[lit-ideas] Re: Tune in and turn off

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:04:36 -0400

> [Original Message]
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/24/2006 8:20:19 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Tune in and turn off
>
>
>  
> > >That 
> > > there are 'four basic (sic) ways' for people to express their emotions
> > > needs some evidence. 
>
> I think it can be argued that there are three basic *negative* emotions,
to
> whit - anger, sadness, anxiety [all 'dysphoria' to the Greeks]. There are
> many, many ways of *expressing* these emotions. It is a mistake to regard
the
> possible limited number of types of emotion as setting a limit to the
ways of
> expressing these emotions. 


I agree.  Expressing in this context equates to acting out.  Expression can
be anything at all.  I would also distinguish between emotions and
feelings.  Anxiety isn't really an emotion.  It's the vague turbulence, for
lack of a better word, for what goes on when an emotion is submerged.  Get
to the anger, hatred, grief or fear and the anxiety will go away. Sadness
is a more nuanced emotion, it's also important.  



>
> >Why the 20th century was the
> > bloodiest in history, and on and on.  
>
> Because of mass destruction and mass population. Yet, per capita - and war
> aside, the murder rate has gone down markedly in the last several
centuries.
>


But why the mass destruction?  Per capita or not, there were many tens of
millions killed.  Tens of millions.  I think the problem might be that tens
of millions is an abstraction.  To think about it is too hard, it shuts one
down, numbs one out.   



> >We think in words.  If we don't
> > have a language, we literally can't think.  
>
> We sometimes think in words, but many of our thoughts are not in words -
for
> example, I could recognise [in thought]if the creases in my trousers were
> altered even if I would struggle to describe in language the differing
> character of the creases. I might clearly recognise my assailant though I
> would struggle to describe him in language that would clearly allow
another
> to recognise him (that's why the police hire artists to translate such
> descriptions into a picture).  
>


Yes, but you know the word crease.  You know the word assail.  How would
you think about these situations if you had no words?  Turn off the volume
on your television and follow the action and see how far you get.  That's
what living without language is like every day for one's whole life.




> To think all thought is language-dependent is just one of the prejudices
of
> the cunning linguists who have deformed rational thought on this topic.
>

Rather than prejudice, I would say it's egocentric to think that someone
who has no language can think the same way as someone with language.  How
do you ask for lunch if you don't have a language?



> Donal
> Hi Mike
> Nice poem
> England
>
>  
>
>
>
>               
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup
tickets. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: