Art Language and Culture
N
of our discriptive analysis influence the way we percieve and
create art works?
Various theorists have proposed ideas and ideals for the
structural analysis of the world around, their influence
is evident in the history of our art, and our music, but
how close do you think they are to our real-life perceptions?
If you have favorite theorist or philosopher, why so?
thanks,
Nicki
dhyan
language of Art and culture has gone to a secondary consideration
because people has no time to spend for this purpose. Nobody bother of
going deep to understand the sacred language because there is no time.
Automation has its grips everywhere and we are left running towards
material by hook or by crook. According to my experience I could say
that when people are visiting some works of arts somewhere they remain
running from one corner to another without thinking that each work
represents a lot of interpretation and a message for life.
Unfortunately with modern evolution artists are as well entangled in
such mode of expression when they say that art is for art sake and they
have nothing to do with what people may need. They impose what they
feel easy to inject in the mind.
I feel that artists have an important role in society as they could
well fashion the attitudes of the audience. All throughout ; from
civilizations to civilizations art had a meaning and people had time
for understanding what artists of those periods wanted to convey.
Nicki's vision is challenging. Let's hope to know more what would think
those who do not have time to think.
Best regards and good wishes for a prosperous 2007.
Dhyan.
JP
I am not sure I understand your question but recently I started playing
with the idea of language concepts as being sets and maybe this can
help you somehow.
I started with a simple concept, that of a car, and this is how far I
got after I woke up last night to call my wife as there is a 7 hours
time zone difference between us now, and after that I could not go back
to sleep.
IMO we start by creating separate sets based on the different types of
perception involved, visual, tactile, etc.
I look at these sets as describing mostly the physical or spatial
characteristics of a chair.
Second step is the creation of the sets based on the interaction
between us and the chair (sets which I personally like to consider to
be temporal) or value (emotional) sets.
The third step is the individually integration of these sets into a
meta set that we call concept.
Now the problem I see it is that because we experience everything
differently, perceptually and emotionally, we either don't have all
the same sets, or all the elements of these sets in our meta set or
concept.
This problem manifests itself in the process of our communication thru
the use of verbal language and here is where the naive set theory comes
into play.
As we compare our concepts using or creating intuitively the set theory
tools (unions, intersections, etc.) we start to create abstract
concepts (universal, complements, etc.).
Now coming back to your question I think that the language influences
the perception in 2 ways:
1. If we have been informed previously thru language about the art we
have already labeled it using a concept and this concept will influence
our perception, IOW the sets included in our concept will interact with
new sets created by the physical perception of the art, and here the
set theory comes into play.
2. If we start with a blank state then the influence will come when we
have to communicate it, IOW we will have to use one of the existing
language concepts, the one to which the set of perceived
characteristics most likely belongs.
Here again the set theory comes into play.
Hope it makes sense and if I won't be able sleep again tonight maybe
I will come with something else.
Merry Xmas.
JP
N
>I am not sure I understand your question but recently I started playing
>with the idea of language concepts as being sets and maybe this can
>help you somehow.
>I started with a simple concept, that of a car, and this is how far I
>got after I woke up last night to call my wife as there is a 7 hours
>time zone difference between us now, and after that I could not go back
>to sleep.
>IMO we start by creating separate sets based on the different types of
>perception involved, visual, tactile, etc.
so you begin by separating language sets from perceptual
sets, or you begin by quantifying sensory perception and
then qualifying using language, right? - Is it possible
to absolutely describe a group of sensory perceptions in
a 'set'? they're transient arn't they? I mean its fairly
easy to assign a group of words that *describe* visual and
tactile sensations into orders and sets, tho primary sensory
imputs are integrant I'd say, and then theres quite clear
differences between a set we may arrange in a language we
learned and a set we'd arrange and the links between images.
Whether or not the same mechanisms might apply, in logic
or neuro-structural theories, ie universal subsystem that
could be used for both spoken and written langs and image
I'd guess at.
To be brief;
are language and sensory perceptions separate? if so how?
sensory perceptions #1, language #2 ?, what differences
an omissions are made between the two? what kinds of
similarities are there between them?
If there was no language, but images were used to
communicate instead of txts, how could the images
communicate? what if any universal structure is there?
(some philosophical/communications texts really grate
my nerves....I'll dig some out some time..famous last
words I guess, but I'll try :)
>I look at these sets as describing mostly the physical or spatial
>characteristics of a chair.
That comment reminded me of when I'm drawing, its like
imitation, sometimes like when I was drawing someone I'd
kinda be there I'd feel like they did, its like an empathy.
A weight, a swaying as they walk, an atmosphere, a being
conscious or not of the activity they're involved in (One
of my lecturers swore that he always knew a man had drawn
a female nude because they always got the tits wrong, that
they looked like coconuts between a string)
A chair? then theres somebody who comes along and says
'without you that chair wouldnt really exist would it?',
there are no existences without a consciousness to record
or report them.
>Second step is the creation of the sets based on the interaction
>between us and the chair (sets which I personally like to consider to
>be temporal) or value (emotional) sets.
Is it really a chair? couldn't it be a lamp stand? a
place to put a TV dinner? an easle?
>The third step is the individually integration of these sets into a
>meta set that we call concept.
functionality? suitabilty for purpose? everyone you know
sees that its a chair, but its also a place you always put
your overflow of CD's when you're having a nostalgic
evening in, or stand on it to reach the top shelf, Can it
really be *concept* after that? Will language cover all of
those variations under one heading?
>Now the problem I see it is that because we experience everything
>differently, perceptually and emotionally, we either don't have all
>the same sets, or all the elements of these sets in our meta set or
>concept.
True, so all we can say is that 'a chair' is traditionally
a seat, its *concept* is governed by a variety of needs and
influences perhaps? If things exist because we give them
existences, who's to say what'a chair' actually is? nobody
can give a definitive answer, but we will all agree on a
code of behaviour and utility for a timebeing.
>This problem manifests itself in the process of our communication thru
>the use of verbal language and here is where the naive set theory comes
>into play.
>As we compare our concepts using or creating intuitively the set theory
>tools (unions, intersections, etc.) we start to create abstract
>concepts (universal, complements, etc.).
now would that be 'higher reasoning'? sure if you have a clear
reference and perameters for usage/behaviour, tho privately
I think most peoples minds are actively far more creative and
can generate links than might be feasable in paperwork.
>Now coming back to your question I think that the language influences
>the perception in 2 ways:
>1. If we have been informed previously thru language about the art we
>have already labeled it using a concept and this concept will influence
>our perception, IOW the sets included in our concept will interact with
>new sets created by the physical perception of the art, and here the
>set theory comes into play.
Yes! if we go to an art gallery we go to see good art. If we
go to a burger bar we expect a burger. However if you're an
interior, graphics or textile designer maybe an ad exec or
session musician, most people won't register that, it works like
liminals,
>2. If we start with a blank state then the influence will come when we
>have to communicate it, IOW we will have to use one of the existing
>language concepts, the one to which the set of perceived
>characteristics most likely belongs.
maybe so
>Here again the set theory comes into play.
>Hope it makes sense and if I won't be able sleep again tonight maybe
>I will come with something else.
I hope you're reunited
>Merry Xmas.
Seasons Greetings :)
>JP
NE.
XX
N
for you JP, and theres a very interesting thread in Sci.Lang about
'Universal Grammar'.... anyhow,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An order in communications
--------------------------
Might try splitting up language from visual perception,
development of textual communications with typography,
\ \ /
-------------
\ V H4= Arts. Texts.Music.
-------------
\ / H3=Pictographies. Typos.
-------------
V H2= (di/con)vergence,image*sound
-------------
| H1 = sound+picture
B. A needs theory
--------------
Heirarchy of needs. Theres been a bunch of those
and its to you to sort those out. A very simple one
would be a triangle all interdependent on one another
for the survival of the beast.
sustinence
^
/ \
shelter ----- contact
Food.... thirst, hunger, anything that keeps that
clock ticking
Shelter. protection from damage
Warmth.. social networks,reproduction,protection
from extinction or from social neglect.
C. An order of the senses
----------------------
order of senses, this is where to have some great fun
with synaesthetics. Given your 5 senses what order to
put them in? which is the most important to you and
where would this figure on a rating system from 1-9
or in an order of 1-5?
as an individual I'd run an order of the closest
and the fathest, taste is closest, I imbibe, the
fathest from me is sight, sound takes a longer time
to travel to me. Longest to shortest,
1.sight, 2.sound, 3.smell, 4.touch, 5.taste.
so a value system, and 'aesthetic' would be codependant
on the fluctuations in a needs system. If you're really
cold and need some shelter (or warmth) which of the
senses become highly desirable to you?
D. Some way to order the required need, intelligence
-------------------------------------------------
If you have a need and some order of senses, can you
stack them and manipulate them symbolically. Is this
true? How would language figure and would there be a
kind of universal order, a syntax or manner of stacking
and manipulating the object of what is needed first,
and what is seen?
Back in H1 sounds and pictures are complete together
with other sensations associated with them and theres
biological similarities between us, we can assume that
regardless of what language you speak, we all share
some similarity in our experiences and that experience
can be 'itemised' if you like symbolically and therefor
it could be communicated.
In the order of senses the 'item' could split into
a fraction of its orginal unique whole, eg, an apple
can be split into taste, touch, smell, sight, sound,
any of those can be refined and used as disjunct, in
H2 theres a split between sound and sight.
H3 is a further refinement of the symbol to the extent
that the original no longer resembles its counterpart
as a symbol for communication. Theres greater difference
between the text symbol and the picture (you might
look up heiroglyphics here, musical notation is also
devised about this time, while previously score was
learned by rote and communicated via cheironomists)
H4. Symbols might become 'meta-languages' abstracted
from their source/origin, need to be revised and
continually confirmed between parties as to their
use and meanings.
HAPPY NEW YEAR :)
Nicki
Wolf
> JP wrote:-
[...]
> To be brief;
> are language and sensory perceptions separate? if so how?
> sensory perceptions #1, language #2 ?, what differences
> an omissions are made between the two? what kinds of
> similarities are there between them?
>
> If there was no language, but images were used to
> communicate instead of texts, how could the images
> communicate? what if any universal structure is there?
If images rather than speech were used to communicate, they would have
to exhibit different contents within conventional structures. It is in
the differences within a conventional structure that we find meaning.
Eg, the famous "Dog bites man" vs "Man bites dog."
Thus, to communicate with pictures, one has to have agreed
upon/known/learned/etc conventions of structure (and IMO also content.)
In fact, such conventions do exist, eg in ideographic writing systems,
in movies, in comic strips, and so on. And also in paintings: see the
recent popularisations of scholarly research into the conventional
symbols in medieval and Renascence paintings.
The minimal structure is contrast in content: there have to be at least
two possible contents for an image (or any other perceivable sign) for
it to communicate. So the question answers itself: to communicate
meanings requires at least the minimal structure exhibited by
differences in content, as in the warning calls of birds, etc. This is
the simplest "universal structure". Whether there are others is an
empirical question, which IMO linguistics has answered.
There exists an example of a thoroughly conventional visual method of
communication: ASL. It exhibits all the complexities of spoken language.
The fact that grammatically it is analogous to speech IMO suggest very
strongly that there is a natural human grammar. All languages have means
of indicating actors/objects, actions/processes, and acted-upon objects;
and circumstances and features of these fundamental elements of
language. One universal feature, for example, is "person", and a whole
host of related features, relationships, and circumstances (many though
not all of which reflect cultural differences). Other systems of
communication exhibit at least some of the same basic grammar. Look at
narrative, for example.
To put it another way: humans have an instinct to learn language, and
will do so if exposed to language. But which language depends of course
upon the environment in which the child is raised. If that environment
has no language at all, the child will not learn language. Thus, the
usual arguments about whether language is conditioned or not are beside
the point: it is and it isn't. Like all animals, we have evolved to
learn some behaviours rather than others, but like all animals, we need
environmental cues to start and guide that learning. Also, like all
other animals, we cannot learn certain behaviours if either or both of
physiological capacity and environmental cues are absent. Whether s
change in physiological capacity is a matter of inevitable development,
or a response to environmental cues, or both, is an empirical question
to be answered for each (class of) behaviour that an animal learns
during its lifetime.
