 |
 |
Dear Jinan, You might want to also look at other aspects of many languages that include: directional, accumulative and consequential. There are languages that are not simply linear - their directional features allow for the construction of meanings across the flow and within the dome of an utterance. Yes, language can be fragmented as happens much of the time in spoken examples. Written languages tend to permit larger non-fragmented meaning structures which then permit kinds of thinking that go beyond the oral. It should be pointed out hat many people on this list are able to speak written grammar - that is, they have the ability to talk in fully formed non-frgamented ways. If you are looking at fragmentation as a general aspect of consciousness then all instances of human experience can be viewed as fragments. To fragment things can be useful but it can also be perverse. Iım happy with many of your distinctions as distinctions but I am less settled about the various values that are then ascribed to one kind of experience over another. If I want to talk with strangers, then I can catch a bus. I donıt have to drive my car and listen to my personal iPod collection of tunes. That is, we know how to take advantage of many kinds of experience and many kinds of reflection on experience. Writing and reading are themselves experiences such that poetry allows for the sweet combination of sensory excess along with language logics. Cheers keith On 18/02/2014 10:46 am, "Jinan K B" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >The >structure of language- linear, sequential, fragmented is the structure >of the literate minds. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------