File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9709, message 44


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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005