Re: virus: Language

Brett Robertson (BrettMan35@webtv.net)
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 04:05:15 -0500


I get angry with reductionistic attempts to limt the communication of a
post (etc.) to the dictionary definition of the words contained in the
post. I think this is a defensiveness used by those who wish to remain
in a concrete realm where things are safe and well defined..those
regressed to about the age of 9 or 10 and "latent"--witout an individual
personality and trying to please an external parent by splitting things
into "they are good" and "you are bad". As well, it is a flaming
technique to "bring down" people who are being original to the level of
conformity to an average.

But, I do think that words are verbal forms of physical objects-- they,
by necessity, form a verbal-logical coherence according to the physical
characteristics of the objects they describe and this coherence is the
meaning of the word just as the physical characteristics are the meaning
of the physical object. SO, I do think that all experience can be
expressed by a few simple words.

Therefore, I also think that the term inutition is not well suited to
describe a non-conscious process... any more than any more than the term
"partical physics" describes the physical characteristics of a chair
(I've never heard of a partical for "brown" or "high backed" or "soft";
and I've never "intuited" how a chair functions).

While I like the story about the mind which thought but could not use
words in a linear manner; stil, I think this must be a represion of the
language function rather than a developmental truth.

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
www.window.to/mindrec
news:alt.pub.coffeehouse.amethyst