If Music Could Talk

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote: Yes. yes it is wrong. Your brain should default to the most attractive breast type for you. That's normal, man.

And you're saying it doesn't? There is a difference between what pops in my head immediately and whether I should assume that that's what the other person means.

Wolter: Hey, you like music?
Me (thinking): Yeah, Cocteau Twins make great music.
Me: Wow, you're a Cocteau Twins fan?
Wolter: What are you, a chimp?

Hence the clarification request.

I think that's a weak analogy.

Change it to a genre. Me talking to a country music fan. He asks me if I like listening to music. I say yes, because I do. He puts it on the Inbred Music Network. I'm in hell.

Ouch. That's really mean to country.

Ah, so you made the assumption that I hate all country music. I like a lot of the older, twangy country, especially the stuff that you could see evolve into early rock. The mainstream country music is awful. You should have asked for clarification.

The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

Bingo.

In linguistics we call it a prototype.

Oh, and I think it's mean to call mainstream country "inbred." Do you call hip hop "criminal/lumpen music"?

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

No, I'd think your basic old eye, especially if there's no context surrounding it. If you said, "Ow, my fucking eye," I might lean to something red or otherwise non-pristine. But just saying "eye," I'd probably say, "What about it?" Looking for more context.

eumaas wrote:Oh, and I think it's mean to call mainstream country "inbred." Do you call hip hop "criminal/lumpen music"?

No, because my prejudices don't walk down that road. They do, however, make me look down on generic country music fans as inbred rednecks. It's not true, but it's stated for effect to convey my contempt for a crappy type of music and often right wing politics of the fans.

I have had this notion that what we may need, rather than capitalism, is to combine some form of socialism with a grass roots anti-technology fervor, for lack of better terms, perhaps even tapping into a religious belief that capitalism is what is evil, not people (ala Christianity), or at least that the potential of evil in people, if allowed to show itself, shows itself as capitalism, greed and the resulting unnecessary (and ultimately destructive - i.e. global warming, etc.) technological developments. This would of course involve a sacrifice (or modification) of the American dream of ladder climbing to the golden heights of the Hollywood hills. Perhaps we could tap into an earlier American dream or ideal (even if it only exists in hindsight) of a native or frontier-like American living. I realize this would likely involve reanalysis of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but the taboo of that combination stems from annoyingly uptight puritan types fleeing an overzealous and too powerful Catholic church, neither of which really exist in that same form today. Plus the division isn't real anyhow, especially after 8 years of W and his pals and the reemergence of crusades.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

No, I'd think your basic old eye, especially if there's no context surrounding it. If you said, "Ow, my fucking eye," I might lean to something red or otherwise non-pristine. But just saying "eye," I'd probably say, "What about it?" Looking for more context.

Ahem.

dpwolf wrote:I have had this notion that what we may need, rather than capitalism, is to combine some form of socialism with a grass roots anti-technology fervor, for lack of better terms, perhaps even tapping into a religious belief that capitalism is what is evil, not people (ala Christianity), or at least that the potential of evil in people, if allowed to show itself, shows itself as capitalism, greed and the resulting unnecessary (and ultimately destructive - i.e. global warming, etc.) technological developments. This would of course involve a sacrifice (or modification) of the American dream of ladder climbing to the golden heights of the Hollywood hills. Perhaps we could tap into an earlier American dream or ideal (even if it only exists in hindsight) of a native or frontier-like American living. I realize this would likely involve reanalysis of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but the taboo of that combination stems from annoyingly uptight puritan types fleeing an overzealous and too powerful Catholic church, neither of which really exist in that same form today. Plus the division isn't real anyhow, especially after 8 years of W and his pals and the reemergence of crusades.

The guy who gives me a ride to work has the same basic analytical instincts that the early socialists noticed in the working class of the 19th century. A lot of folks do. So to describe anarchism, I talk about mutual aid and the golden rule. I quote Jesus on it. A society built contrary to the golden rule will not be a healthy one.

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

No, I'd think your basic old eye, especially if there's no context surrounding it. If you said, "Ow, my fucking eye," I might lean to something red or otherwise non-pristine. But just saying "eye," I'd probably say, "What about it?" Looking for more context.

Ahem.

What, you need to cough? I revealed my own bias there. Mention "eye" to a veterinarian and she might thing of a cat's eye. If I say "butt" to you, you're going to think of your preferred butt. Is yours the same as mine? Are we thinking of the same butt as our default? We see two girls walk by. One has a pretty big ass, the other is smaller but still round and firm. You say, "Check out that ass?" I know which one I'm going to look at right away, but how do I know you're talking about the same one?

eumaas wrote:So to describe anarchism, I talk about mutual aid and the golden rule. I quote Jesus on it. A society built contrary to the golden rule will not be a healthy one.

I agree, the present society being a prime example. Jesus may have said it but it's not a Christian belief.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

No, I'd think your basic old eye, especially if there's no context surrounding it. If you said, "Ow, my fucking eye," I might lean to something red or otherwise non-pristine. But just saying "eye," I'd probably say, "What about it?" Looking for more context.

Ahem.

What, you need to cough? I revealed my own bias there. Mention "eye" to a veterinarian and she might thing of a cat's eye. If I say "butt" to you, you're going to think of your preferred butt. Is yours the same as mine? Are we thinking of the same butt as our default? We see two girls walk by. One has a pretty big ass, the other is smaller but still round and firm. You say, "Check out that ass?" I know which one I'm going to look at right away, but how do I know you're talking about the same one?

The point is that you admit to having a prototype for "eye" that is "your basic old eye," yet you claim to have no prototype for "tits/boobs" or else it's one of nasty tits. That you admit to having a "basic old eye" weakens your argument.

Incidentally, I have different prototypes for "tits" and "boobs." Tits = a small set, boobs = a larger set. It's a case of sound symbolism along the vocalic front/back distinction.

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:The problem with all of these analogies is that we're just talking about what your brain defaults to when given a noun. Not the imposition of that on others. If I said "eye" to you, would you really need to ask whether I meant "Eye with conjunctivitis" before you pictured an eye?

No, I'd think your basic old eye, especially if there's no context surrounding it. If you said, "Ow, my fucking eye," I might lean to something red or otherwise non-pristine. But just saying "eye," I'd probably say, "What about it?" Looking for more context.

Ahem.

What, you need to cough? I revealed my own bias there. Mention "eye" to a veterinarian and she might thing of a cat's eye. If I say "butt" to you, you're going to think of your preferred butt. Is yours the same as mine? Are we thinking of the same butt as our default? We see two girls walk by. One has a pretty big ass, the other is smaller but still round and firm. You say, "Check out that ass?" I know which one I'm going to look at right away, but how do I know you're talking about the same one?

The point is that you admit to having a prototype for "eye" that is "your basic old eye," yet you claim to have no prototype for "tits/boobs" or else it's one of nasty tits. That you admit to having a "basic old eye" weakens your argument.

No, I'm admitting that my own bias is towards a generic eye. It helps that eyes, other than to a specialist, don't come in as many shapes and sizes as boobs. I'm not a specialist, so there you go.

Incidentally, I have different prototypes for "tits" and "boobs." Tits = a small set, boobs = a larger set. It's a case of sound symbolism along the vocalic front/back distinction.

And there's an assumption that you, I presume, wouldn't make about others. Others would see no problem in saying "huge tits" or "small boobs."

Addendum: oh, and linguistics shows that we have some basic overlap in our prototypes or we couldn't talk at all. You're throwing in minority outliers that are irrelevant. When people think of "bird," they tend to think of prototypes within a closed range of family resemblance. As I recall a study showed that in the US, the most frequent concrete prototype for "bird" was the robin. There may be someone out there who sees "bird" and thinks "flamingo," but again they're outside the norm. If somebody sees "boobs" and thinks of hängentitten, it's irrelevant--I'm certain you'll find the commonest prototype for "tits" or "boobs" is not of this kind. This is well-trod ground.

Dr. Medulla wrote:No, I'm admitting that my own bias is towards a generic eye. It helps that eyes, other than to a specialist, don't come in as many shapes and sizes as boobs. I'm not a specialist, so there you go.

The more restricted variations among eyes (to a layman) does not improve your argument. Are boobs so multifarious to the layman that there is no common prototype?

One of the points of Zen Buddhist (at least Rinzai) practice is to get out of abstractions, which Zen argues are all hypostatized. Prototypes are one such abstraction. In reality, "tits" and "boobs" don't exist at all. These are all contrivances of communication. But unless you're a Zen master, I'm pretty sure you haven't broken out of abstractions and prototypes. It is unreasonable and uncharitable to assume against a common tits prototype in favor of either a Zen-like distance from abstractions or a minority abstraction.