Re: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.

Adrian wrote:

> Subject: [cybalist] Re: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.
>
> > Gerry here:
> > Just because you "know" what the image means doesn't mean your idea
> is
> > the only correct one. Sounds very authoritarian to me.
> > Gerry
>
> You might well be right Gerry, but I try to be as brief as I can
> without
> adding all the ifs, maybes and buts. Please, don't mistake the
> Baconian
> style for its intent. I hope this is not "cause" for offhand
> rejection or
> non-examination of the ideas proposed. Should I write as I think it
> would go
> something like this:
>

Gerry: Just as long as I don't interpret it as Draconian.

> At this specific location of awareness and thought the folllowing
> hypothetical possibilities accrue, after feeding in some assumptions
> examined first, rather than just say "I". Gets a little tedious, it
> do.
> Point is: can you falsify my reasoning? If so is it done by comparison
> with
> known methods? If so, may I point out a very long term
> dissatisfaction with
> "applied Linguistic methods" used in order to "solve" the riddle about
> the
> origins of language. In a first place it ought to be the origins of
> the
> means to representation which comes before one can communicate at
> all. In a
> second place since language, as word uses, evolved out of something
> wholly
> else, since a "cause" seldom resembles its product, I went that way.
> Instead of working backwards I started at a beginning, with the
> question
> "HOW can order be imposed" and allowed for human minds as they did
> just
> that.
>
> Somehow out of hominid communication, which comes naturally to the
> beast,
> evolved human word style language, which took off around 6,000 BCE
> odd. The
> Hominid took off around a million years, speech is now accepted as
> around
> 300,000 BCE and thus there is the matter of a small gap in
> evolutionary
> changes between those dates. Next, man was a hunter form much long
> than a
> farmer and most of our ideas are based on the way farming evolved into
> a
> social system we now in-habit. The two styles of cooperation and
> interaction
> differ somewhat and if one percolates the origins of communication
> through
> that lot certain notions pop up in the head other than readily
> available. I
> only spent forty years working at it, of which you now get a rather
> abbreviated summary.
>
> Would you like to read my book "The Glue and Solvent of the Universe"
> NZ
> .98, Word 97, .rtf, 570 Kb zipped? Although it may well seem I pop up
> out
> of the woodwork with some eclectic notions does not mean I fantasised
> them
> up. The History of the acceptance of new or other ideas is filled
> with
> initial rejections later revised. There's one such change going on
> right now
> in science and not an easy passage is had of it either, as it embodied
> ideas
> framed last Century and blithely ignored until now.
>
> When I migrated from the Netherlands to New Zealand I lived for
> around 5
> years in a totally ambiguous "universe" which, it was rather obvious
> to me,
> was quite unambiguous to them. This changed once and after I absorbed
> the
> totality of the total culture, which, one might say, left a lasting
> impression.
>
> By the same token communication evolved from body language, into art
> thence
> into words by synechdochal ways. It also began with but three main
> branches
> of knowledge which evolved into our now manifold specialisations and
> to work
> one's way into that implies the acceptance that archaic languages had
> but
> around 40,000 words where ours has a million and therefore were a
> shade
> more ambiguous and pictures are even more ambiguous in the making and
> interpretation.
>
> I researched, for the Tax Dept, now many decades ago, the origin of
> taxes
> and found that tithes came before that and sacrifices before that,
> which
> matches how history has it and no textbook or dictionary or
> encyclopedia
> made that one clear. Check it out if you like, the Linguist.org site
> lists
> dictionaries and the Langenberg site it mentions is very good.
> Tbooks, Dict
> and Encyc all rely on what I name as "rubber wall" definitions with
> portend,
> in general, "don't search any further", which is exactly what I then
> do.
> For one of them, proverbs, I discovered they hail back to once
> oracular
> sayings oft repeated, also not found mentioned in any textbook I know
> of.
>
> In fact your post points up one clear modern habit and a long term
> bone
> of contention with me, namely, that once nominalised it is
> categorised and
> the category decides how to react. But this way to react, now
> commonplace,
> took millenia to evolve. I am interested in what forms it passed
> through to
> become as it is now. Lyall Watson in "Dark Nature" makes some
> interesting
> points anent that one. IT summarises as: that all too many of our
> charming
> habits reach back into even the pre-mammalian. The syntax of your
> sentence
> is the more interesting to me. Did you read the PS? Do you actually
> know
> what polymodal synaesthetic and non linear thinking is like?
>

Gerry: I know what non linear thinking is. Never have heard of
polymodal synaesthetic.

> Adrian
>
> ------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Get 75% Off Our Best Selling Health and Wellness Books!
> SelfCare.com has everything you need to take care of you and your
> family,
> plus spend $40 or more and your shipping is free!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1824
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications