15.1142, Sum: Looking for Ludwig?

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-15-1142. Wed Apr 7 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.1142, Sum: Looking for Ludwig?

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Steve Moran <steve at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:27:57 -0700
From:  "Steve Deiss" <deiss at appliedneuro.com>
Subject:  Summary of Responses to "Looking for Ludwig" (3/24/04)

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:27:57 -0700
From:  "Steve Deiss" <deiss at appliedneuro.com>
Subject:  Summary of Responses to "Looking for Ludwig" (3/24/04)



RE: LINGUIST List 15.1015
	
Summary of Responses to "Looking for Ludwig" (3/24/04)
	
There have been a number of useful suggestions for me to follow up on
regarding this notion of meaning.  The following have been mentioned:
Paul Grice's emphasis on communicator intentions and words as tools of
influence, Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory, and W. Diver's
instrumental view.  David Bohm and Christopher Gauker were also
mentioned, though not in the same breath.  All of these sound related
though many fine distinctions could be drawn no doubt.  A. Damasio,
the neurologist, was not mentioned, but I encourage all to read some
of his recent work.
	
It was also suggested that there is not much new in what I proposed
though I have not been able to find anything yet that puts emphasis on
the grounding of semantics in feelings on the recipient end, though
intentions and goals, close relatives of desires, are getting close to
feelings on the sender end.  If my conjecture is right, communications
are meaningless to the recipients who do not literally feel they
understand what was intended.  That may be new.
	
I have plenty to read now, and I thank everyone who corresponded with
me, especially those who spent some time at it, and who provided good
leads.  If my journeys lead me to comment further, I'll do it on my
web site, and post a pointer to it here.
	
I think we are all in the process of witnessing humanity being turned
inside out by careful scientific analysis of what it is to be human,
aware, and able to act and communicate.  Understanding meaning in the
wider sense is a goal worth pursuing.

	
Thanks !
	

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-1142