FIS and "retro style"?

[cybermuepf]

	Quote:	Lothar Tuppan
	> methodologies so I always very much appreciate when someone can explain the > benefits (which to me theory should always provide or else it becomes mental > wankery)

I'd say if an approach deals neither with problems nor with questions that can be formulated / specified, it`s better to avoid it because it`s likely "extraneous wankery".

BTW, what I wrote about communication before is illustrated nicely in the following sentences:
The first two communication models recur to "voodoo solutions", for example, by stating that we can "fusion" our thinking processes by means of signs (esp. language). But what I'm writing at the moment isn`t congruent with my current thinking. That means: you, Lothar (as a reader), can interpret "signs" of this post, but not directly my thinking operations
I used the verb "to recur", but what I meant (= thought about) was: "to resort to". This lapsus linguae occurred unintentionally because in German "rekurrieren" (from Latin: "recurrere") can mean both "to recur" and "to resort to" in English. At the same time, I might have thought some other things, too. But when producing signs (speaking, writing, programming, etc.), I often can`t remember "all" the accompanying thoughts.

To use an image: "Signs (media forms) are islands in an ocean of operations (= thoughts and communications which aren't congruent)."

Something similar happens when I use a verb such as "to perturbate" in English. I think this verb must sound "strange" for English native speakers.But I didn`t find a better verb to express the following meaning: "The minds (two or more) and communication inform each other by means of signs / media forms without being able to connect their respective operations directly". Besides, this verb refers to a theoretical concept called "perturbation", too.
But I think "to perturbate" still sounds strange in English - whatever my thoughts might have been.


~Peter

[Lothar Tuppan]

Hi Peter,

That's a great example of what you were explaining and helped get your point across.

Although it does sound a bit unusual to native English speakers, "Perturbation" is a great word (I especially like the natural rhythm, internal rhyme, and metre to it... but I'm a bit weird that way ).

Your post brings up an interesting thought as well: namely that multi-lingual people probably have a much better experiential grasp on certain semiotic aspects than those who only speak one language (*cough cough* like most of us from the U.S. *cough cough*)... not to mention that multi-lingual people also have a wider view of 'reality' (at least as it is delineated by language).

[cybermuepf]

	Quote:	Lothar Tuppan
	namely that multi-lingual people probably have a much better experiential grasp on certain semiotic aspects than those who only speak one language (*cough cough* like most of us from the U.S. *cough cough*)... not to mention that multi-lingual people also have a wider view of 'reality' (at least as it is delineated by language).

Hi Lothar,

yes, I agree, to be "multi-lingual" has its benefits:
* You can experience different ways of constructing "reality"
- Assumption 1: Realities are sign- and media-based constructions both in the mental and in the social dimensions.
- Assumption 2: We deal only with such media-/sign-based reality constructions. That is, we - as humans - don`t know how the world really is without media and signs. We simply don`t know.
[BTW, that`s the reason why it`s very hard to say for us how animals can coordinate their behavior because we have to use our own semiotic / media experiences].
This affects the "participatory universe"-position, too. And, maybe, we should confront a difference-based and operational constructivism that can be found in deconstruction / sociological systems theory with the "participatory universe"-approach. This could be a "highly" interesting discussion!

* Learning other languages is always a "cultural enrichment", too. Things that are "evident" in your own network of (sub)cultures can be non-evident in foreign cultural networks = the benefit of deautomatization and defamiliarization.

* Moreover, multi-lingual/-cultural experiences may help in dealing with individual and social problems. That is, they can improve your problem-solving skills as a social troubleshooter, teamworker, etc.

* It´s a "creative adventure" [culture shocks included :-)] where you have to leave your comfort zone.
etc. etc.

At the same time, a language (such as English, French, German, etc.) isn´t a "uniform entity". It ressembles rather a network of variants (that is, a variety of professional jargons, sociolects, dialects, and so on). And national cultures are heterogeneous, too: Every family / group / organization / town / region / country / (ethnic) minority develops their own culture or, at least, cultural "style". So, even native speakers are always confronted with a "network" of languages / language variants and a "network" of cultures within their dominant national (meta-)culture.

But, it`s an interesting question why Americans and Brits (and, in my experience,
French, too -> I`ve lived in France for some time) are often less eager to learn foreign languages than, for example, a lot of Scandinavians, Dutch, or Germans [Of course, this is both a generalization and a cultural stereotype: I`ve known several Americans who were fluent, for example, in French or German. And, I know enough Germans who aren`t fluent in English at all, esp. older people or people without an academic degree]:
First, I think many native speakers of English believe it isn´t "really" necessary to learn foreign languages because English is "the lingua franca" in the world right now. Therefore, you often can expect to get by with English-only in foreign countries. And, in many cases, that may be true.

Second, the US is vast in comparison with Western / Eastern Europe (with the exception of Russia). So, Central Europeans have "a lot" of different neighbors within reach. And it`s relatively easy to say, "Hey, let`s go to Paris, London, Milan, Florence, Geneva, Prague, etc. today". This is a big incentive for us as tourists, business people, etc. to learn foreign languages - and, with the Euro zone, it`s easier than ever before in European history to work in other European countries, too.

Third, I think the US has so many different immigrant groups with very different traditions and cultures that English serves as a "primary link" between them. If every single immigrant group had preserved only their native language, traditions, and cultures, well, there would never have been something like the "US".

But I wonder if the US can put up with two main languages in the future because Spanish is getting more and more important (-> Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in the US, aren´t they?).

That`s it for today. I´ll get back to you tomorrow and answer the rest of your
smart questions.

Have a nice weekend
~Peter