Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers
From: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of communication
Message-ID: <3997@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 07:36:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3997
Posted: Wed Sep 16 07:36:48 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 06:50:35 EDT
References: <2353@mmintl.UUCP> <164@thirdi.UUCP> <2374@mmintl.UUCP>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 21
Keywords: communication symbols messages

In article <2374@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <164@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>>
>>1.  Those that make statements.
>>2.  Those that try to evoke specific experiences.
>>3.  Those that stimulate and act as "inkblots" for the imagination of the
>>    audience.
>
>Still, I think the original claim referred to the *symbols*, not the
>*messages*.  Can you imagine symbols which can be used for messages of types
>2 and 3, but not of type 1?

Sure. How about music? What statements does Bach's Brandenburg Concertos
make? Or for that matter, what specific experiences does it try to evoke?
(though I think an argument can be made for this (type 2), it seems
rather weak to me. I'll let someone else make the argument.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
			 {rutgers,amdahl}!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers