Re: Mutual Intelligibility +Science fiction

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: mike salovesh: "AAA meeting and ANTHRO-L'ers"
• Previous message: Rob Quinlan: "intelligibility"

Another dumb Question.
What Do "WE" mean by mutual intelegibility?

It seems to me that if one assumes that interhuman mutual
intelegibility is possable, one has it at some level or another- if
only in so far as a mutually recognised intent to communicate.
It is this common recognition of the intent to communicate that
provides the mutual basis for intelegibility in the long run. Short
term unintelegibility is reflective and expressive only of a low "WE"
component in the communication- even when communicating with
computors. (note: when communicating with computors one in fact is
communicating (albiet very indirectly) with the programmer, and the
chip architect's -that is why DOS, Unix, and Mac users are only just
able to intercommunicate. They only share extremely limited portions
of the Data that programers in these various environments share.
Give them a two day dive in the deep end experience with an abaccas
and they be communicating like crazy, intelegibly.
That is my opinion.
Perhaps the reason why anthropologists have such a perchant for
science fiction is that it provides a literary medium which is
intelegible through the exercise of imaginary social theory to
develop and explain other societies and cultural complexs. ie.
science fiction and Anthropology to put it simply use similar "head
tools" and focuses on compatable questions. They share a common
ontology.- note well I think " ontology" is the appropriate concept,
but since I am not certain I'll try it. Mutual intelegibility is
based on such trial and error - All though my formal field
experience is limited it does seem to me that all intelegibility is
founded on such experimentation and that often one doesn't find out
until much later that what you thought intellegible was infact
merely coherant, but in the meantime it provided the basis for
developing the commonstuff that effects mutual intelegibility.
Whoops another opinion.
John W.
Auckland. ps. my atrocious speelling doesn't seem to affect my
intellegibility. or does it?

• Next message: mike salovesh: "AAA meeting and ANTHRO-L'ers"
• Previous message: Rob Quinlan: "intelligibility"