1. Chomsky...says, “language evolved, and is designed, primarily as an instrument of thought” [italics mine; p. 22]. Communication, for Chomsky, is secondary.... [source]
Whoa. For some reason I thought Chomsky wouldn't want to touch Sapir-Whorf with a ten foot pole. Granted, Sapir-Whorf didn't propose a theory of language evolution (that I know of), but that's still a whole lot of language-influencing-thought there.
The speech that emerged was not a pidgin or protolanguage, but true language.
Huh? So humans went from 0 to 60 in one generation? I can't quite wrap my mind around that.
Chomsky’s point is that without true language you cannot think deeply enough to gain a survival advantage....
I hope he's not proposing that without language you can't have intelligent thought. I've discussed this before, but Temple Grandin makes a pretty convincing argument for visual thinking and its effectiveness in higher-order cognition (I know I linked to her article on visual thinking in a much-earlier posting here, but I'm too lazy at the moment to dig it up). Granted, there may be/may have been some selective advantage to linguistic thought over visual thought.
Pure thought, which Chomsky says came before any “secondary” linking to a “sensory modality,” is not contaminated by the sound or words, the image of objects, or some other kind of perceptual sensation.
Is this based on any science? Or is it just armchair philosophy? It's interesting either way, but I hope he's not claiming that the idea has more validity than it does.
First, Chomsky's basic position is just a restatement of the old "what good is half an eye?" argument.
Oh no! Chomsky's a closet creationist?!1!
(I have no idea if he is, actually, and I'm not sure I care.)
2. From The Stranger's yearly list of apologies/regrets:
Moreover, Mr. Schmader regrets the inability of countless self-victimizing religious conservatives to understand that being deprived of the ability to oppress another is not the same as being oppressed.
Awesome.
On June 4, Brendan Kiley posted this ad on The Stranger's classifieds page: "Wanted: Intern for The Stranger's Theater Section—the old one has lost consciousness. Must be reliable (seriously, no flakes), available on Monday and/or Tuesday afternoons, and believe mindless data entry is a means to getting head." That should have read: "a means to getting ahead." We regret the error, which confirmed everyone's suspicions about us.
Ha.
There might've been more quotes I wanted, but I'm too lazy to find the rest. I'm noticing a theme tonight....
3. Ha. Someone thought Prop 8 The Musical was a blatant example of Christian-bashing. See quote above.
From here:
INSTANCE #5: Chaplains Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name
Chaplains for the State of Virginia are being denied their right to pray in Jesus' name. Six chaplains were fired for continuing to pray in Jesus' name. Earlier this year in Virginia, Rev. Hashmel Turner, a city councilman in Fredericksburg, was told by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his prayers during city council meetings that ended in Jesus' name will continue to be banned.
Uh. They're not being denied their right to pray, etc. They're being denied the (unconstitutional) privilege of praying in a government building at a government function.
And finally, the #1 Christian Bashing Instance in America for 2008...
INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California
During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person's jobs and pastor's lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.
I agree that vandalism and threatening lives is uncalled for. But come on -- the Christians can't deny that they started it by gay-bashing in the first place. And they weren't threatened for 'exercising their right...to support...traditional marriage." They were threatened for taking away someone else's civil rights. It's almost like the KKK complaining about getting flak for exercising their right to support 'traditional' ethno-cultural values.
4. The things I do for my father's dog.... And does she show one ounce of gratitude?
5. It's hard to believe that this cat used to look like this. Poor guy. Brain parasites that kill your sense of balance and fuck up your metabolism are a bitch.
Whoa. For some reason I thought Chomsky wouldn't want to touch Sapir-Whorf with a ten foot pole. Granted, Sapir-Whorf didn't propose a theory of language evolution (that I know of), but that's still a whole lot of language-influencing-thought there.
The speech that emerged was not a pidgin or protolanguage, but true language.
Huh? So humans went from 0 to 60 in one generation? I can't quite wrap my mind around that.
Chomsky’s point is that without true language you cannot think deeply enough to gain a survival advantage....
I hope he's not proposing that without language you can't have intelligent thought. I've discussed this before, but Temple Grandin makes a pretty convincing argument for visual thinking and its effectiveness in higher-order cognition (I know I linked to her article on visual thinking in a much-earlier posting here, but I'm too lazy at the moment to dig it up). Granted, there may be/may have been some selective advantage to linguistic thought over visual thought.
Pure thought, which Chomsky says came before any “secondary” linking to a “sensory modality,” is not contaminated by the sound or words, the image of objects, or some other kind of perceptual sensation.
Is this based on any science? Or is it just armchair philosophy? It's interesting either way, but I hope he's not claiming that the idea has more validity than it does.
First, Chomsky's basic position is just a restatement of the old "what good is half an eye?" argument.
Oh no! Chomsky's a closet creationist?!1!
(I have no idea if he is, actually, and I'm not sure I care.)
2. From The Stranger's yearly list of apologies/regrets:
Moreover, Mr. Schmader regrets the inability of countless self-victimizing religious conservatives to understand that being deprived of the ability to oppress another is not the same as being oppressed.
Awesome.
On June 4, Brendan Kiley posted this ad on The Stranger's classifieds page: "Wanted: Intern for The Stranger's Theater Section—the old one has lost consciousness. Must be reliable (seriously, no flakes), available on Monday and/or Tuesday afternoons, and believe mindless data entry is a means to getting head." That should have read: "a means to getting ahead." We regret the error, which confirmed everyone's suspicions about us.
Ha.
There might've been more quotes I wanted, but I'm too lazy to find the rest. I'm noticing a theme tonight....
3. Ha. Someone thought Prop 8 The Musical was a blatant example of Christian-bashing. See quote above.
From here:
INSTANCE #5: Chaplains Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name
Chaplains for the State of Virginia are being denied their right to pray in Jesus' name. Six chaplains were fired for continuing to pray in Jesus' name. Earlier this year in Virginia, Rev. Hashmel Turner, a city councilman in Fredericksburg, was told by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his prayers during city council meetings that ended in Jesus' name will continue to be banned.
Uh. They're not being denied their right to pray, etc. They're being denied the (unconstitutional) privilege of praying in a government building at a government function.
And finally, the #1 Christian Bashing Instance in America for 2008...
INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California
During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person's jobs and pastor's lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.
I agree that vandalism and threatening lives is uncalled for. But come on -- the Christians can't deny that they started it by gay-bashing in the first place. And they weren't threatened for 'exercising their right...to support...traditional marriage." They were threatened for taking away someone else's civil rights. It's almost like the KKK complaining about getting flak for exercising their right to support 'traditional' ethno-cultural values.
4. The things I do for my father's dog.... And does she show one ounce of gratitude?
5. It's hard to believe that this cat used to look like this. Poor guy. Brain parasites that kill your sense of balance and fuck up your metabolism are a bitch.
Labels: animals, anthropology, autism, fundamentalism, language, narcissism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home