Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
Charles, I don't understand the purpose of so many posts. Since reading them all is out of the question, and I have no principle of selection that would work, I end up not reading any of them, thogugh some of them must be important or at least inteesting. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
On 5/22/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: As usual, I'm just breaking into the middle of a thread, and I do not know who CeJ is quoting here, but I wholly agree with CeJ on this. The idea of learning how to make a wheel from stories rather than directly from another wheelwright is nothing short of bizarre. ^^ CB: Calling it bizarre is bizarre, with your grunts and snorts version of early human communication. You are out of your gourd. Were they cavemen , too. You read too many cartoons. Of course , the wheelwright uses stories to teach how to build a wheel. Duh. ^^^ That in any case was never the purpose of stories, ancient or modern. They are indeed crucial to human society, more crucial than wheelmaking perhaps, but not because they have the sort of utilitariand use claimed here. CeJ's army anecdote is telling: even skills that _can_ more or less be abstracted into a technical manual (and only in the last couple centuries has that been common) cannot often be mastered without an instructor to _show_ one how to do it. And many skills cannot be so abstracted. Frying eggs, for example: My grandmother could serve soft eggs with the yolks broken ans pread out over much of the white. Now she had the advantage of fresh eggs, but still. One can now buy 'organic' eggs with greatly improved taste, and the yolk does hold better -- but I have tried vainly to recover her skill -- and I doubt very much that a 1000 stories could help much. One has to do it under the practiced eye of someone who has the skill. Browse through any good cookbook. You will find the recipes divide rather neatly into those which guarantee the same produce each time by merely repeating the instructions and those which at crucial points demand some kind of personal sense (gained only through another person who has it or through constaant trial and error, not by following instructinss. And a much greater proportion of pre-modern skills were of the frutying-an-egg rather than mix-these-ingredients-in this-exact-proportion type. In principle, perhaps, someone could have learned how to make pottery on a wheel from some ditty passed down, but I doubt it very much. And no one coulld ever master handmade pottery from a manual. One hint to what (for 'primitive' peoples: i.e. say 30k b.p.) is given by the lady in the play who said how can I know what I think till I see what I say. The 'wisdom' not the technology of the tribe belongs in stories. They would define who they were by the stories they told of where they came from. Carrol CeJ wrote: And stories are exactly it. In a story can be passed on to unborn generations how to make a wheel, how to make a stone axe, or the habits of predators and prey , how to organize a hunt or gathering socially ( brothers relate based on kinship in the hunt or in the defense against a predator, say). Chimps don't have stories like that. Having a wheel or a stone axe is a big adaptive advantage over whomever you might be competing with. The wheel or how to make a stone axe may be invented by some chimp genius, but if there is no way to pass it on When I was in the Army I knew guys who could not read an Army manual if their life depended on it, and yet you could blindfold them and they could take apart, clean, and re-assemble an M2 Browning machine gun. They didn't get this sort of skill because stories of their dead ancestors were passed down and accumulated over thousands of years. They got such dexterity (and lack of literacy) growing up in places like Lynchburg, VA, taking apart cars in their backyards. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
Carrol's vulgar materialist image of wheelwrights as only workers of the hand, and not of the brain, talking to their apprentices, showing them how to make wheels by dumb-speechless gestures and mime, silent imitation, leads to stupid versions of workers as mindless bodies performing like robots. On 5/24/10, c b cb31...@gmail.com wrote: On 5/22/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: As usual, I'm just breaking into the middle of a thread, and I do not know who CeJ is quoting here, but I wholly agree with CeJ on this. The idea of learning how to make a wheel from stories rather than directly from another wheelwright is nothing short of bizarre. ^^ CB: Calling it bizarre is bizarre, with your grunts and snorts version of early human communication. You are out of your gourd. Were they cavemen , too. You read too many cartoons. Of course , the wheelwright uses stories to teach how to build a wheel. Duh. ^^^ That in any case was never the purpose of stories, ancient or modern. They are indeed crucial to human society, more crucial than wheelmaking perhaps, but not because they have the sort of utilitariand use claimed here. ^ CB: Wrong. Songs had big time utilitarian use in very ancient times. ^^^ CeJ's army anecdote is telling: even skills that _can_ more or less be abstracted into a technical manual (and only in the last couple centuries has that been common) cannot often be mastered without an instructor to _show_ one how to do it. And many skills cannot be so abstracted. Frying eggs, for example: My grandmother could serve soft eggs with the yolks broken ans pread out over much of the white. Now she had the advantage of fresh eggs, but still. One can now buy 'organic' eggs with greatly improved taste, and the yolk does hold better -- but I have tried vainly to recover her skill -- and I doubt very much that a 1000 stories could help much. One has to do it under the practiced eye of someone who has the skill. Browse through any good cookbook. You will find the recipes divide rather neatly into those which guarantee the same produce each time by merely repeating the instructions and those which at crucial points demand some kind of personal sense (gained only through another person who has it or through constaant trial and error, not by following instructinss. And a much greater proportion of pre-modern skills were of the frutying-an-egg rather than mix-these-ingredients-in this-exact-proportion type. In principle, perhaps, someone could have learned how to make pottery on a wheel from some ditty passed down, but I doubt it very much. And no one coulld ever master handmade pottery from a manual. One hint to what (for 'primitive' peoples: i.e. say 30k b.p.) is given by the lady in the play who said how can I know what I think till I see what I say. The 'wisdom' not the technology of the tribe belongs in stories. They would define who they were by the stories they told of where they came from. Carrol CeJ wrote: And stories are exactly it. In a story can be passed on to unborn generations how to make a wheel, how to make a stone axe, or the habits of predators and prey , how to organize a hunt or gathering socially ( brothers relate based on kinship in the hunt or in the defense against a predator, say). Chimps don't have stories like that. Having a wheel or a stone axe is a big adaptive advantage over whomever you might be competing with. The wheel or how to make a stone axe may be invented by some chimp genius, but if there is no way to pass it on When I was in the Army I knew guys who could not read an Army manual if their life depended on it, and yet you could blindfold them and they could take apart, clean, and re-assemble an M2 Browning machine gun. They didn't get this sort of skill because stories of their dead ancestors were passed down and accumulated over thousands of years. They got such dexterity (and lack of literacy) growing up in places like Lynchburg, VA, taking apart cars in their backyards. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
What is truly bizarre is lumping an advanced technology--the wheel-- with the most primitive of technologies--the stone ax. On May 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, c b wrote: Carrol's vulgar materialist image of wheelwrights as only workers of the hand, and not of the brain, talking to their apprentices, showing them how to make wheels by dumb-speechless gestures and mime, silent imitation... On 5/22/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: The idea of learning how to make a wheel from stories rather than directly from another wheelwright is nothing short of bizarre. ^^ CB: Calling it bizarre is bizarre, with your grunts and snorts version of early human communication. CeJ wrote: And stories are exactly it. In a story can be passed on to unborn generations how to make a wheel... Having a wheel or a stone axe is a big adaptive advantage over whomever you might be competing with. The wheel or how to make a stone axe may be invented by some chimp genius, but if there is no way to pass it on Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
As usual, I'm just breaking into the middle of a thread, and I do not know who CeJ is quoting here, but I wholly agree with CeJ on this. The idea of learning how to make a wheel from stories rather than directly from another wheelwright is nothing short of bizarre. That in any case was never the purpose of stories, ancient or modern. They are indeed crucial to human society, more crucial than wheelmaking perhaps, but not because they have the sort of utilitariand use claimed here. CeJ's army anecdote is telling: even skills that _can_ more or less be abstracted into a technical manual (and only in the last couple centuries has that been common) cannot often be mastered without an instructor to _show_ one how to do it. And many skills cannot be so abstracted. Frying eggs, for example: My grandmother could serve soft eggs with the yolks broken ans pread out over much of the white. Now she had the advantage of fresh eggs, but still. One can now buy 'organic' eggs with greatly improved taste, and the yolk does hold better -- but I have tried vainly to recover her skill -- and I doubt very much that a 1000 stories could help much. One has to do it under the practiced eye of someone who has the skill. Browse through any good cookbook. You will find the recipes divide rather neatly into those which guarantee the same produce each time by merely repeating the instructions and those which at crucial points demand some kind of personal sense (gained only through another person who has it or through constaant trial and error, not by following instructinss. And a much greater proportion of pre-modern skills were of the frutying-an-egg rather than mix-these-ingredients-in this-exact-proportion type. In principle, perhaps, someone could have learned how to make pottery on a wheel from some ditty passed down, but I doubt it very much. And no one coulld ever master handmade pottery from a manual. One hint to what (for 'primitive' peoples: i.e. say 30k b.p.) is given by the lady in the play who said how can I know what I think till I see what I say. The 'wisdom' not the technology of the tribe belongs in stories. They would define who they were by the stories they told of where they came from. Carrol CeJ wrote: And stories are exactly it. In a story can be passed on to unborn generations how to make a wheel, how to make a stone axe, or the habits of predators and prey , how to organize a hunt or gathering socially ( brothers relate based on kinship in the hunt or in the defense against a predator, say). Chimps don't have stories like that. Having a wheel or a stone axe is a big adaptive advantage over whomever you might be competing with. The wheel or how to make a stone axe may be invented by some chimp genius, but if there is no way to pass it on When I was in the Army I knew guys who could not read an Army manual if their life depended on it, and yet you could blindfold them and they could take apart, clean, and re-assemble an M2 Browning machine gun. They didn't get this sort of skill because stories of their dead ancestors were passed down and accumulated over thousands of years. They got such dexterity (and lack of literacy) growing up in places like Lynchburg, VA, taking apart cars in their backyards. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
On 5/20/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: Just a few random observations as I can't keep up with all the posts on this list or even a single thread. It seems to me that emphasis on utility/communication leads to ar radically distorted view of language, its use, and its history. ^^ CB: This is probably wrong and falls into non-materialism. It is certain that language and culture gave the human species an adaptive advantage in the beginning of the species. After established, its development was no doubt influenced by material necessity at least in the sense of limiting impact. ^^^ If one wants to look to other animals for light on language, don't look at their methods of signalling etc but rather to mutual grooming. A core use of language, and I suspect in fact the use that brought it about and maintains it, is phatic. I presume babies babble even among pre-lingual h.sapiens and adults coo at each other, make sympathetic grunts (that are NOT signals or attempts to communicate but merey (merely!) acknowledge the existence of the other. ^^^ CB: Which is not language, so it doesn't throw a light on language. Language and culture are when some hominid way back when went beyond signals to signs. A qualitative difference between signals and signs is that a third person is present/exists with signs, not with signals or gestures, the third persons being ancestors , tradition. Most gathering activitities are served very well by non-lingual signalling. In fact, conversation (for conversation comes with language) is apt to interfere with such activities. CB: They are not served as well as language, symbols , signs. Gatherers with language have an advantage over gatherers with only signnals. With signs-symbols a gatherer has botany, the experience of previous generations with plants is accumulated and informs the gathering. They have knowledge about poisons, seasonal patterns of growth, mind expanding plants. Of course, gatherers with signs-symbols has both signs and signals. I am strongly suspicious of all utilitarian explanations of the origins or history of language. ^^^ CB: You wouldn't if you based your speculation in evidence about language and pre-literate societies in anthropology. For coordinated use of muscles, uh uh uh UH serves just as well or beter than 1 2 3 heave. Carrol CB: This is exactly wrong. As Marx says, the distinguishing characteristic of human labor is it high level of sociality and plannning. Planning is done with language and symbolling. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. Hunters and gatherers plan their social labor as much as architects. Can't plan with uh, UH, uh. Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.
