On 1/5/05 6:09 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> i meant what i said, i have no idea what a
> semantic effect is and in the communication literature i have never heard
> that term.

Languaging allows the use of two meaningful terms to construct a new concept
regardless of whether it has ever appeared in the literature.

Klaus said: i can explain my observation by what is
called "natural laws" which do not need to take my own interference
(actions) into account.

You were agreeing until this statement confused things. An observation does
not necessarily imply the action of the observer.

Klaus said in response to my comment "Right! add the activity and you can
get change caused by an Abstraction" :

"this is again an example of imposing cause-effect constructions on
something that is clearly not.  abstractions are conceptual, often created
in language.  they explain in simpler terms what is otherwise concrete or
detailed."

I agree that all abstractions depend on concrete experience for their
meaning but this does not rob them of their potential effect as in the
statement "lets go to war" where war is an indicated activity.

Klaus went on to say: they are not a consequence of what they have been
abstracted from nor can they cause what they have been abstracted from.
causality just does not work here.

I believe it does: The word War draws its meaning from actual wars but its
use can still cause new ones.

Klaus said: i am claiming that thinking is not a causal consequence of what
one is thinking about.  it is being creative with what one sees.

This is where our worlds diverge. I come at the problem from the view that
thought is embodied and therefore causal and the consequence of what one is
thinking about.

Klaus said: the medium in which cognition operates
has much to do with what cognition is doing but it does not determine its
direction.

I absolutely disagree. Processes in the brain which include input from the
external world do determine thought.

Klaus said:  i read (Dawkins) to say that
causal explanations are superseded by evolutionary theories, which in turn
are superseded by what could explain design.

I read Dawkins to say that evolution "precedes" design with no comment at
all about causality. I understood him to mean that there needs to be an
organism evolved enough to be able to design.

Klaus said: the very fact that i could not cause chuck to be convinced
demonstrates my claim that causal explanations are inadequate in the domain
we are operating.

To the contrary. I think you "caused" a time consuming response. But it was
challenging and worthwhile to me.

As ever,

Chuck