From: Saicho-AT-aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: PLC: Chickens and guns Howard Hastings statement: “I.e., There is no intrinsic connection between intentions and signs. The former must be reconstructed on the basis of the latter, as these are understood by a culturally and historically situated interpreter. How a sign behaves or "acts" for an interpreter depends upon the cultural andbehavior codes the interpreter employs to decode it. It is as possible for a picture of an Uzi or an Uzi in a museum to seem as threatening as person who pulls one out of her brief case. It possible for the latter not to seem threatening at all." is very well stated -- I was about, until I read his post, to make similar remarks. I will only add this: as we bring our intellect and reasoning power to bear on what we confront, we more quickly bring our feeling self -- our more primal instincts, if you will, and react first as a result of those feelings; FEAR PRECEDES REFLECTION. I hope that goes without saying, (to employ a paralepsis in keeping with Reg's post.) If I am right in this it can persuasively argued that symbols and signs, designed to act on fear can do so entirely without intention (necessarily)being involved . Dennis seems to believe that we analyze everything. We do not -- at least at first. The ability to reflect and analyze surely was developed long after the ability to get the hell out of harms way as fast as possible, using all that pumped up adrenaline our system produced sans any intellectualizing. We still do this to a large degree, although Dennis might think it silly that we do. (Dennis's position reminds me of the cute little bumper sticker I see around these parts that sez: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Very catchy.) Regards, Saicho
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005