[snip a discussion of drawing a chair...]
An interesting exercise is to ask a class to make "stick sketches" in
their notebooks of objects such as chairs, trees, houses, etc. Then ask
one student to record his or her sketches on the chalkboard. Find a
student who has sketched one or more items differently. Record those
also, until all possible variants have been recorded. Count how many of
each sketch were drawn: you'll find that sometimes one and always two
variants were drawn by over half the class. Then ask the class to
account for this observation. IME, this exercise opens up a host of
questions about "nature" and "nurture", some of which it seems to me
underlie the disagreements on this forum.
HTH
Glen M. Sizemore
"Wolf" <ElLob...@ruddy.moss> wrote in message
news:45a1274f$0$28069$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
But this does not mean the behavior both "is and isn't" due to conditioning
except in the most trivial of senses. Perhaps this trivial sense needs to
made clear, but it doesn't strike me as too meaningful for the argument
concerning "human language;" some argue that it (conditioning) is
important, and others argue that it is not at all. But this argument is not
impacted by the notion that natural selection plays a role because that MUST
be true either way. I think, too, that it renders the notion of "instinct"
useless. Perhaps it is high time that the notion be put aside, but to imply
the sort of definition that you do is not to put it aside but, rather, is to
render it tautological. Generally, "instinct" is reserved for behavior that
does not require a specific ontogenic history other than (possibly) exposure
to some eliciting stimulus. If "instinct" is simply taken to mean that
natural selection is involved in some way (for example, it determines that
some things will be reinforcers, or that certain sorts of responses are
possible), then ALL behavior must be called "instinctual." That is, all
behavior is "instinctual" by definition, and the term no longer serves to
distinguish any behavior from any other.
J.A. Legris
Then what is the difference between learning to speak and learning to
write? Apparently it is useful to conceive of variation along an axis
between an ideal of purely instinctive behaviour and another of purely
learned behaviour, neither of which actually exists.
--
Joe Legris
Glen M. Sizemore
"J.A. Legris" <jale...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1168196620....@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't have much trouble with the sort of continuum that you suggest. I
would say, however, that "purely instinctive" behavior could exist in the
sense that ontogeny plays virtually no role (maybe not even as an eliciting
stimulus), but the notion of "purely learned" behavior can make no sense,
since the "mechanisms of learning" must be inherited. I still don't think
any of this should suggest that some behavior is "both conditioned and not
conditioned" (ignoring the obvious logical problem); any conditioned
behavior can only occur because the animal has inherited the appropriate
mechanisms. But that notion has always been part of the notion of
conditioning. I also think that the notion of some single continuum should
be taken with a grain of salt, but I will leave it there since THAT raises
just about every issue that can be raised, and I'm a little tired after
playing pool and drinking with one of my son's violin coaches.
>
> --
> Joe Legris
>
N
Wolf wrote:
Wolf wrote:-
N wrote:
> JP wrote:-
[...]
>> To be brief;
>> are language and sensory perceptions separate? if so how?
>> sensory perceptions #1, language #2 ?, what differences
>> an omissions are made between the two? what kinds of >
> similarities are there between them?
>> If there was no language, but images were used to
>> communicate instead of texts, how could the images
>> communicate? what if any universal structure is there?
>If images rather than speech were used to communicate, they would have
>to exhibit different contents within conventional structures. It is in
>the differences within a conventional structure that we find meaning.
>Eg, the famous "Dog bites man" vs "Man bites dog."
Hmm, so how do people define language I suppose, speech
primarily, tho yes its also used to mean a method of
expression otherwise than by words, tho there has to be
meaning in our experiences which are often beyond explanation
or validation by others - everybody is unique, we are not
only the sum total of a limit to express our perceptions
using language, we are something more, I should think.
I understand that within a conventional structure,
lets say frinstance, juxtaposing two images and their
relative position and alignment will connote relationships
without words, but it is up to us to draw a conclusion
regards the input/meaning recieved, how we interpret
what we see is fundamental and clearly unique. what
was that test <thinks> Rorchasch was it? that ink blot
test, anyhow yes sure, theres a whole history of
symbolic so called 'meaning' associated with colours,
shape, compositions, gestures, what-not, that have no
relevence or bearing on how people *actually* make a
decisions or preferences, if it were so then absolutly
nobody would have the feelings that abstract art will
obviously generate in viewers. I'm left to wonder, if
by communicating soley by use of a conventional system
of signs are we somehow at error in thoughts and feelings
that are unconventional in some way? illusionary perhaps?
>Thus, to communicate with pictures, one has to have agreed
>upon/known/learned/etc conventions of structure (and IMO also content.)
>In fact, such conventions do exist, eg in ideographic writing systems,
>in movies, in comic strips, and so on. And also in paintings: see the
>recent popularisations of scholarly research into the conventional
>symbols in medieval and Renascence paintings.
A conventional system generally has a set number of signs
that signify, connote (infer), or to be truly accurate
denote in transcription or reproduction. Like anyone I
suppose, we have to have some shared code before we can
consider communications. Yeh, like everyone, when we wernt
literate and we were learning to read little words, I guess
we could always fill in the story with the pictures, colors,
geometry, and symbolism in our illustrated book. There are
loads of sign systems, eg the 'hobo' sign system or something
very close must have been around before settled economies.
>The minimal structure is contrast in content: there have to be at least
>two possible contents for an image (or any other perceivable sign) for
>it to communicate. So the question answers itself: to communicate
>meanings requires at least the minimal structure exhibited by
>differences in content, as in the warning calls of birds, etc. This is
>the simplest "universal structure". Whether there are others is an
>empirical question, which IMO linguistics has answered.
What are those?
>There exists an example of a thoroughly conventional visual method of
>communication: ASL. It exhibits all the complexities of spoken language.
>The fact that grammatically it is analogous to speech IMO suggest very
>strongly that there is a natural human grammar. All languages have means
>of indicating actors/objects, actions/processes, and acted-upon objects;
>and circumstances and features of these fundamental elements of
>language. One universal feature, for example, is "person", and a whole
>host of related features, relationships, and circumstances (many though
>not all of which reflect cultural differences). Other systems of
>communication exhibit at least some of the same basic grammar. Look at
>narrative, for example.
