a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[Paul Mackin]

On 8/30/2011 5:05 PM, cfabel wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if this helps or just reveals my own misunderstanding of 
> what's going on here, but I believe there is quite a passel of 
> research suggesting strongly that mental operations exist prior to the 
> onset of language, conversation by gesture, and social interaction. So 
> it seems not unreasonable to hypothesize, at least, that some of us 
> "think" without words. But, /language/ is not just significant symbols 
> but syntax and syntax seems to be part of our bio-inheritance, part of 
> our pre-social mind-brain (Chomsky's "language faculty?"). So, syntax, 
> probably, is neither learned nor constructed socially and this 
> suggests a reversal of the model of symbolic interaction, mind, 
> language, and the self. Bio-inheritance first, symbolic interaction 
> follows, probably?
>

This sounds very relevant to Mark's question. The symbol consciousness 
seems to be kind of an overlay placed upon the real show going on in the 
neural networks.    AI theorists model both neural networks and symbol 
manipulation in order to provide a better understanding for the design 
of robots.

Also there are the neuroscience findings (brain imaging) that support 
the idea that our nervous systems make decisions for us before we are 
even aware of them.  Throws into doubt so called "free will."

P
>
> C. F. Abel
>
> Chair
>
> Department of Government
>
> Stephen F. Austin State University
>
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
>
> (936) 468-3903
>
> *From:*owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Mark Kohut
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:27 PM
> *To:* David Morris
> *Cc:* alice wellintown; David Payne; Paul Mackin; pynchon -l
> *Subject:* Re: a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)
>
> This has been a fascinating, because more puzzling than usual, thread.
>
> I do not know what I may be "mistaking" my word-thinking for, since I 
> am just offering it as a phenomenon.
>
> I do not know if it comes from some learned or innate 'grammar".........
>
> Yes, I KNOW it slows me down --in reading anyway. (Although I have 
> various speeds--as we all do?)
>
> How word-thinking is connected to my auditory sense, I do not know 
> either, except that, as I wrote, it happens
>
> when I listen to TV, say, so that sense is involved. Happens (mostly) 
> when I read in quiet. happens when I write.
>
> Sometimes when I 'think", I think.
>
> And, I am sure I 'think', experience much mentally, in other ways than 
> in words as well. Not to even mention the Unconscious.
>
> I just wondered who else is like me in this regard. What they think it 
> might mean for our orientation in the world.
>
> And, for whom this may NOT be true.............and what that might 
> mean for them...
>
> And how societies might handle the dirfferences.
>
> *From:*David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> *To:* alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM, alice wellintown
> <alicewellintown at gmail.com <mailto:alicewellintown at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >  I think McLuhan would say that, even on a gray scale, black & white 
> are qualitatively different......like literate vs. pre-literate even 
> on a gray scale
> >
> > He would say this.
>
> And who wouldn't say this?  Without qualitative differences in a gray
> scale, no images could be seen.  But the point of a scale is minute
> differences.
>
> >> And young 'uns learn most languages as abstract marks on a page. 
> English say.....
> >
> > This is false. First, humans don't learn language but are born with 
> language.
>
> Language versus literacy?  I think we've jumped a step here.
>
> >> The literate vs. pre-literate distinction is in anthropologists' 
> work and is still used to the present....
> >
> > Like all technologies, printing brought positives and negatives. 
> Surely there are things that pre-literate cultures have kept or 
> developed that literate cultures have lost or neglected. We would all 
> be better runners if we hadn't abandoned the cave and invented the 
> wheel. But the health that would come with our endurance would not 
> give us longer or better lives. We would die quite young.
>
> AMEN!
>
> But would our shorter lives have been more rich inside?  (joke)
>
> >> No one has (yet) answered whether they think mostly in words....for 
> example, I watch TV....I SEE the words they are 
> speaking...mostly...not every, I'm sure....
>
> > We think in grammar not words.
>
> I'd like to see more of this "We think in grammar not words" theory.
> If by this grammar you mean simple equations of logic revolving around
> desire, fear, etc, then I think I understand your statement.  These
> binaries are not our enemies (as GR might imply).  They are natural
> first perceptions that we need to see more finely with practiced
> observation.
>
> On another level, individual humans are often predisposed toward
> certain sensory inputs: visual and/or auditory primarily.  I am
> personally very visually oriented.  Maybe Mark mistakes his
> word-thinking from being primarily auditory.
>
> David Morris
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110830/11dd9423/attachment.html>