 |
 |
Dear alison, I suppose it irritates you because you seem to think that i am patronizing you, which i have no intention of doing. "that's a heavy burden for a > word which means, in fact, the art of _reason_ or the process of > reasoning, " what i have been saying all along is that maybe we have defined "logic" to narrowly. And there is no reason why it can not bear all that you have suggested, for all of what you have suggested is on the most part mentally conditioned. Although I don't recall claiming that logic was responsible for our physical existence, which is something i do not think. I clearly agree with you that relationship is a major factor in language acquisition but nonetheless the infant must figure out for itself that sounds are "meant", which seen objectively is no mean feat considering that one can not strictly "teach" an infant their first language. Therefore there must be something in the mind that is naturally inclined toward language and also there must exist a mental framework in which language has a necessary role. This framework is most likely a "universal grammar", in a sense. About neurology i am definitely against current theories of cognitive science and all forms of reductionism of mental states into brain activity so I really doubt i would get much out of reading neurology. sincerely, d On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 08:09:42 +1100, Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote: > >Logic is how we reflect the world > >in thinking it. That is, since we do not intend our sensations then, in > >order to be conscious of what we sense we must think it through to a logical > >form (concept). In intending it, at the tail end of our re-cognition of a > >sensation, we realize that something is indeed "being seen" (and so forth). > >This process necessitates language, in that our thinking must take the form > >of symbol. I have a feeling that you will not like this description so I > >truly suggest we just drop the topic all together. There really is not a > >point in continuing. > > Dear Daniel > > Why does it get me so irritated when you patronisingly suggest I "drop > the subject"? > > It occurred to me yesterday that the word "logic" is completely > inadequate to carry all the freight you wish to load on it. From all > your posts, you seem to wish "logic" to mean the thought processes of > logic, the mentation of sensory perceptions, our physical existence, the > processes of recognition, the ontological status of our > being-in-the-world _and_ the irrational - that's a heavy burden for a > word which means, in fact, the art of _reason_ or the process of > reasoning, and its misuse in your arguments no doubt has a lot to do with > the problems _you_ are having communicating. > > The processes of acquiring language are fascinating to watch, and involve > all the processes of consciousness I list above. An infant _cannot_, in > fact, 'do all the learning and "teaching" him or herself'; children who > are not spoken to or related to by other human beings, like those orphans > in Romania, either do not learn how to speak, or their linguistic skills > are deeply impaired. The "universal grammar" you seem to think > transcendently exists in language itself, by virtue of the fact that most > of us acquire it, may be part of the structure of our brains (which is > why I'd suggest you read about some of the research happening now in > neurology); but linguistic acquisiton is also deeply about human > relationship; it has much to do, in the beginning, with simple human > needs - the communication of desires for food, warmth, comfort, safety. > And none of this accounts either for the sheer pleasures of noise-making > with no communicable value, which is very observable in small children, > and often in adults. Some of whom become poets. > > Best > > Alison _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/