When I was studying I quite often used to read a persons body
gestures, not deliberately, I used to get a feel about what
someone wanted to expess or put into words. I didnt notice
that there may be some grammar to it until I had my first
child. there was an old guy on a train, he seemed self
occupied a little deaf maybe and quietly miming a thought
to himself, not agressive articulation only gestures and
position. I looked over and he noticed my curiosity,
put his head up indignantly and then looked embarassed
brushing 'imaginary' crumbs from his jacket and trousers
"as if to say"..........., then almost an instant later
a bloke who had been waiting to get off the train loudly
tapped on the glass partition (which is generally a sign
around here for "attention" or "all quiet if you please")
In fact it was so novel to me that all sign wasn't
conventional, that I took it up on purpose for a short
while, just to see :)
>To put it another way: humans have an instinct to learn language, and
>will do so if exposed to language. But which language depends of course
>upon the environment in which the child is raised. If that environment
>has no language at all, the child will not learn language. Thus, the
>usual arguments about whether language is conditioned or not are beside
>the point: it is and it isn't. Like all animals, we have evolved to
>learn some behaviours rather than others, but like all animals, we need
>environmental cues to start and guide that learning. Also, like all
>other animals, we cannot learn certain behaviours if either or both of
>physiological capacity and environmental cues are absent. Whether s
>change in physiological capacity is a matter of inevitable development,
>or a response to environmental cues, or both, is an empirical question
>to be answered for each (class of) behaviour that an animal learns
>during its lifetime.
Yes, if the saying goes, use it or lose it, is true, if
we don't have access or exposure to certain experience
it would seem highly unlikely that an ability to do
something would spontaniously generate after a period
of time.
>An interesting exercise is to ask a class to make "stick sketches" in
>their notebooks of objects such as chairs, trees, houses, etc. Then ask
>one student to record his or her sketches on the chalkboard. Find a
>student who has sketched one or more items differently. Record those
>also, until all possible variants have been recorded. Count how many of
>each sketch were drawn: you'll find that sometimes one and always two
>variants were drawn by over half the class. Then ask the class to
>account for this observation. IME, this exercise opens up a host of
>questions about "nature" and "nurture", some of which it seems to me
>underlie the disagreements on this forum.
OOOh! Wolf! I think many art teachers try to encourage
independance of style in their student, I mean, wheres the
originality and expansion of creative endevour if they're
all fed through a system like battery hens on a production
line? tho I get your drift here, I'd say more like set a
drawing brief at the start of a course and the same one a
year later to see any indication of the direction they wish
to persue (then we have to ask them what in heavens name
do they think they're doing there? right?)
>HTH
Happy New Year,
Nicki
N
>Glen wrote:-
>> To put it another way: humans have an instinct to learn language, and will
>> do so if exposed to language. But which language depends of course upon
>> the environment in which the child is raised. If that environment has no
>> language at all, the child will not learn language. Thus, the usual
>> arguments about whether language is conditioned or not are beside the
>> point: it is and it isn't. Like all animals, we have evolved to learn some
>> behaviours rather than others, but like all animals, we need environmental
>> cues to start and guide that learning. Also, like all other animals, we
>> cannot learn certain behaviours if either or both of physiological
>> capacity and environmental cues are absent. Whether s change in
>> physiological capacity is a matter of inevitable development, or a
>> response to environmental cues, or both, is an empirical question to be
>> answered for each (class of) behaviour that an animal learns during its
>> lifetime.
I don't know if its 'the child will not learn a language' tho
there are well documented cases and apparent proof that at a
certain time in our lives we simply don't make those connections
that ease our development of language skill,(one girl was called
Jeanie) whatever age you happen to be and whatever life experience
you may have can still be communicated. Or must we assume that if
we lack the capacity to express a feeling or notion in commonly
understood terminology we are being less than adults? and all other
processes of our development are somehow held to bay too?
In a recent thread on concepts, might we also consider the possibility
that if the limits of our ability to reason are confined by the limits
of common practices and structures of our grammar, logic, (etc)
then concepts that may be exceptional and outside of this are
in error? If thats so then originality and inventiveness are
also errors in our capacity to reason.
>But this does not mean the behavior both "is and isn't" due to conditioning
>except in the most trivial of senses. Perhaps this trivial sense needs to
>made clear, but it doesn't strike me as too meaningful for the argument
>concerning "human language;" some argue that it (conditioning) is
>important, and others argue that it is not at all. But this argument is not
>impacted by the notion that natural selection plays a role because that MUST
>be true either way. I think, too, that it renders the notion of "instinct"
>useless. Perhaps it is high time that the notion be put aside, but to imply
>the sort of definition that you do is not to put it aside but, rather, is to
>render it tautological. Generally, "instinct" is reserved for behavior that
>does not require a specific ontogenic history other than (possibly) exposure
>to some eliciting stimulus. If "instinct" is simply taken to mean that
>natural selection is involved in some way (for example, it determines that
>some things will be reinforcers, or that certain sorts of responses are
>possible), then ALL behavior must be called "instinctual." That is, all
>behavior is "instinctual" by definition, and the term no longer serves to
>distinguish any behavior from any other.
It might be instinctive...but this doesnt mean to say that
all behaviour is mechanistic, some of it's only just cause
and effect I guess <shrug> the forces of nature arn't generally
conditioned by the forces of human intervention,
N.
JP
while, Xmas, my birthday, New Year, etc.
The main reason that I use the term of sets is because we have a
parallel processing of the information and the end result of each
process can be considered to be grouped in a set.
JP
> >I look at these sets as describing mostly the physical or spatial
> >characteristics of a chair.
>
> That comment reminded me of when I'm drawing, its like
> imitation, sometimes like when I was drawing someone I'd
> kinda be there I'd feel like they did, its like an empathy.
> A weight, a swaying as they walk, an atmosphere, a being
> conscious or not of the activity they're involved in (One
> of my lecturers swore that he always knew a man had drawn
> a female nude because they always got the tits wrong, that
> they looked like coconuts between a string)
> A chair? then theres somebody who comes along and says
> 'without you that chair wouldnt really exist would it?',
> there are no existences without a consciousness to record
> or report them.
