[Jim Dundon 05.25.07.1134edt]
[From Bill Powers (2007.05.24.1304 MDT)]
Jim Dundon 05.24.07.1344edt.--
In an account of the beginnings of PCT you mentioned your
cooperative effort with some one named Bob to develope word trees
and discovered that
"people don't/can't control meanings of words, what they control are
Yes, that was Bob Clark.
"A percept is a unit of experience" BP
If so it must have been identified, given existance, with a phonetic
tag, a word.
We seem to have exactly opposite ideas about this. Here is mine:
A perception exists first.
Okay. You can now say that only because you have sufficient information in the form of named experiences to be able to name the experience of "there are experiences/perceptions/neural signals taking place that i am not conciously aware of." You can only say that after you have named all those experiences, including the named experience of "not conciuosly aware of." It also now becomes a thing you can use.
This is giving it a place in a time line as being at place earlier than something else, the naming, Not simultaneous. Looks like A causes B, or SR
as a perceptual signal, a train of impulses
in a sensory nerve fiber.
Brought about by environmental conditions,
after whuch we can choose to name it
This sounds like SR
How do we know its a perception? Are we supposed to just know? Where did the word/concept/perception come from.? What need did its creation satisfy? What drove the production of the word? How do we know we have the right word? What came first, the verb or the noun? Perceiving must have come before the noun percept so what force drives the noun to preeminance?
At each level, new perceptual signals are
created by combining perceptual signals from the level(s) below.
Words are perceptions -- either auditory sounds or visual marks.
They, too, exist as neural signals. At some level in the brain, we
use word-perception signals to stand for other kinds of perceptual
Exactly. But we can only know/say that after we experience and name the experiences.
and manipulate the word-signals using the rules of logic,
language, and whatever else applies. Language is not the same thing
as direct experience.
Language has its origins in direct experience. The experience must start, as you have indicated, before we can have a word, but it must continue through the naming of that experience. It must continue long enough to be tagged or it cannot be named. That naming is a direct experience. It is emotional. When I am naming it, that naming is an act, when I give birth to the word rain, I am "raining" my experiencing. I am attatching many perceptions, direct body sensations, including those of the sixth or kinaesthetic sense to the word rain. In raining my experience I give birth to, create, burgeon, logos, the word rain. There is a moment of creation. The word becomes a thing I can look at. When it becomes a thing, it is no longer direct. Language is not the same thing as direct experience, but languaging is. Indirect language is rooted in the direct experiencing of languaging. If not where does it come from? Science? God? What command, what reference signal says "language". It looks to me like "I feel chaotic and I want order", or "i want to be more sure of things," or "I want to predict." or "I want to stay alive." it is probably "all of them together, one after the other" F.M. Alexander.
In this touch averse society we are accustomed to denying the physical direct origins of words
To me, if I am using a word I am simultaneously making it, using it, defining it, changing it, and letting it, being it.
It's necessary to be able to perceive something before you can name
Still a time line.
Has SR written all over it
You can perceive and control any perception without first calling
I agree. But it still sounds like SR because of the time line.
Learning to look behind the words at the experiences to
which they point is an important part of understanding PCT.
Experiences PCT dictates.
Experiences meanings,that you and several others have agreed on shall constitute PCT
That is what I meant when I said your model is limiting your prototype.
The meanings of words are perceptions taken from our own experiences;
words serve as pointers to those recorded perceptions. This is why
we can say
words do not have the same meanings for everybody.
or the same meaning at all levels,to the same person, from moment to moment, day to day, week to week, etc..
If you say why, do you mean the cause? does it not look like what you call a why is also a more detailed description of the what, like little whats or subwhats?