Re: The talking going on in one's head

AntiUtopia@aol.com
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:26:55 -0400 (EDT) 

In a message dated 10/20/99 1:07:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu writes:

<< Quite the opposite.  I am universalizing it.  I am approaching
 language as the single most familiar manifestation of the sign system
 that generates all cognition, emotion, tactile perception, etc.  I am
 saying--and I'm by no means the first to come at it this way--that any
 given individual consciousness makes sense of its experience and of
 itself (very important) only by means of differences, and the more
 complex system of signs and symbols precipated by the first instance
 of differentiation.
  >>

Ok, like Elizabeth, I have a problem with the word "generates" in the above 
paragraph.  If we define experiences such as "happiness" biologically, for 
example -- a feeling of euphoria experienced as certain hormones are released 
in area "x" of the brain -- well, animals can experience something we would 
name "happiness" but they would not.  But in the above paragraph it's the 
"sign system" that generates "cognition, emotion, tactile perception," etc., 
and not language...meaning language is something other than this basic "sign 
system," a subset of it of sorts, an expression of it.  

So in the above paragraph language seems to refer to words, speaking, etc.  

But then we get to this paragraph:

<<Here, I suppose, is the source of the contention.  So let us do away
altogether, for now, with the word "language."  In its stead, we'll
use the ungainly phrase "all phenomena predicated on difference." 
Unfortunately, careless word choice early on left me seeming to have
said something I never meant.  Ah, ambiguity.   >>

See, when you do all this talk about "naming" in other posts, it's hard to 
see you're not really talking about "verbiage" but simply about a 
"pre-verbal" process people in certain disciplines also happen to call 
"Language."  I think pretty much everyone else has been talking about 
something made up of words :)  Actually, So-Sure used the words "language" 
and "linguistics" to apply to systems of signs made up of words in Course in 
General Linguistics.  But I have a strong feeling that you're a lot more read 
up on recent studies in this than I am, and I'm also pretty sure the 
"language" used in this field has changed maybe a teensy weeny bit since 
SoSure's day ;)

At any rate, after going through all that, I still have a problem with the 
word "generates."  Especially when you say, "generates tactile perception."  
Tactile perception is "generated" by a string of neurochemical responses 
between some point on my skin and some point in my brain.  What we "call" the 
tactile expression is generated by this sign system, the words "hot" and 
"cold," to describe these different tactile perceptions. 

Regarding your picking, yes, SoSure did define a sign as made up of two 
elements, connecting a sound and a concept.  He did break up the two elements 
into signification and signal, which in turn are distinct from the object 
itself...

Anyways, explain, explain... :)

Jim