Re: The talking going on in one's head
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:23:11 -0500
AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I understand this objection. Still, I urge the dark side. C'mon
over. It's fun here. Anything goes. I'm not quite willing to
relinquish "generates," even when it comes to tactile perception. I
don't think we can really experience tactile stimulation without
assigning or attaching a significance to it. Maybe the same for
animals, too. They have ears; they can hear.
> I think pretty much everyone else has been talking about
> something made up of words :)
Yes. An unfortunate oversight early on. Apologies.
> 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...
Even beyond this, though, there's an important distinction between
what Ss calls "linguistic signs" and other "signs," like flags on
ships (_Cors_, part I). But maybe it's all for naught at this
point...
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu