🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9 Mar, 17:30, "Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
>I doubt there is any common pattern. I've read that some arctic peoples
>can read newspapers upsidedown and sideways as easily as rightside up,
>left to right.  Folks in Papua did even recognize polaroid phots of
>themselves until they were told what the image represented.  The first
>experience of vision is chaotic for folks who could see after surgery,
>for the first time.  It takes several weeks of aculturation to be able
>to organize visual data into meaningful patterns.  Seeing is very
>ideological.

Do you remember that book that came out a few years ago 'drawing on
the right side of your brain'? the basic idea was to draw upside
down & the results I saw were very impressive. Is reading upside
down difficult? its an aquired skill, and not even I've been sure
what to look for in a photograph unless its been pointed out to me.
I've noticed my spelling and syntax are worse when I've been painting
or drawing, but then the reverse is also true. I also think theres
a mighty big difference between creating the work and the reading
or percieving of it.

Rather than suggest that we instantly recognise what we
see clearly, I think we have to learn from birth how to
objectify what we encounter, and not necessarily by naming
what it is, maybe we identify by association of a couple
of other senses as well?. Objectify is such a strong word
tho, and especially if your experience of whatever-it-
happened-to-be is unamable. eg. an instance, if the
reflections on a mug of water remind you of thirst because
once it was just out of reach, but you learned the word
'thirsty' later, the reflections and feeling that somethings
only just out of your reach are an instance, an event that
go to make up part of our lifes experiences. They arn't
everyones experiences but some will be similar.
So, without a name and without a mutual agreed expression
the 'object' or 'sound' won't communicate exactly what you
feel or felt it to mean.

So how can we get the idea across that 'water' wasnt simply
an expression of being cold and fed up? or delight? to say
'thirsty'?. I think intonation and pitch say something
about the object and our intentions, the word and the way
its pronounced or said.

Similarly there are symbols and compositions particularly in
early paintings that can't be understood unless you knew who
had painted them or you were there at the time. Lets say we
make a lucky guess.

So we want to show thirst in a picture, we have a cup there,
and its a silent movie or mime, an artist paints his model
gasping and reaching for a drink. Simple.

Before musical notation people learned by rote and gestural
signs, but then we'll never know if ever or what a musical
'sign' for being thirsty was, & I don't know anything about
choreography(even tho my dad was trained as a dancer:) If
anyone in Sci.Lang has any pointers about ancient choreography
firmly associated with specific sound + emotional content
I'd be very interested.

>Sure there are common biological bonds between all of us.  Our
>biological equipment.  Ears, eyes, etc. But I think you're intimating
>that various "values" might be attached to this.  I'm skeptical about
>that.  A lot of people in the world love the taste of rancid fat, and a
>lot find it repulsive.  I used to hate the taste of cooked bellpepper,
>but once I was at a diner where stuffed bell pepper was served and I had
>to eat it to be polite.  It used to make me vomit, in fact, but after
>this dinner, I actually like it.

I'd say if most people have similarly designed senses and
we've developed them to full working capacity we should
at very least have one sense, for use as a mutual channel
for the purposes communication even if we lose other
senses later on do you agree?.

Yes, I think the values fluctuate, I used to hate spouts...
and I'm still opposed to their use, but then some people
love things and an allergic reaction as well.

>Can you think of a language that has LESS complex grammars and syntax?
>All natural languages seem to be equally complex and sophisticated -
>language development doesn't seem to follow a progressive model.

I was thinking along the lines of, what if we all knew that
things with spikes hurt your feet if you stand on them, you'd
avoid them in your path. If they're right in front of you its
the first thing to avoid, and if they're a distance away you
still have the time to walk through the muddy pool, so how
could we communicate a sequence order and urgency to someone
else?

I'd guess there would be less complexity where there was more
mutual understanding of the things that were being discussed.
For instance
'Excuse me Mrs Mattila but your husband appears to be violently
sick in our bathroom and I think I should call an ambulance!"
"No! no need to worry yourself about it, seriously!, he loved
our meal!!"

Ta!

:)
n.