Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of communication Message-ID: <189@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 01:47:14 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.189 Posted: Mon Sep 21 01:47:14 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Sep-87 01:06:52 EDT References: <2353@mmintl.UUCP> <164@thirdi.UUCP> <2374@mmintl.UUCP> <3997@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2392@mmintl.UUCP> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 22 Keywords: communication symbols messages Summary: How about the Cross? In article <2392@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >Are the constituent elements of music *symbols*? I think not; and the fact >that they are not symbols, and cannot be used to make statements, rather >strongly corroborates the claim. I think music most certainly symbolic. For instance, Renaissance musicians considered the type of scale used (Ionian, Dorian, Mixolydian, etc.) to represent different sentiments. Also -- how about tone poems? Word painting? And what about the Cross, the Crucifix, the Swastica, the Hammer and Sickle? Aren't these symbols? But can they be used to make statements (other than ostensive statements, of course, like " is a Cross." In the ostensive sense, anything demonstrable could be used to make a statement). -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge