Semantic Restructuring is the pursuit of enlightenment, enlivenment, empowerment through the creative re-arranging of the building blocks of meaning. For a better description, Start Here.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Months | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar |
| Apr | May | Jun |
| Jul | Aug | Sep |
| Oct | Nov | Dec |
Bateson, books, cogling, context, CPB, embodiment, framing, I Ching, paradox, perception influence, prisdem, semantic punctuation, sensation, techniques, unconscious
Recently on cogling:
By the way: Just as CogLingers tend to blame Indoeuropeanists for not playing the semantic/functional card, Coglingers are at the risk to be blamed by Indoeuropeanists etc. for not playing the phonetic card. Both are rigth!
Not surprisingly, this appeals to me. I think it fair to describe the phonetics card as more susceptible to scientific investigation than is the semantic/funcional card, phonetics dealing as it does with sensible entities, semantics dealing as it does with non-sensible (perhaps entirely contrived) entities such as meaning. And while there might be a popular misconception that science claims to displace folkwisdom, in reality they are as interdependent, in a healthy system, as sight and olfaction.
Same list, same thread, different speaker
Some physicists build useful models that contain quarks (which they would presumably consider to be "non-sensible entities"); some linguists build useful models that contain meanings (which we usually have to consider to be "non-sensible entities").
It seems to me quarks are clearly meant to be entities that can be got at via extensions to our sensorium, much as microscopes and telescopes let us see things that we would otherwise not have seen. Whether or not meaning is a thingy that we can eventually get at through tools that extend our sensorium is, as far as I can tell, a contentious issue. My current level of ignorance is such that I would look at the history of the concept, meaning, and note that it in no way rests on anything like scientific model building; indeed the concept, meaning, by far predates the concept of science. It seems to me, then, that either the concept, meaning, needs revamping or even outright junking, scientifically speaking, or attempts to put salt on meaning's tail must avail themselves of non-scientific (non-, pre-, meta- ?) methods. My grasp of the history of linguistics is poor (but growing, thanks to the fine folks at cogling and Language Log) but it seems sometimes that coglingers are in the unenviable posistion of: 1) positing that words are something other than that which can be got at by sensation or the tools of sensorium extension, while 2) needing nonetheless to cleave paradoxically to scientific method, which, by definition, treats only of the sensible (ie, breadboxes, distant galaxies, quarks.) Hence the drift toward epistemological side-talk and other science-taboo conversations.
I, for one, suspect that the privileging of scientific method is, in the case of meaning, an error. I choose the word "privileging" with great care; as said above, I suspect the greatest gains in our endeavors to finally reach a meaningful understanding of meaning will come from an n-pronged (n>1) pursuit, with science reporting on science's domain, something else (introspection?) reporting on its own domain. It is possible that "words don't mean, people do," AND "where there's malaria, I'll be reaching for the quinine." ;)
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)