From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 10/08/99 21:46:53 , Ed a =E9crit :
I see this as pinning-down butterflies, linguistic lepidoptery.
> funny how these guys use fundamentals and despise them at
> the same time. cognitive fields of activities imply a limited
> number of processes implying a limited number of roles as
> basic as the one consuming, the one carrying, the one covering, etc.
> of course, these roles refer to "vehicle", "container", "trap", "stem",=
etc.
> and that sounds less smart than "multi-referential cognitive" stuff.
>=20
> take that example (i guess Charles doesn't mind) :
>=20
> the moon eats the sun
>=20
> "eat =3D consume" in "food" field.
> if "consume =3D hide" in "astronomy" field, then you understand :
>=20
> the moon hides the sun
>=20
> it's very easy to encode and decode such metaphora
> because cognition fields are limited in number
> and basic processes like "consume" or "hide" are likely limited.
Charles mostly agrees, and likes feral/outlaw compounds.
> the only condition to map this out is to look and dream and stop
> intellectualize what billions of people understand instinctively.
But intellectualized instinct can be good too.