Re: fort - da: an appropriation

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Sean Draine: "unconscious cognition revealed!"
• Previous message: erespess@inil.com: "Re: trainlasting"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "fort - da: an appropriation"
• Next in thread: William Hochman: "Re: fort - da: an appropriation"

>AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Ok, since I Can't Say That, I'll say that maybe the only "different kinds of
>> thought" that exist are linguistic thought and non-linguistic thought.  From
>> what I've heard the most recent research on the brain makes the idea of the
>> "subconscious" look like a fairy tale.
>
>Non-linguistic thought is unthinkable.  Quite literally impossible.
>
>Perhaps what we are hung up on is definitions.  One doesn't have to
>speak any bit of a language to have thoughts, obviously.  But one does
>have to work with images, symbols--the methods of differentiation upon
>which particular languages are predicated.

This definition bit can be confusing.  Matt - by language are you refering
to any kind of symbol for any thought?  Do you think a thing can be
experienced without being thought about?  Doesn't there have to be an
experience before one can classify and categorize it?

What about you Jim?

Elizabeth

• Next message: Sean Draine: "unconscious cognition revealed!"
• Previous message: erespess@inil.com: "Re: trainlasting"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "fort - da: an appropriation"
• Next in thread: William Hochman: "Re: fort - da: an appropriation"