This doesn't look like such an enormous dichotomy to me. Why must it be an "either/or" scenario? A dialogue, conversation, between the idea and the linguistic, where each informs the other? Julie Krueger On 10/14/07, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Pondering the conversation about what goes on before we speak, I note > that two possibilities are in play. > > 1. Classical--We possess ideas of which we are partly or wholly > unaware until they are spoken. Cf. Plato, Leibniz (rebutting Locke), > Chomsky, Freud. > > 2. Modern--Ideas only emerge as we speak them. What goes on inside us > is a confluence of pre-linguistic processes that crystallize at the > moment we speak. Cf. Vico, Minsky,Klein a good deal of current > research in such fields as psychology and political science that > indicates that processes conventionally described as "emotional" > proceed those described as "rational," which turn out, more often than > not, to be after the fact rationalizations of decisions already made. > > John > > -- > John McCreery > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN > Tel. +81-45-314-9324 > http://www.wordworks.jp/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html >