These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 10 June 2011 00:14, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote: > Huw: > Do you suppose that there is any, or do you experience any, relationship > between any particular phone, when heard, and a particular feeling-reaction. Yes, I do suppose. > If we admit that there is no perception without being affected by the thing > perceived, then phones must affect us. So, what is the effect of a given > phone? Fear of phone spam in my case. > Are we affected identically by all phones or differently by different > phones? Differently, for me. > What is the mechanism of non-verbal, vocal communication in humans and > other species? My hypothesis is that it is various degrees of dialogical appreciation, dependent on the sophistication of the nervous system. > If we are, in fact, affected feeling-wise by our specific phones, then how > is our subliminal perception of things affected by the vocal sounds we use > to refer to them? > I'd say that the tone (timbre) of our sounds is, to some degree, a function of our affect, etc. There are more subtleties, ofcourse. In a particular mood, particular images (including words) will come to mind. > I see that the preponderance of spoken language's communicative > function takes place subconsciously. Do you recognize or look for the > subconscious effects on us of the sounds we use to form our spoken words? > On occasion. > On a personal note, do you sense any arrogance in your reply to my > last e-mail? No. Mostly clarity. Take care though, Joseph. Some people find it very easy to project their experiences. > First you identify yourselves as "scientists and schlors". No. I identified. Note that this list is not comprehensive. Here be scholars and scientists doesn't exclude readers and those of curious minds. I think this kind of error is making things difficult for you, Joseph. Very well. So you are... I already knew that. Therefore, what? I am > heartened to hear you refer to your group as "A well meaning and thoughtful > bunch". That is something we all should strive for. Were you saying that I > was "inflicting you with help"? Were you saying that I was not being > "precise" enough for the purposes of this exchange? Finally, I was not > intentionally aksing questions, but rather sharing thoughts on a subject > with which you seemingly deal. A questioner/requester, in the your context, > is a supplicant. Are you suggesting that I assume that role here? > None other than the basic protocol of genuine assistance. Without good feedback that is sought out, we're lost. > As a matter of personal curiouity; what answers were you seeking > that caused you to pursue these studies? > Pretty much as it says on the members list. > I was looking to understand how we are, as a species, affected by > our spoken language, - our culture. > There's plenty to wonder about there. It's obviously something you have lots of energy for. Huw > > J. Gilbert > > > On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > On 9 June 2011 20:22, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> >> Dear All: >>> >>> I do not intend to offend, however faced with the choice in front of me >>> of >>> withdrawing from this forum or of sharing my perspective on spoken >>> language, >>> I choose the later. If one is passionately pursuing understanding, one, >>> above all else, looks for the causes of whatever one is seeking to >>> understand. I am not interested in participating in pointless chit-chat >>> as a >>> social activity/exercise. And I am not much interested in what others who >>> came before have said about my subject of interest, if their >>> pronouncements >>> do not facilitate my own understanding. I have found the information I >>> wish >>> to share only by focusing on the fundamental causative forces that >>> produced >>> spoken language. >>> >> >> If those I would like to share my findings with would be more >> >>> concerned with delving into the matter before us, and be willing to >>> sincerely look for answers, than they are to maintain and defend their >>> assumed position, I believe a genuine dialog could take place. Rarifying >>> the >>> discussion by unnecessarily complicating the search for clarity creates a >>> false aura of expertise around those who are initiated into the lingo, >>> and >>> seems to enable them to establish and protect their status as >>> gate-keepers >>> for the ivory-towered dispensers of "truth". >>> >>> >> xmca is an extension of a (scientific) journal, mca. Here be scientists >> and >> scholars. A well meaning and thoughtful bunch, mind you. However, to >> avoid >> being inflicted with help, some precision is required. If you want to >> increase the chances of a particular kind of answer, or dialogue, you'll >> need to ask a particular kind of question/request. >> >> Huw >> __________________________________________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca