After reading language in thought and action its amazing how you can see things from a different perspective. For those of you who watched the DNC, did it strike you as having really no informative value? Every word in every speech was used soley for its affective connotation. If you think about it, whether it was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, or Barack Obama, none of them actually "said" anything. Actually when you think about it, during a political race nobody really seems to say anything of any informative significance.
Everthing said at the DNC seemed to be said at a very abstract level. "We're going to build a better America." "We're going to make health care more affordable." One might be tempted to ask, by what extensional means do you plan to bring about these changes? Can any one person really change America the way politicians like Barack and Hillary say they can?
All politicians use directives to give us maps of the future, these maps are always "better" than the maps we have right now. We must ask, how much of what politicians say will actually come to pass?
The truth is we know at some level or another that politicians can not follow through on all their promises. That's why we have such stereotypes as "all politicians are sleazy and are liars." Is this really true? Is the system that corrupt? Or are politicians constantly working to make there intensional maps become reality? Do they lie, or do they just fall short from time to time?
Politicians are not afraid to use snarl and purr words to influence people's views about themselves and others. Looking back at the DNC, president Bush was incessantly bashed for a less than adequate presidency. Barack said that America is "better than the last 8 years" blatently criticizing Bush. Hillary said that we "didn't need four more of the last 8 years" as a reason not to vote for McCain. At the same time, both Barack and Hillary talked about the democratic party as being able to "bring America back" or "turn America around." Hillary's speech, if nothing else, was symbolic of new unity in the party, and her speech was given in strong support of Obama. Obama's promises of a better future during his speech worked to whip the convention into a screaming frenzy. These words were obviously used for their affectual connotations. But were they uttered out of selfishness and a desire to get a democrat in the White House? Or were they said because Obama and others truly believe that they can make a difference? Or is it alittle of both? what do you think?
(Kevin Trainer)
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Some Thoughts upon Partisanship, Arguing, and Discord in General (and the DNC in the comments)
First, I'd like to return to a quote from Jen from a few posts back:
"Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?"
Now, many of us agree that cooperation is often not possible due to our differing verbal intensional worlds. And if we all had the exactly same intensional worlds, then perhaps there would be less arguments and more cooperation. But I wonder, would that be right? Even if we could, would we force everyone's verbal intensional world to be the same?
After all, we'd have cooperation. There would be no more arguments, no more fights, no more war. We actually might have world peace if everyone on the planet had the same verbal intensional world, and we would all understand each other. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that we were all born with and maintained the same verbal intensional worlds. Would the world be a better place?
Actually, Mr. Lazarow's mention of the DNC prompted me to think about politics, which in turn led me to the subject of partisanship. More and more, nowadays, I see headlines telling us that politics is too polarizing and that the two parties are dividing us into two Americas, red and blue. We have vicious political bickering, and sometimes with all of the snarl words and purr words being thrown at us from political consultants, the truth doesn't always come through. Now, I'm sure that all of us know the major smears (snarling) against both Barack Obama and John McCain and have heard their life stories (purring) praised numerous times. But I wonder if we could offer a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of each of the candidate's policies, even complicated ones such as health care.
Sometimes I wonder whether partisanship is a good thing or a bad thing. The two parties result from the differing intensional worlds that we all have, and so sometimes compromise is impossible upon social issues such as abortion. After all, if the maps inside of our heads don't match, how can we agree? Could we get more done if we all had the same intensional maps inside of our heads? Even our Founding Fathers were wary of a two-party system.
Still, I have to conclude that argument is an essential part of society, and that we need to have different intensional maps and that we need disagreements and partisanship. And through argument, we all offer and receive glimpses of the verbal maps inside others' heads. Many times we learn to revise our own maps.
Besides, isn't it a bit like having an extra brain and perspective if someone has a different map than we do and offers us a glance of it? If we all had the same map and thought the same way, innovation would come to a standstill and language and communication might even stop. One reason we communicate is to learn about other people's maps, and if all of our maps were the same, why communicate?
Even though partisanship may seem counterproductive at times, I believe that it still is an essential part of democracy. We need disagreements and arguments and differing intensional maps as chances to improve and advance our own mindsets. Freedom of expression is needed for society to function.
Thoughts please? My mind was muddled a few times, so clarification would be appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
"Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?"
Now, many of us agree that cooperation is often not possible due to our differing verbal intensional worlds. And if we all had the exactly same intensional worlds, then perhaps there would be less arguments and more cooperation. But I wonder, would that be right? Even if we could, would we force everyone's verbal intensional world to be the same?
After all, we'd have cooperation. There would be no more arguments, no more fights, no more war. We actually might have world peace if everyone on the planet had the same verbal intensional world, and we would all understand each other. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that we were all born with and maintained the same verbal intensional worlds. Would the world be a better place?
Actually, Mr. Lazarow's mention of the DNC prompted me to think about politics, which in turn led me to the subject of partisanship. More and more, nowadays, I see headlines telling us that politics is too polarizing and that the two parties are dividing us into two Americas, red and blue. We have vicious political bickering, and sometimes with all of the snarl words and purr words being thrown at us from political consultants, the truth doesn't always come through. Now, I'm sure that all of us know the major smears (snarling) against both Barack Obama and John McCain and have heard their life stories (purring) praised numerous times. But I wonder if we could offer a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of each of the candidate's policies, even complicated ones such as health care.
Sometimes I wonder whether partisanship is a good thing or a bad thing. The two parties result from the differing intensional worlds that we all have, and so sometimes compromise is impossible upon social issues such as abortion. After all, if the maps inside of our heads don't match, how can we agree? Could we get more done if we all had the same intensional maps inside of our heads? Even our Founding Fathers were wary of a two-party system.
Still, I have to conclude that argument is an essential part of society, and that we need to have different intensional maps and that we need disagreements and partisanship. And through argument, we all offer and receive glimpses of the verbal maps inside others' heads. Many times we learn to revise our own maps.
Besides, isn't it a bit like having an extra brain and perspective if someone has a different map than we do and offers us a glance of it? If we all had the same map and thought the same way, innovation would come to a standstill and language and communication might even stop. One reason we communicate is to learn about other people's maps, and if all of our maps were the same, why communicate?
Even though partisanship may seem counterproductive at times, I believe that it still is an essential part of democracy. We need disagreements and arguments and differing intensional maps as chances to improve and advance our own mindsets. Freedom of expression is needed for society to function.
Thoughts please? My mind was muddled a few times, so clarification would be appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
Just Some Thoughts
Sorry for getting started so late, but yeah.. I just posted replies to the current issue at hand using the Comment box - if anyone finds them somewhat incoherent, feel free to ask for clarification.
At any rate, I was wondering if anyone had given any thought to the relationship between high level abstraction and a previously discussed issue regarding whether or not a concept such as freedom could exist without verbal knowledge of it.
"Of course it is possible to talk meaningfully about democracy, as Jefferson and Lincoln have done...Speakers who never leave the higher levels of abstraction, however, may fail to notice when they are saying something and when they are not."
Dictionaries do occasionally take you for a wild circular ride when you try to look up the definition for a certain word and find yourself looking up new words until you end up back at the starting point with nothing accomplished. Then, what stops us from doing the same when speaking or thinking about concepts such as freedom and democracy? Furthermore, if the word were simply eliminated from the language and that circular ride - though useless for the purpose of defining - suddenly has no place to stop, or even start for that matter, does the idea simply cease to exist? (I believe that Grace brought up a similar point..?) Probably not.
Hayakawa mentions that "[t]he test of abstractions... is not whether they are "high level" or "low-level" abstractions, but whether they are referable to lower levels." (93)
I guess this answers the question Eric brought up a while back: can you describe something to someone who has never seen/experienced it before? (i.e. a color or a concept such as freedom etc.) Yes, you can, by referring to lower levels of abstraction (Describing the color in terms of primary colors and such).
In the case of 1984, however, the word "freedom" is not just twisted, but the lower levels (Independent thought etc.) are also pushed into extinction. The Thought Police destroyed Winston by breaking his mind down with the goal of eliminating his belief in the existence of things such as a past different than what the Party had put out (i.e. Independent thought). By getting rid of these lower levels, the Thought Police made it impossible for Winston to "operate on all levels of the abstraction ladder." (95) Thus, can we get rid of freedom? If we believe the possibility of Orwell's circumstances and the truth in Hayakawa's theories, then we can.
Any thoughts?
At any rate, I was wondering if anyone had given any thought to the relationship between high level abstraction and a previously discussed issue regarding whether or not a concept such as freedom could exist without verbal knowledge of it.
"Of course it is possible to talk meaningfully about democracy, as Jefferson and Lincoln have done...Speakers who never leave the higher levels of abstraction, however, may fail to notice when they are saying something and when they are not."
Dictionaries do occasionally take you for a wild circular ride when you try to look up the definition for a certain word and find yourself looking up new words until you end up back at the starting point with nothing accomplished. Then, what stops us from doing the same when speaking or thinking about concepts such as freedom and democracy? Furthermore, if the word were simply eliminated from the language and that circular ride - though useless for the purpose of defining - suddenly has no place to stop, or even start for that matter, does the idea simply cease to exist? (I believe that Grace brought up a similar point..?) Probably not.
Hayakawa mentions that "[t]he test of abstractions... is not whether they are "high level" or "low-level" abstractions, but whether they are referable to lower levels." (93)
I guess this answers the question Eric brought up a while back: can you describe something to someone who has never seen/experienced it before? (i.e. a color or a concept such as freedom etc.) Yes, you can, by referring to lower levels of abstraction (Describing the color in terms of primary colors and such).
In the case of 1984, however, the word "freedom" is not just twisted, but the lower levels (Independent thought etc.) are also pushed into extinction. The Thought Police destroyed Winston by breaking his mind down with the goal of eliminating his belief in the existence of things such as a past different than what the Party had put out (i.e. Independent thought). By getting rid of these lower levels, the Thought Police made it impossible for Winston to "operate on all levels of the abstraction ladder." (95) Thus, can we get rid of freedom? If we believe the possibility of Orwell's circumstances and the truth in Hayakawa's theories, then we can.
Any thoughts?
Hello all!
A few things:
1. Don't forget--you have an assignment due on your first day in class next week (the scrapbook). I expect brilliance, of course.
2. I am QUITE gratified by the level of discussion and understanding you are all currently displaying in you posts about LITAA. Please do keep it up. HOWEVER...
3. Has anyone noticed that it is exceptionally challenging to follow a particular line of discussion, since the overwhelming majority of you are writing posts, even when you are actually responding to or commenting on another post? It would seem that most of you have developed a healthy prejudice against using the "comment" function--a function which would enable you to create a LINEAR discussion of a single point, rather than a hodge-podge of posts that attempt to respond to multiple lines of discussion at once. You might consider this to be time-saving--however, any time it manages to save is directly counteracted by the inability of anyone to FOLLOW A CONVERSATION (as you might guess, an essential component of what we do here in AP3.) So, please, let's get into the habit of creating conversations by utilizing the post function, when we are responding to someone else, hm?
4. And if you're looking for a great way to apply your LITAA skills in practical fashion--may I suggest the ongoing DNC? Such glorious examples for analysis...
I look forward to seeing you all next week. Enjoy the waning days of summer...
Mr. LAZ
A few things:
1. Don't forget--you have an assignment due on your first day in class next week (the scrapbook). I expect brilliance, of course.
2. I am QUITE gratified by the level of discussion and understanding you are all currently displaying in you posts about LITAA. Please do keep it up. HOWEVER...
3. Has anyone noticed that it is exceptionally challenging to follow a particular line of discussion, since the overwhelming majority of you are writing posts, even when you are actually responding to or commenting on another post? It would seem that most of you have developed a healthy prejudice against using the "comment" function--a function which would enable you to create a LINEAR discussion of a single point, rather than a hodge-podge of posts that attempt to respond to multiple lines of discussion at once. You might consider this to be time-saving--however, any time it manages to save is directly counteracted by the inability of anyone to FOLLOW A CONVERSATION (as you might guess, an essential component of what we do here in AP3.) So, please, let's get into the habit of creating conversations by utilizing the post function, when we are responding to someone else, hm?
4. And if you're looking for a great way to apply your LITAA skills in practical fashion--may I suggest the ongoing DNC? Such glorious examples for analysis...