I guess you went ahead of me here. What you describe above I mentioned
in the next paragraph as value or associative sets.
JP
>
> >Second step is the creation of the sets based on the interaction
> >between us and the chair (sets which I personally like to consider to
> >be temporal) or value (emotional) sets.
>
> Is it really a chair? couldn't it be a lamp stand? a
> place to put a TV dinner? an easle?
Can't remember why I chose chair as an example, feel free to use any
other one, as IMO the process is similar.
JP
>
> >The third step is the individually integration of these sets into a
> >meta set that we call concept.
>
Now reading back what I wrote I guess that this is the moment when we
conceptualize the "chair" by using language.
We do it by switching from parallel processing (sets) to a serial,
linear processing (one meta set, concept).
IMO the linearity of communication process is what forces us to pack as
much information as possible in a concept.
JP
> functionality? suitabilty for purpose? everyone you know
> sees that its a chair, but its also a place you always put
> your overflow of CD's when you're having a nostalgic
> evening in, or stand on it to reach the top shelf, Can it
> really be *concept* after that? Will language cover all of
> those variations under one heading?
No.
JP
> >Now the problem I see it is that because we experience everything
> >differently, perceptually and emotionally, we either don't have all
> >the same sets, or all the elements of these sets in our meta set or
> >concept.
>
> True, so all we can say is that 'a chair' is traditionally
> a seat, its *concept* is governed by a variety of needs and
> influences perhaps? If things exist because we give them
> existences, who's to say what'a chair' actually is? nobody
> can give a definitive answer, but we will all agree on a
> code of behaviour and utility for a timebeing.
These are what I call the associative or value sets of the concept.
JP
>
> >This problem manifests itself in the process of our communication thru
> >the use of verbal language and here is where the naive set theory comes
> >into play.
>
> >As we compare our concepts using or creating intuitively the set theory
> >tools (unions, intersections, etc.) we start to create abstract
> >concepts (universal, complements, etc.).
>
> now would that be 'higher reasoning'? sure if you have a clear
> reference and perameters for usage/behaviour, tho privately
> I think most peoples minds are actively far more creative and
> can generate links than might be feasable in paperwork.
Yes by switching back from serial (meta set or concept) to parallel
processing here (sets).
JP
>
> >Now coming back to your question I think that the language influences
> >the perception in 2 ways:
> >1. If we have been informed previously thru language about the art we
> >have already labeled it using a concept and this concept will influence
> >our perception, IOW the sets included in our concept will interact with
> >new sets created by the physical perception of the art, and here the
> >set theory comes into play.
>
> Yes! if we go to an art gallery we go to see good art. If we
> go to a burger bar we expect a burger. However if you're an
> interior, graphics or textile designer maybe an ad exec or
> session musician, most people won't register that, it works like
> liminals,
>
> >2. If we start with a blank state then the influence will come when we
> >have to communicate it, IOW we will have to use one of the existing
> >language concepts, the one to which the set of perceived
> >characteristics most likely belongs.
>
> maybe so
>
> >Here again the set theory comes into play.
> >Hope it makes sense and if I won't be able sleep again tonight maybe
> >I will come with something else.
>
> I hope you're reunited
>
Thank but not yet, it will take a few more months.
JP
Wolf
The point is that it's a language because there are conventions about
how to string together the spoken symbols. That's grammar, which consist
of syntax, morphology, semantics, and usage. (There are variations on
the terminology used, so don't anyone slag me for using this particular
set.) Once you realise that grammar is an abstraction from the speech,
you can apply the same abstractions to other kinds of symbolisms, and if
you do, you discover that there are non-spoken languages. The current
star example is ASL, in which gestures take the place of sounds. There
is a large body of literature on how ASL and other Deaf languages work.
> I understand that within a conventional structure,
> lets say frinstance, juxtaposing two images and their
> relative position and alignment will connote relationships
> without words, but it is up to us to draw a conclusion
> regards the input/meaning recieved, how we interpret
> what we see is fundamental and clearly unique.
Ok, juxtapose the two symbols e and h. You can do it two ways: eh, he.
Both happen to have conventionally accepted meanings in English, and in
some other languages.
If you are referring to pictures, ie representations of objects, note
that within certain context there is in fact a grammar of such
juxtapositions. Look at a comic strip. Or a movie.
> what
> was that test <thinks> Rorchasch was it? that ink blot
> test, anyhow yes sure, theres a whole history of
> symbolic so called 'meaning' associated with colours,
> shape, compositions, gestures, what-not, that have no
> relevence or bearing on how people *actually* make a
> decisions or preferences, if it were so then absolutly
> nobody would have the feelings that abstract art will
> obviously generate in viewers. I'm left to wonder, if
> by communicating soley by use of a conventional system
> of signs are we somehow at error in thoughts and feelings
> that are unconventional in some way? illusionary perhaps?
While what you say is true enough, it's not relevant to my point about
language as a system of conventional symbols assembled according
conventional rules.
>> Thus, to communicate with pictures, one has to have agreed
>> upon/known/learned/etc conventions of structure (and IMO also content.)
>> In fact, such conventions do exist, eg in ideographic writing systems,
>> in movies, in comic strips, and so on. And also in paintings: see the
>> recent popularisations of scholarly research into the conventional
>> symbols in medieval and Renascence paintings.
>
> A conventional system generally has a set number of signs
> that signify, connote (infer), or to be truly accurate
> denote in transcription or reproduction. Like anyone I
> suppose, we have to have some shared code before we can
> consider communications. Yeh, like everyone, when we werent
> literate and we were learning to read little words, I guess
> we could always fill in the story with the pictures, colors,
> geometry, and symbolism in our illustrated book. There are
> loads of sign systems, eg the 'hobo' sign system or something
> very close must have been around before settled economies.
It's not that simple, actually. Both our speech and our writing begin
with meaningless signs, which achieve meaning only when assembled into
structures which in turn are assembled into more complex structures.
That is, the system is abstract. (IMO, it's the abstractness of language
that enables all other modes of abstraction.) IOW, we could _not_ fill
in the story with pictures, etc -- unless we had some conventional way
of making those pictures and assembling them into a narrative. See the
"picture writing" of Ojibway, etc. IOW, even if we draw li'l pictures,
they would not and could not convey a message reliably unless we had
some rules about how to use those pictures to convey a messge. Which is
the first step towards a writing system.
"A picture is worth a thousand words" -- sure, but which 1,000 words?
Consider a species that doesn't use sound to communicate, but vision. It
would need some way to produce abstract visual symbols. Let's say it has
a ring of li'l lights around its head, which it can turn on and off
individually and in groups, and for different lengths of time. Suppose
too that it can control the direction of the communication, ie, towards
the front or back or any and all sides at once. It doesn't take much to
imagine a Morse-code like patterning of flashes that would communicate
much as spoken language does. If it can control the brightness of the
light, it could shout, even. Or whisper. If it had shutter-like lids
(like on a stage light), it could focus the communication so as to keep
it secret, much like whispering. If it had variable filters, eg by
controlling li'l muscles shaped like diffraction gratings inside its
flashers, it could produce different colours, which might correspond yto
things like intonation in speech. It might even have an accent, ie, its
long flashes might niot be as long as those who flash a different
language. Which of course would arise, since there is no inherent
meaning in flashes of light anymore than there is in bursts of sound. Etc.
>> The minimal structure is contrast in content: there have to be at least
>> two possible contents for an image (or any other perceivable sign) for
>> it to communicate. So the question answers itself: to communicate
>> meanings requires at least the minimal structure exhibited by
>> differences in content, as in the warning calls of birds, etc. This is
>> the simplest "universal structure". Whether there are others is an
>> empirical question, which IMO linguistics has answered.
>
> What are those?
All human languages have means of denoting/expressing: process;
actors/action/acted upon; person (ie, speaker-spoken to-spoken about);
number; time relationships; features or characteristics of objects,
actions, and process; circumstances such as location, direction, manner,
time, social relationship/status/etc, and so on. They all have means of
utilising some kernel symbols in a variety of ways to express/denote the
above. They all have rules of assembling the spoken symbols so as to
differentiate these different functions. In all languages, intonation,
stress, and juncture function to structure the stream of speech, and to
control semantics. In all languages, there are means of differentiating
objects according to criteria that the speakers find meaningful, and a
few of these (such as animate/inanimate, male/female) are universal. In
all languages, gestures of the voice, the face, the hands, the body as
whole accompany, are included in, and modify the meaning of speech. Some
of these are gestures are universal - eg, one can tell "from the tone of
voice" whether a couple is \arguing or merely conversing, regardless of
the language they speak. All languages use a rather small group of
contrasting sounds to assemble the symbols that have meaning (as few as
about a dozen to as many as about four dozen - most use about two
dozen). -- Er, that's about it.
Kindly note that although every language does these things differently
(or, which comes to the same thing, speakers of different languages do
these things differently) "related languages' are related becasue they
do most things the same way or very similarly. Note too that all
languages change over time, because although language is instinctive in
the sense that a human will learn whatever language it's exposed to,
language is also conditioned in that the human will learn a specific
language, and what's more will learn a good deal about what parts of it
to use in what contexts (ie, environmental discriminators control the
language output rather more thoroughly than anti-behaviorists want to
accept.)
>> There exists an example of a thoroughly conventional visual method of
>> communication: ASL. It exhibits all the complexities of spoken language.
>> The fact that grammatically it is analogous to speech IMO suggest very
>> strongly that there is a natural human grammar. All languages have means
>> of indicating actors/objects, actions/processes, and acted-upon objects;
>> and circumstances and features of these fundamental elements of
>> language. One universal feature, for example, is "person", and a whole
>> host of related features, relationships, and circumstances (many though
>> not all of which reflect cultural differences). Other systems of
>> communication exhibit at least some of the same basic grammar. Look at
>> narrative, for example.
>
> When I was studying I quite often used to read a persons body
> gestures, not deliberately, I used to get a feel about what
> someone wanted to expess or put into words.
"Body language" usually refers to the mostly unconscious responses in
posture etc that accompany emotions, and hence are clues to those
emotions, clues that we generally also "read" unconsciously.
> I didnt notice
> that there may be some grammar to it until I had my first
> child. there was an old guy on a train, he seemed self
> occupied a little deaf maybe and quietly miming a thought
> to himself, not aggressive articulation only gestures and
> position. I looked over and he noticed my curiosity,
> put his head up indignantly and then looked embarrassed
> brushing 'imaginary' crumbs from his jacket and trousers
> "as if to say"..........., then almost an instant later
> a bloke who had been waiting to get off the train loudly
> tapped on the glass partition (which is generally a sign
> around here for "attention" or "all quiet if you please")
> In fact it was so novel to me that all sign wasn't
> conventional, that I took it up on purpose for a short
> while, just to see :)
One unanswered AFAIK question is whether all Deaf languages include
signs with "universal" human meaning. Note than many gestures have
purely conventional meanings: eg, nodding the head is "yes" in some
cultures, "no" in others. This fact would suggest that Deaf languages
are equally conventional.
>
>> To put it another way: humans have an instinct to learn language, and
>> will do so if exposed to language. But which language depends of course
>> upon the environment in which the child is raised. If that environment
>> has no language at all, the child will not learn language. Thus, the
>> usual arguments about whether language is conditioned or not are beside
>> the point: it is and it isn't.
It is unconditioned in the sense that language responses will occur in
all children. It is conditioned in the sense that the shaping of these
responses depends on the language environment in which the child grows
up. That shaping accounts for the fact that while all babies can make
/th/, in most European languages that isn't reinforced, so that adult
learners of English have a hell of time learning how to say <th>. In
fact, most adults can't learn a second language accent free.
Furthermore, even hearing the difference between certain sounds may not
be reinforced. Thus, most English speaker not only can't produce the
German or Scots /ch/ sound, they can't hear the difference between <ch>
in "ich" (== "I") and "Bach".
> independence of style in their student, I mean, wheres the
> originality and expansion of creative endeavour if they're
> all fed through a system like battery hens on a production
> line? tho I get your drift here, I'd say more like set a
> drawing brief at the start of a course and the same one a
> year later to see any indication of the direction they wish
> to pursue (then we have to ask them what in heavens name
> do they think they're doing there? right?)
Er, this wasn't done in an art class, but in an English class. I wanted
the students to think about why poetry is difficult to understand - not
because of the words, which are usually those of everyday speech, but
because of the imagery -- which of course is that of the poet, not of
everyone else. QWe all have our own conventional imagery associated with
the words we use. Eg, what sort of tree do you see when you hear the
word "tree"? -- And why, when we do understand the poem, attempting to
express that understanding in any phrasing other than that of the poem
itself will always fall short of embodying what we've understood. That
the best evidence of what we've understood may in fact be another poem.
Or a picture. Or a song. Or a dance... :-)
Which (to allude to another thread) may be the best evidence that a
machine has understood....
HTH
And Happy New Year to you, too.
N
> Wolf wrote:
> >N wrote:
>>> To be brief;
>The point is that it's a language because there are conventions about
>how to string together the spoken symbols. That's grammar, which consist
>of syntax, morphology, semantics, and usage. (There are variations on
>the terminology used, so don't anyone slag me for using this particular
>set.) Once you realise that grammar is an abstraction from the speech,
so grammar can be abstract and conventional, verbatim being
natural I guess (what % natural speech is conventional and
other abstractions, eg use of similitudes etc I don't know)
>you can apply the same abstractions to other kinds of symbolisms, and if
>you do, you discover that there are non-spoken languages. The current
>star example is ASL, in which gestures take the place of sounds. There
>is a large body of literature on how ASL and other Deaf languages work.
I see 'convention' as working like the referential function
in communications. Its a class heading where anything outside
of that can be deemed as an abstraction. For instance, if you
go to a gallery to look at the compositions by painters who
traditionally use standard formula, symbolic and conventional
code, you may almost read the narrative. Within the confines
of a gallery (class 3) and confines of the picture frame and
presentation (class 2) we're left to form an opinion regards
the content and the communicative power of the work of the
artist from our own (class 1) 'dictionary of symbolic components
loosely translated'
If I go to a gallery and view some abstract art, where
there is very little left of a conventional code of symbolism
and no plinth or picture frame, what exactly makes that piece
of work an art form? what reference coordinate do I use or
class heading that can turn my opinion of say a compostion
of found objects into a work of great art? The gallery is one
and the focus of the artist is another. The artist to my mind
is not using a conventional code, s/he is using a private one
where there isnt a standard dictionary for the interpretation
of eg. a chunk of wood nailed to a downspout, or small objet
trouve, encapsulated in suspension of 8" fruit jellies left
all over the dirty but springy floorfloorbords of the artists
studio.
I digress,
> I understand that within a conventional structure,
> lets say frinstance, juxtaposing two images and their
> relative position and alignment will connote relationships
> without words, but it is up to us to draw a conclusion
> regards the input/meaning recieved, how we interpret
> what we see is fundamental and clearly unique.
>Ok, juxtapose the two symbols e and h. You can do it two ways: eh, he.
>Both happen to have conventionally accepted meanings in English, and in
>some other languages.
Ah Ha! it reminded me of 'late' Mr Zicks 'differences between
differences', although these symbols are more conventional
and frequent than the emense sensory imputs we experience
during our life-times,
>If you are referring to pictures, ie representations of objects, note
>that within certain context there is in fact a grammar of such
>juxtapositions. Look at a comic strip. Or a movie.
mannerisms are strange relatives of societal codes, I'm
sure there'll be quite a few artists of comic strips and
filmic story boards who know some traditional techniques
of rendering eg gestures, facial expression, movement and
speed variations etc. Some of these are natural observations
others conventionalizations.
<...>
>While what you say is true enough, it's not relevant to my point about
>language as a system of conventional symbols assembled according
>conventional rules.
>It's not that simple, actually. Both our speech and our writing begin
>with meaningless signs, which achieve meaning only when assembled into
>structures which in turn are assembled into more complex structures.
>That is, the system is abstract. (IMO, it's the abstractness of language
>that enables all other modes of abstraction.) IOW, we could _not_ fill
>in the story with pictures, etc -- unless we had some conventional way
>of making those pictures and assembling them into a narrative. See the
>"picture writing" of Ojibway, etc. IOW, even if we draw li'l pictures,
>they would not and could not convey a message reliably unless we had
>some rules about how to use those pictures to convey a messge. Which is
>the first step towards a writing system.
I don't know, I'd say certain relationships between things
are pretty average and obvious, in fact we take a lot of
them for granted which is why some Surrealism 'is' surreal
I guess.
>>"A picture is worth a thousand words" -- sure, but which 1,000 words?
>Consider a species that doesn't use sound to communicate, but vision. It
>would need some way to produce abstract visual symbols. Let's say it has
>a ring of li'l lights around its head, which it can turn on and off
>individually and in groups, and for different lengths of time. Suppose
>too that it can control the direction of the communication, ie, towards
>the front or back or any and all sides at once. It doesn't take much to
>imagine a Morse-code like patterning of flashes that would communicate
>much as spoken language does. If it can control the brightness of the
>light, it could shout, even. Or whisper. If it had shutter-like lids
>(like on a stage light), it could focus the communication so as to keep
>it secret, much like whispering. If it had variable filters, eg by
>controlling li'l muscles shaped like diffraction gratings inside its
>flashers, it could produce different colours, which might correspond yto
>things like intonation in speech. It might even have an accent, ie, its
>long flashes might niot be as long as those who flash a different
>language. Which of course would arise, since there is no inherent
>meaning in flashes of light anymore than there is in bursts of sound. Etc.
reminds me of octopii, are their communications a convention?
they can open a screw top jar without being taught, so maybe
they have some capacity for 'higher reasoning' tho in a quest
for survival I suppose ' reading the signs' may have come earlier
in our evolution,
>All human languages have means of denoting/expressing: process;
>actors/action/acted upon; person (ie, speaker-spoken to-spoken about);
>number; time relationships; features or characteristics of objects,
>actions, and process; circumstances such as location, direction, manner,
>time, social relationship/status/etc, and so on. They all have means of
>utilising some kernel symbols in a variety of ways to express/denote the
>above. They all have rules of assembling the spoken symbols so as to
>differentiate these different functions. In all languages, intonation,
>stress, and juncture function to structure the stream of speech, and to
>control semantics. In all languages, there are means of differentiating
>objects according to criteria that the speakers find meaningful, and a
>few of these (such as animate/inanimate, male/female) are universal. In
>all languages, gestures of the voice, the face, the hands, the body as
>whole accompany, are included in, and modify the meaning of speech. Some
>of these are gestures are universal - eg, one can tell "from the tone of
>voice" whether a couple is \arguing or merely conversing, regardless of
>the language they speak. All languages use a rather small group of
>contrasting sounds to assemble the symbols that have meaning (as few as
>about a dozen to as many as about four dozen - most use about two
>dozen). -- Er, that's about it.
These are ways of to describe languages using a language.
When we can't come up with a word to describe something we'll
use a gesture perhaps, sometimes this gesture might even be
outlawed in another convention. Where tonal variety isn't used
in language to express a feeling, maybe that ability is used
under the conventions of music? eg, Saami yoik songs describe,
express emotional content, via sounds rather than in words.
some excellent musicians can express meaning without the
traditional convention of signs, jazz has a similar effect on
some people I guess. I suppose the opposite might be...hmmm
Rapping music, where the rhythmic pronunciation, rhyme and
syntax are above required for speech,
>Kindly note that although every language does these things differently
>(or, which comes to the same thing, speakers of different languages do
>these things differently) "related languages' are related becasue they
>do most things the same way or very similarly. Note too that all
>languages change over time, because although language is instinctive in
>the sense that a human will learn whatever language it's exposed to,
>language is also conditioned in that the human will learn a specific
>language, and what's more will learn a good deal about what parts of it
>to use in what contexts (ie, environmental discriminators control the
>language output rather more thoroughly than anti-behaviorists want to
>accept.)
English language is vast I was told because it readily adopts
other languages (there are three ways to say only one word here!
but to the natives each often has a nuance which frequently can
only be interpreted by them, I don't suppose the USA have the
same conventions? )
>"Body language" usually refers to the mostly unconscious responses in
>posture etc that accompany emotions, and hence are clues to those
>emotions, clues that we generally also "read" unconsciously.
I think thats been overrated, theres a lot of different ways
to describe a pervasive feeling of anticipation, I mean what
do you do or write if you know the person you're describing
doesn't show off their emotion?
>One unanswered AFAIK question is whether all Deaf languages include
>signs with "universal" human meaning. Note than many gestures have
>purely conventional meanings: eg, nodding the head is "yes" in some
>cultures, "no" in others. This fact would suggest that Deaf languages
>are equally conventional.
I'd have said that was 'aknowledgement of senders msg (eye contact?)
+ the time it takes to decide (indecison + motivation to express
reasoning processes in action perhaps, or via mimicry) = +/-
conventionalized code for affirmation/negation,(or fed through
dictionary
etc)
>> To put it another way: humans have an instinct to learn language, and
>> will do so if exposed to language. But which language depends of course
>> upon the environment in which the child is raised. If that environment
>> has no language at all, the child will not learn language. Thus, the
>> usual arguments about whether language is conditioned or not are beside
>> the point: it is and it isn't.
I moved home a lot when I was young, and was out of education
and social environments from about 11-16, and I had to learn
verbal social interactions :) I'm not good at conversation
I'm afraid ;/ (much better at body languages.....maybe)
>It is unconditioned in the sense that language responses will occur in
>all children. It is conditioned in the sense that the shaping of these
>responses depends on the language environment in which the child grows
>up. That shaping accounts for the fact that while all babies can make
>/th/, in most European languages that isn't reinforced, so that adult
>learners of English have a hell of time learning how to say <th>. In
>fact, most adults can't learn a second language accent free.
>Furthermore, even hearing the difference between certain sounds may not
>be reinforced. Thus, most English speaker not only can't produce the
>German or Scots /ch/ sound, they can't hear the difference between <ch>
>in "ich" (== "I") and "Bach".
I noticed this, I was always fairly good at picking up an accent
but when I was 16 my new friend said she thought I was from US.
(how did that happen?, movies?, I'm middle English. When I moved
into France I learned 'English', its difficult to explain...
Shakespearian?...)
Whats that African tribe that make a glottal click? anyhow
after a certain age, 9 months? if you havnt developed an ear
for that sound and theres no way to learn it again....but
I can't help thinking that many cultural conventions and
socio/environmental habits that then will develop into skills
which so rightfully have a place in society and sometimes
escape the unfortunate will present themselves in another
manner within the community. So to say, people have naturally
compensated for a loss in one area, with a skill in another.
> OOOh! Wolf! I think many art teachers try to encourage
> independence of style in their student, I mean, wheres the
> originality and expansion of creative endeavour if they're
> all fed through a system like battery hens on a production
> line? tho I get your drift here, I'd say more like set a
> drawing brief at the start of a course and the same one a
> year later to see any indication of the direction they wish
> to pursue (then we have to ask them what in heavens name
> do they think they're doing there? right?)
>Er, this wasn't done in an art class, but in an English class. I wanted
>the students to think about why poetry is difficult to understand - not
>because of the words, which are usually those of everyday speech, but
>because of the imagery -- which of course is that of the poet, not of
>everyone else. QWe all have our own conventional imagery associated with
>the words we use. Eg, what sort of tree do you see when you hear the
>word "tree"? -- And why, when we do understand the poem, attempting to
>express that understanding in any phrasing other than that of the poem
>itself will always fall short of embodying what we've understood. That
>the best evidence of what we've understood may in fact be another poem.
>Or a picture. Or a song. Or a dance... :-)
>Which (to allude to another thread) may be the best evidence that a
>machine has understood....
Thats the problem with free speech, free interpretation,
someone will come along and say ones cogitations are
are evidence tantamount to statement of objectives!. Anyways
hasnt all that something to do with the difference between spacial
and verbal reasoning?
Poetry? is to art as typography is to ..........?
>HTH
>And Happy New Year to you, too.
(I've a date tonight and supposed to be on the lash, he,he
but I started early and habits die hard. I wanna stay home)
:)
Nicki