Re: The talking going on in one's head

Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:23:11 -0500

AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
 
> Ok, like Elizabeth, I have a problem with the word "generates" in the above
> paragraph.  If we define experiences such as "happiness" biologically, for
> example -- a feeling of euphoria experienced as certain hormones are released
> in area "x" of the brain -- well, animals can experience something we would
> name "happiness" but they would not.  But in the above paragraph it's the
> "sign system" that generates "cognition, emotion, tactile perception," etc.,
> and not language...meaning language is something other than this basic "sign
> system," a subset of it of sorts, an expression of it.

I understand this objection.  Still, I urge the dark side.  C'mon
over.  It's fun here.  Anything goes.  I'm not quite willing to
relinquish "generates," even when it comes to tactile perception.  I
don't think we can really experience tactile stimulation without
assigning or attaching a significance to it.  Maybe the same for
animals, too.  They have ears; they can hear. 


> I think pretty much everyone else has been talking about
> something made up of words :)  

Yes.  An unfortunate oversight early on.  Apologies.
 
> Regarding your picking, yes, SoSure did define a sign as made up of two
> elements, connecting a sound and a concept.  He did break up the two elements
> into signification and signal, which in turn are distinct from the object
> itself...
 
Even beyond this, though, there's an important distinction between
what Ss calls "linguistic signs" and other "signs," like flags on
ships (_Cors_, part I).  But maybe it's all for naught at this
point...

-- 
Matt Kozusko    mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu