Re: lexicon

Mark J. Reed scripsit:

> The *ability* to communicate must have preceded culture, because there can be
> no culture without communication.  But since there can be no communication
> without someone to communicate with, actual communication and culture
> probably developed about the same time.
Communication, in the sense of entities exchanging information, goes
waaaay back.  Even amoebae can emit chemicals passing information to
one another, and if you squash an ant, the formic-acid smell will cause
other ants of the same nest to avoid the area for a while.

> Art is an advanced variety of non- or meta-linguistic communication, that
> is much more strongly restricted to humans.  Ape paintings and the like
> have yet to show much of an artistic penchant in other animals. :)
I rather like elephant art, myself (but see below).

> No such fundamental blueprints exist for art; art is by its very nature
> the ultimate in free expression, refusing to obey set channels or rules.
Actually it does, or we would be utterly unable to comprehend art from
other cultures living and dead.  We recognize the cave paintings as
art because we share a common humanity with the painters.  If a lion
spoke, we might understand him after all (pace Wittgenstein) if he
confined his conversation to physics and mathematics.

> Besides, every other medium used for art - painting,
> writing, music - was originally utilitarian; only later did people
> have the luxury of using these things for art.  I don't see why
> language would be any different.
What is utilitarian about painting?

--
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN    John Cowan
in any language.  --Allen Brown                 jcowan@reutershealth.com

Reply