I look forward to seeing you all next week. Enjoy the waning days of summer...
Mr. LAZ
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
More Symbols....
Let me try to clarify. The word 'only' signifies that such an example is insignificant and that it is a rare occurrence. This is why I tried to point out that Hayakawa found that it is not the case, as I also tried to point out in my example.
"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand"
I do not think that Hayakawa is contradicting himself here. I think that he is trying to point out that sometimes we have to use words with different affective connotations in order to try to convey our feelings while not having to say them directly. For example, let's go back to the example about the person who helps the sports team. If I say, "look it's the errand boy!" my feelings of disrespect towards that person is portrayed. Also, the it is still separate from the symbolized because it also is a symbol of such feelings....? I think I'm starting to confuse myself.
Connecting this to Janet's note, I believe that the whole confusion of how the symbol is the symbolized is how the symbols are able to influence the reactions toward the symbolized. Once again, I am unsure if I am making any sense.
(Mary Quien)
"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand"
I do not think that Hayakawa is contradicting himself here. I think that he is trying to point out that sometimes we have to use words with different affective connotations in order to try to convey our feelings while not having to say them directly. For example, let's go back to the example about the person who helps the sports team. If I say, "look it's the errand boy!" my feelings of disrespect towards that person is portrayed. Also, the it is still separate from the symbolized because it also is a symbol of such feelings....? I think I'm starting to confuse myself.
Connecting this to Janet's note, I believe that the whole confusion of how the symbol is the symbolized is how the symbols are able to influence the reactions toward the symbolized. Once again, I am unsure if I am making any sense.
(Mary Quien)
Connection Between Word and Meaning
I did not quite understand Mary's explanation of Hayakawa's signifigant usage of the word "only." Could someone please clarify this paragraph for me?
I also think that by 'only' Hayakawa meant that this sort of situation is common in our language. Take, for example, someone who takes care of a sports team by getting water, towels, etc. Are they a manager or an errand boy? As you can see, both words give a different feeling, but have the same extensional meaning.
Thank you!
In addition to the A-town and B-ville confusion, I stumbled upon something else that struck my attention.
"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand" (Hayakawa 86).
Does this not completely contradict Hayakawa's lesson in Book One that symbols are completely and totally independent of what they are symbolizing due to each person's unique extensional and intensional experiences?
Clarification is greatly appreciated.
(Samantha Maliha)
I also think that by 'only' Hayakawa meant that this sort of situation is common in our language. Take, for example, someone who takes care of a sports team by getting water, towels, etc. Are they a manager or an errand boy? As you can see, both words give a different feeling, but have the same extensional meaning.
Thank you!
In addition to the A-town and B-ville confusion, I stumbled upon something else that struck my attention.
"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand" (Hayakawa 86).
Does this not completely contradict Hayakawa's lesson in Book One that symbols are completely and totally independent of what they are symbolizing due to each person's unique extensional and intensional experiences?
Clarification is greatly appreciated.
(Samantha Maliha)
Monday, August 25, 2008
A-Town and B-Ville
I, too, feel like I do not completely understand every aspect of the Story of A-town and B-ville. Having read the story a few times over, the message I understood from the parable was that the way a concept is worded can have a great impact upon the reactions to (or the effects of) that concept. However, as Mary brought up, Hayakawa and many of us have acknowledged the distinction between symbols and things symbolized. Then, I must admit that I am thoroughly confused with my own thought process: how could the way a concept is worded have an impact upon the reactions to that concept if the words used (the symbol) are separate from the concept itself (the thing symbolized)?
Now I realize that I merely contradicted myself in the paragraph above. Perhaps the message I took from the story is not exactly what the writer is trying to get at? Has anyone else taken a similar message from the story? If not, I seriously apologize for puzzling everyone, but if so, is there anyone who could help me through my confusion? I welcome any comments or clarifications. Thanks :)
(Janet Lee)
Now I realize that I merely contradicted myself in the paragraph above. Perhaps the message I took from the story is not exactly what the writer is trying to get at? Has anyone else taken a similar message from the story? If not, I seriously apologize for puzzling everyone, but if so, is there anyone who could help me through my confusion? I welcome any comments or clarifications. Thanks :)
(Janet Lee)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)