Re: fort - da: an appropriation
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/19/99 8:35:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erespess@inil.com writes:
<< This definition bit can be confusing. Matt - by language are you refering
to any kind of symbol for any thought? Do you think a thing can be
experienced without being thought about? Doesn't there have to be an
experience before one can classify and categorize it?
What about you Jim?
Elizabeth
>>
I'm not sure, but I think Matt is using "linguistic" to mean any kind of
symbol -- even a visual image. I think we can and do think in terms of every
conceivable form of human experience, from the visual, to the affective, to
the verbal. Our thinking isn't all verbal. I'm used to approaching this
subject in semiotic terms -- you have three main concepts there:
The referent -- a physical thing like a tree or a dog.
The signified -- imprint of the referent upon the human mind
The sign -- the word "tree" or "dog"
But this is just a very basic starting point and it gets pretty complicated
from there.
Jim