Words and Writing (Part I)
Date:
Fri., 11 Jun 1999 14:15:53 -0400
From:
"Zimmerman, Carl R {AN&H~Nutley}"
To:
Hi! Jutta:
The following is additional input offered for
the Jutta-George
debate:
Did words and writing "kindle the creative spark" which kindled the
development of technologies in prehistoric human society?
Consider that words are primarily communications tools. If "good"
communicates the sender's intended message, I doesn't matter
whether it's subjective or objective. Also, many words such as "good"
have extensions which describe a sender's achievements or aspirations
such as "better" or "super." In Chinese, "ho" (for the greeting "hello")
means "good" and "geng ho" ("gung ho") means "better." "Kung fu"
('geng fu") means "better self defence."
Words like these enable us to express our illusions and realities,
which
are essential in human growth and development.
Suppose that writing, a critical process in the evolution of words,
did
not originate in scripts on clay and paper, but as images imparted
on
the stone of our early tools and weapons. What if these images described
the properties and use of the tool and weapon, and "kindled the creative
spark" which motivated the improvement of these materials.
For information on this subject, visit "The Origin of Writing" site
at
http://www.tipleoak.on.ca/mindseye/frmain.htm
Regards.
Carl
Subject:
Monday, 22nd June, 1999
Subject: The
Prehistoric "Creative Spark"
(PART I)
this is Jutta. As promised, here are some reflections on your question
and topic for further discussion, whether words and writing "kindled the
creative spark" which promoted the development of technologies in prehistoric
human society. Most unfortunately, I did not have the time so far to follow
your recommendation and visit the "The Origin of Writing-Site" on the web,
but will do so as soon as I can. So, today, I will be mainly setting the
framework, within which the topic can be discussed, and limit further observations
on the topic to some indications on the probable role of words and writing
as a creative spark for the development of early technology. Please consider
the following comments as a scientific-philosophical approximation
towards the topic. I gladly will accept any observations you may have.
Topic:
Did words and writing kindle the creative spark that kindled
the development of technologies in prehistoric human society?
In order to determine the role of "words and writing" in the development
of early technology in prehistoric human society, we will have to introduce
our understanding of the concept "history" and then take a close look at
the meaning of the term "history" in the idealist and materialist conceptions
of history. We will determine if and what role "nature" plays in these
conceptions, as well as what is meant by "society". Only then can we explain
what is hidden behind the expression "prehistoric human society". We also
will have to explain the term "technology", examine the prehistoric forms
of "words and writings" (sounds and paintings), and, by interlinking them
with the same labour process they're a product of, indicate if and from
what point on they played a role in the development of technology.
1. Our Conception of History
Departing from three postulates - nature, society, relation -
history, for us, is nature. But it is not only
nature. History, for us, exists as society. But it does not
only exist as society. History, for us, is nature a n d
exists as society, history is and exists as the relation:
nature a n d society. But it is and exists not
only as the relation nature a n d society.
History, for us, transcends as neither nature
nor
society, being its two constituent elements nature and society,
and forming their specific relation, nature a
n d society, the "essence" of history. Thus, history transcends
as: nature a n d society AND history (itself).
In an approximation of our concept Nature, we may state,
that it denotes the concrete, affirmation, identity, intensive relation;
it also denotes act, acting, praxis. The process of nature,
as "designed" in it’s intensive relation, tends towards the process of
society.
In an approximation of our concept Society, we may state,
that it denotes the abstract, as [the concrete a n
d the abstract], negation as [affirmation
a
n d negation], difference as [identity
a n d difference], extensive relation as [intensive
a n d extensive relation]; it also denotes thought
as [act a n d thought], thinking
as [acting a n d thinking], theory as
[praxis a n d theory]. The process of society, as "designed"
in it’s extensive relation, double-relates to [the process of nature]
a
n d to [the process of society itself].
1. If we say: "history is nature", we speak of nature,
and of the process
nature and [nature and society]
2. If we say: "history exists as society", we speak of society
as the
society as [nature a n d society]
a n d [society a n d nature].
3. If we say: "history is and exists as the relation: nature a
n d
{nature and [nature and society]} a
n d
{society as [nature a n d society] a n d
[society a n d nature]}
4. So, if we speak of history, we speak of all the multiple relations
as determined above, and of even more, that do not fall within the context
of the following exposition, however.
Note: for further explanation of the method, and the concepts, see the
first lectures on our webpage at: http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Academy/8545
Jutta's
Reply To Sparks!
Date:
Tue, 22
Jun 1999 19:23:40 -0400
From:
To:
Carl Zimmerman
Dear Carl,
of nature, that is, as the process
of nature tending towards society.
In short:
double-relation nature a n d
society, that is, of the process of
nature a n d of the process of
society, of society relating towards
nature. In short:
society", we speak of
1. {nature and [the process of nature]} a
n d
2. {society and [the process of society]}.
In short:
