a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[cfabel]

Yes, that last point is very exciting, it has significant implications for
criminal law, administrative and political decision-making, socialization,
and political theory (to name just a few, of course). I'm pulling together
the research on that so far to try and grasp what it all might actually
mean.  

 

C. F. Abel

Chair

Department of Government

Stephen F. Austin State University

Nacogdoches, Texas 75962

(936) 468-3903

 

 

 

From: Paul Mackin [mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:48 PM
To: cfabel; pynchon-l at waste.org
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  <mailto:fqmorris at gmail.com> <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: alice wellintown  <mailto:alicewellintown at gmail.com>
<alicewellintown at gmail.com>
Cc: pynchon -l  <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org> <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/20110831/87d6c541/attachment.html>