the effect seems to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How we are affected by a thing, our perception of a thing, is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accepted
>>>
>>>
>>>> subliminally as being the meaning of the thing. Our actions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relative
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things in our world, are related to the perceived meanings of those
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    We feel the feelings generated by the sounds of our words at
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> same
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> time as we are deliberately focusing on the things to which the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words
>>>
>>>
>>>> refer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a consequence, we associate particular vocal-sound-generated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feelings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with particular things. The thing does not define the feeling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather,
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feeling defines the thing. The feeling of the word determines what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> accepted subliminally as the meaning of the thing. The word enables
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us
>>>
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experience feelings of the meanings of things not present, and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unknown
>>>
>>>
>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> direct experience. It establishes a sense of
>>>>>>>>                                                    19
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> consensus which wells up from the subconscious minds among the >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> speakers
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a given language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    All throughout human history, language has been playing this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> role
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consensus creator based on the information we derive from the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> words regarding the-affects-on-us/the-meanings-of, the things that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our worlds. If we would rather live in a culture of our own
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> creation
>>>
>>>
>>>> than in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just any one in which we happened to be born, we might consider
>>>>>>>> experimenting with cultural change through language renewal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I have been asked what I hope to achieve with this information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My
>>>
>>>
>>>> desire is that we become aware of the forces that affect us so that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be able to change the circumstances that exist to circumstances
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> would prefer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Because of the inherent shortcomings inherent in existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> languages,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> although words can be used in a kindly manner to help get us back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> track
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when we lose our way, they cannot, in and of themselves, guide
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>
>>>
>>>> who is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> determined to see things in a certain way. Only the willing can be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> helped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can we help people to be willing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I observe that culture is the prosthetic subconscious of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> society,
>>>
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which we who live in a particular society share with one another
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> have in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> common. It has to do with our world-view. Our world view is formed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> things mean to us. How do we obtain our sense of the meaning of our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> world?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we share t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
>>>> *Assistant Professor
>>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>>> Georgia Southern University
>>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>>> Phone: (912) 478-5125
>>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>>>>
>>>> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
>>>> midwife.*
>>>> *-*John Dewey.
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
>>> *Assistant Professor
>>> Social Foundations of Education
>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
>>> Georgia Southern University
>>> P. O. Box 8144
>>> Phone: (912) 478-5125
>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
>>>
>>> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
>>> midwife.*
>>> *-*John Dewey.
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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