air conditioning may be making us fat
in [Europe]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 12:50 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > "to communicate" and "to understand" are not synonyms. They are in this context. If communication occurs, understanding is guaranteed. If understanding occurs, communication has also occurred. There is no communication where there is no understanding, and there is no understanding where there is no communication. > Besides, people have communicated for centuries before information > theory was set up. True, but they were still following rules elucidated by information theory. > They don't use it only for GSM-phones textos, but also on the Internet, > on their handwritten flyouts, and sometimes even in their school > papers. For the same technical reasons. > And it has no enforced rules. Yes, it does, otherwise it would be a waste of time. > The imagination of kids is far beyond you seem to think. It has nothing to do with imagination. > I fear that you have not enough first-hand experience with teens when I > read this ! It has nothing to do with teens. It has everything to do with the limitations of current technology. > No, they can also blow up every given set of rules. No, they cannot--not if they wish to communicate. > And there is absolutely no demand that the reader tunes himself onto the new set of > rules (if any). Were that true, nobody could read poetry ! The only way to communicate is through shared rules. No rules = no communication. > But you seem to think that the only purpose of a language is > disambiguation ! The purpose of a language is communication. Some people think language is an end in itself, but the vast majority of the world uses it only for its nominal purpose, and takes no interest in language itself. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 15 Jul 2006 12:56 Le 15/07/2006, Mxsmanic a ?crit : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> The last sentence of this poem has a very twisted grammar and syntax. >> It is obviously incorrect by French rules. > > It uses odd vocabulary and has an odd structure. I'm not sure I see > anything incorrect, however. / le seul vivant pour qui la libert? a cess? d'?tre maladive, qui me brise la bouche, lui du silence, et moi du cri/ The syntax breaks for no apparent reason. >> Yet it sends thrills through my eyes when I read it. Isn't that >> _communication_ ? > > To an extent. But it only works for you because you closely share a > common culture with the author that establishes _rules_ to which you > both adhere, whether you realize this or not. What you read thus > evokes something presumably very close to what the author had in mind. > But the sentence does not so operate for someone who does not share > acquired knowledge and assumptions to the extent that the two of you > do. But if you read the opening sentences, you see the word "Hellade". The context is immediately set up : the poem is about Greece. The wonders of ancient Greece are described in the simple past tense, so obviously Ren? Char sets himself into modern Greece. Then you read "une raison ?trang?re tente de ch?tier sa perfection". The "raison ?trang?re" refers both to the Nazis and the English occupation forces. It's not hard then to figure out that the poem is an hymn to Greek national uprising after WWII ! > To me, for example, the text means nothing, like most poetry. Don't underestimate yourself ! > A > characteristic of poetry is that it adumbrates a great deal, but means > virtually nothing. Any communication that occurs is out of band with > respect to the text proper, and people who enjoy poetry enjoy it > because of the out-of-band communication and the scope it encompasses. > Unfortunately, OOB communication requires a great deal of common > thinking between author and reader, which is why poetry is of little > practical value in normal communication. One can also appreciate poetry for its aesthetics. No "communication", no "meaning" out there : just beauty. In a way it's closely related to music. What does Brahms violin concerto /mean/ ? -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 13:01 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > / le seul vivant pour qui la libert? a cess? d'?tre maladive, qui me > brise la bouche, lui du silence, et moi du cri/ > > The syntax breaks for no apparent reason. What part of the syntax is broken? > But if you read the opening sentences, you see the word "Hellade". The > context is immediately set up : the poem is about Greece. The wonders > of ancient Greece are described in the simple past tense, so obviously > Ren? Char sets himself into modern Greece. > > Then you read "une raison ?trang?re tente de ch?tier sa perfection". > The "raison ?trang?re" refers both to the Nazis and the English > occupation forces. > > It's not hard then to figure out that the poem is an hymn to Greek > national uprising after WWII ! The poem means nothing to me. > Don't underestimate yourself ! Poetry, as I have explained, depends upon a commonality of rules and assumptions between author and reader. I have virtually nothing in common with