a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[Mark Kohut]

If all this is the case---and it sounds Right On to me (in most moods) ---then it even allows McLuhan
to agree and then say, free willingly or not, ..."yes the "symbol consciousness" of the linear phonetic alphabet
is what I've been talking about....in some societies the "symbol consciousness" is......not based on the linear phonetic
alphabet"..................................................
 
Irony: I read a decent novel once about a musician who heard and thought in music all day....I wanted to try to understand this
 

From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
To: cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu>; pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)


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> 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/20110830/26852a4e/attachment.html>