poets, and so I do not understand what they write. It's rather like a vandal spray-painting a swastika on a wall. The swastika evokes something for some people seeing it if they share the same rules and assumptions as the vandal; for others, the swastika evokes nothing, or it evokes something entirely different from what the vandal had in mind (given that the swastika is very widely used in the world for many different purposes). > One can also appreciate poetry for its aesthetics. No "communication", > no "meaning" out there : just beauty. Only if one is interested in language as an end in itself, which most people are not. > In a way it's closely related to music. Most lyrics are poetry. However, music itself follows much more universal rules, particularly when it comes to music that enjoys wide popularity. > What does Brahms violin concerto /mean/ ? Nothing. Few aspects of music have been assigned meaning. People generally listen to music because of the way it sounds, not because of any meaning it might have (practically the opposite of language). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 15 Jul 2006 13:05 Le 15/07/2006, Mxsmanic a ?crit : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> "to communicate" and "to understand" are not synonyms. > > They are in this context. If communication occurs, understanding is > guaranteed. If understanding occurs, communication has also occurred. > There is no communication where there is no understanding, and there > is no understanding where there is no communication. As you write it, you can't be beaten there. But what about enthrallment then? Maybe you don't feel it, but I can be subjugated by language. >> Besides, people have communicated for centuries before information >> theory was set up. > > True, but they were still following rules elucidated by information > theory. > >> They don't use it only for GSM-phones textos, but also on the Internet, >> on their handwritten flyouts, and sometimes even in their school >> papers. > > For the same technical reasons. Technical reasons ? about handwriting ? I'm afraud I don't understand. >> And it has no enforced rules. > > Yes, it does, otherwise it would be a waste of time. >> The imagination of kids is far beyond you seem to think. > > It has nothing to do with imagination. It has much to do with imaginations. They use shortenings that are extremely cunning and take time to decipher. >> I fear that you have not enough first-hand experience with teens when I >> read this ! > > It has nothing to do with teens. It has everything to do with the > limitations of current technology. Why is it that so many teens use them and comparatively fewer adults ? >> But you seem to think that the only purpose of a language is >> disambiguation ! > > The purpose of a language is communication. Some people think > language is an end in itself, but the vast majority of the world uses > it only for its nominal purpose, and takes no interest in language > itself. Do you think that the vast majority uses it for its "nominal" purpose 100% of the time ? That leaves not a second for art and poetry ? I don't think so. Poetry is found into languages spoken centuries ago and now dead. It's embedded into language, IMO. -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 13:54
Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > As you write it, you can't be beaten there. But what about enthrallment > then? That requires communication, also, which in turn requires observance of rules. > Technical reasons ? about handwriting ? I'm afraud I don't understand. GSM phones and other methods of communication often require touch-typing skills to be efficient, or use keyboards so small that they are very awkward to use quickly even with a great deal of practice. These problems have given rise to the abbreviated communication you mention among teens (and others). If the problems were not there, nobody would have invented such abbreviated writing. I don't even use SMS for the most part, because I'm unwilling to write in bizarre codes, and I prefer a full-size keyboard, because I can touch-type very quickly on a standard keyboard. > It has much to do with imaginations. They use shortenings that are > extremely cunning and take time to decipher. Hardly. They may seem cunning to you because you do not dedicate as much time to coming up with them as they do. > Why is it that so many teens use them and comparatively fewer adults ? Adults aren't big fans of SMS to begin with, and they can afford to pay for voice calls instead of SMS messages. Teens spend almost all their waking hours socializing, so they are strongly motivated to communicate by voice and SMS. And SMS is cheaper and provides deferred messaging. > Do you think that the vast majority uses it for its "nominal" purpose > 100% of the time ? Yes. > That leaves not a second for art and poetry ? Art and poetry don't occupy much time in most people's lives. > I don't think so. Poetry is found into languages spoken centuries ago and > now dead. It's embedded into language, IMO. It's a deformation of language, actually. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |